3 ms·

> It's funny, because we already have a "government-backed currency" but we prefer to bail-out the banks instead of bailing-out individual in distress... What,

• tomrod 9y ago
  I would imagine the standard social safety net: food, unemployment insurance, parental leave, and so on.
• walshemj 9y ago
  because catastrophic bank failures effect every one
• PeterisP 9y ago
  That would be if you let the bank go bankrupt but instead compensate the individual depositors up to a certain limit. That won't leave anyone in distress although it will decimate the savings for quite a few people who had a lot of them. The main reason not to do this is because that would usually mean severe distress for many employers whose working capital would be lost and day-to-day business disrupted, possibly (especially during an economic downturn) bankrupting them; causing a ripple throughout the economy as a major bank going down takes down also many unrelated companies, their employees, their suppliers, etc, and possibly toppling the next weaker bank(s) as well.