3 ms·

Classic “should” vs. “is” discussion. GP was talking about our existing financial framework, you are talking about a potential ideal framework.

• jedberg 4y ago
  But also theory vs practice. In theory a depositor's money is at risk, but at least since the 1930s, no depositor has ever lost money at a US bank. The government always makes depositors whole, despite the supposed insurance limits.
• mort96 4y ago
  It's wrong still though. Within our existing financial frameworks, the US government clearly wants putting your money in a major US bank to be essentially risk-free. If anything, it's the people on the other side of the discussion who generally think depositing money into banks should be risky because they argue that the government ought to not bail out depositors.
• jen20 4y ago
  Clearly based on this weekend, our existing financial framework is that depositors are entirely protected, provided the bank is important enough to some important demographic. This should be spelled out in law rather than relying on the existing provision being used ad-hoc, though.
  • twblalock 4y ago
    It's not about the demographic. It's about the consequences to the rest of the banking system. That logic of protecting the system from systemic risk has not changed since the FDIC was founded.