5 ms·
Yeah this is a fact lots of people don't want to accept To be fair though, in the US we've long established an expectation that if you have funds in a bank acc
by drcode 4y ago
Yeah this is a fact lots of people don't want to accept
To be fair though, in the US we've long established an expectation that if you have funds in a bank account at a registered bank, the government would back those funds
It's stupid to have set that expectation, but it seems very destructive to suddenly remove that expectation
- theGnuMe 4y agoYour funds are insured up to $250k. That's the expectation and reality. Every account has the disclaimer that amounts in excess of $250k are not insured.
- drcode 4y agoYou are right of course, but we've established a moral hazard There will be a cost to suddenly altering expectations, I guess there's a chance we might see what that cost is now (but probably they will just get a boring bailout)
- theGnuMe 4y agoNo we have not established a moral hazard. It's always been $250k. You are trying to make one up implying that we are "suddenly altering expectations". The narrative has always been, FDIC insured accounts are insured up to $250k. I've known this since I opened my first bank account.
- drcode 4y agoIt's a moral hazard if people over 250K got bailed out in the past. Look up the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program.
- Supermancho 4y ago> in the US we've long established an expectation that if you have funds in a bank account at a registered bank, the government would back those funds Not since around 2010. The ~2007 crash was not without consequence.
- muzz 4y agoIndeed. Deposits at IndyMac Bank were only paid 50 cents on the dollar in 2008.