5 ms·

> Wrong. This is corruption. Janet is picking winners and losers. Some people are losing their deposits and some are not. You are systemic if you had dinner wit

by harry8 4y ago

> Wrong. This is corruption. Janet is picking winners and losers. Some people are losing their deposits and some are not. You are systemic if you had dinner with Janet yesterday. Big call. Huge. Got some data or similar to back it? Edit: If there's clear picking of winners, or even plausibly so it's gonna look pretty bad. [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/01/janet-yellen-speaking-fees-us-treasury-secretary https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/01/janet-yelle...

csomar 4y ago
You don't need a direct financial kickback to define corruption. From: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/16/svb-signature-bank-failures-yellen-says-us-banking-system-is-stable-and-deposits-remain-safe.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/16/svb-signature-bank-failures-... > Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told senators that government refunds of uninsured deposits will not be extended to every bank that fails, only those that pose systemic risk to the financial system.
- christophilus 4y ago
  If you’re too big to fail, you’re too big to exist. We should either let them fail (my preference, despite the pain) or bail them all out. But I also think that if we’re going to insist that there is a private entity that is too big to fail, it should be broken up until the pieces are not too big to fail.
  - piva00 4y ago
    Or it shouldn't be a private entity.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      Better a private entity that needs bailing out with taxpayer money than one that is normally funded by taxpayers.
      - hutzlibu 4y ago
        Socialise the risks, privatise profit.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        To be clear: I think we shouldn't socialise the risks either. Just saying it's better than fully running it on taxpayer money.
  - di456 4y ago
    Banking is basically nationalized now. The government outsourced this responsibility to the Federal Reserve at the same time that a federal income tax began. There are 3 main ways to balance a government budget. Spend less, raise more funds through taxes, or make the scale of debt decrease through inflation.
    - SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
      > Banking is basically nationalized now. More like government is privatized
      - marcus0x62 4y ago
        ¿Por que no los dos?
  - nashashmi 4y ago
    Actually svb did fail. And flunk. The shareholders are wiped out. The employees are gone. Saving the depositors is an act of charity. And if you save one bank, it restores confidence in the other banks against a bank run. Otherwise I was thinking of removing money in all banks combined.
- wrenky 4y ago
  Yellen just repeated the exact federal reserve policy, like every treasury sec/federal reserve chairman has done since forever. Kinda wild to define that as corruption, but to each their own. Instead, why don't you look at how many people have lost uninsured deposits since the FDIC was created in 1933? You'll find its extremely low to nonexistent. Thats because while the FDIC has a 250k insurance limit, it does its absolute best to not use it- Usually by coordinating a bank sale or private-public rescue plan.
nugget 4y ago
Watch the exchange between Sen Lankford and Sec Yellen yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcvl104tyRY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcvl104tyRY Yellen says unsecured depositors at TBTF banks will always be bailed out, but those at smaller banks are on their own. It's one of the most incredible moments I've witnessed. I'm not sure if there's some hidden agenda being pursued, or if Yellen is just so far removed from the real world that she doesn't understand the consequences of her statement. I'm not sure why any company or individual would hold >$250k at a non-TBTF bank after this. It borders on financial malpractice.
- boomerango 4y ago
  As I understand it, the piece you are missing is that she legally/procedurally cannot guarantee depositors prior to a bankruptcy - that would require an act of congress. The congressman know this as well, so it’s just grandstanding.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  I never understand things like this. She looks like a deer caught in the headlights when he asks her the most predictable and basic question about her decisions. How can you be in such a position, make such decisions, and be unable to offer a compelling answer to the most basic questions? Even if it some sort of a hidden agenda and [further] centralizing banking is just seen as a convenient stepping stone towards CBDCs or whatever, you'd come up with some passable explanation ahead of time. I mean it's not like the Senator there pulled out some gotcha she couldn't have expected.
  - skellington 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - jquery 4y ago
      >Probably a Republican president would be just as bad Yes we all know the previous President famously kept his family far away from the levers of power.

by harry8 4y ago

csomar 4y ago

You don't need a direct financial kickback to define corruption. From: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/16/svb-signature-bank-failures-yellen-says-us-banking-system-is-stable-and-deposits-remain-safe.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/16/svb-signature-bank-failures-... > Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told senators that government refunds of uninsured deposits will not be extended to every bank that fails, only those that pose systemic risk to the financial system.

christophilus 4y ago
If you’re too big to fail, you’re too big to exist. We should either let them fail (my preference, despite the pain) or bail them all out. But I also think that if we’re going to insist that there is a private entity that is too big to fail, it should be broken up until the pieces are not too big to fail.
- piva00 4y ago
  Or it shouldn't be a private entity.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Better a private entity that needs bailing out with taxpayer money than one that is normally funded by taxpayers.
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      Socialise the risks, privatise profit.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        To be clear: I think we shouldn't socialise the risks either. Just saying it's better than fully running it on taxpayer money.
- di456 4y ago
  Banking is basically nationalized now. The government outsourced this responsibility to the Federal Reserve at the same time that a federal income tax began. There are 3 main ways to balance a government budget. Spend less, raise more funds through taxes, or make the scale of debt decrease through inflation.
  - SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
    > Banking is basically nationalized now. More like government is privatized
    - marcus0x62 4y ago
      ¿Por que no los dos?
- nashashmi 4y ago
  Actually svb did fail. And flunk. The shareholders are wiped out. The employees are gone. Saving the depositors is an act of charity. And if you save one bank, it restores confidence in the other banks against a bank run. Otherwise I was thinking of removing money in all banks combined.
wrenky 4y ago
Yellen just repeated the exact federal reserve policy, like every treasury sec/federal reserve chairman has done since forever. Kinda wild to define that as corruption, but to each their own. Instead, why don't you look at how many people have lost uninsured deposits since the FDIC was created in 1933? You'll find its extremely low to nonexistent. Thats because while the FDIC has a 250k insurance limit, it does its absolute best to not use it- Usually by coordinating a bank sale or private-public rescue plan.

nugget 4y ago

Watch the exchange between Sen Lankford and Sec Yellen yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcvl104tyRY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcvl104tyRY Yellen says unsecured depositors at TBTF banks will always be bailed out, but those at smaller banks are on their own. It's one of the most incredible moments I've witnessed. I'm not sure if there's some hidden agenda being pursued, or if Yellen is just so far removed from the real world that she doesn't understand the consequences of her statement. I'm not sure why any company or individual would hold >$250k at a non-TBTF bank after this. It borders on financial malpractice.

boomerango 4y ago
As I understand it, the piece you are missing is that she legally/procedurally cannot guarantee depositors prior to a bankruptcy - that would require an act of congress. The congressman know this as well, so it’s just grandstanding.
somenameforme 4y ago
I never understand things like this. She looks like a deer caught in the headlights when he asks her the most predictable and basic question about her decisions. How can you be in such a position, make such decisions, and be unable to offer a compelling answer to the most basic questions? Even if it some sort of a hidden agenda and [further] centralizing banking is just seen as a convenient stepping stone towards CBDCs or whatever, you'd come up with some passable explanation ahead of time. I mean it's not like the Senator there pulled out some gotcha she couldn't have expected.
- skellington 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - jquery 4y ago
    >Probably a Republican president would be just as bad Yes we all know the previous President famously kept his family far away from the levers of power.