3 ms·
Anyone using the bank signed a contract that defined how a failure affects them. There is absolutely a moral, philosophical, and biblical truth behind honoring
by imustbeevil 3y ago
Anyone using the bank signed a contract that defined how a failure affects them. There is absolutely a moral, philosophical, and biblical truth behind honoring that contract.
Galatians 3:15: "To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified."
Proverbs 17:18: "One who has no sense shakes hands in pledge and puts up security for a neighbor."
Outside of that fact, the reason that the system is designed this way is to protect normal people from Rich people destroying these banks. If it were the way you're proposing, only the Rich people taking on the most risk and debt would get paid out, and every normal person using the bank would lose everything. We know this, because that's exactly what happened before the FDIC, which is the entire reason it exists.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoI understand that there are legal regulations which generally specify these matters. However, to think that these are immutable is just wrong. Banking regulations change over time and jurisdiction. To be clear, I'm not advocating abolition of the FDIC. Normal people wouldn't lose everything. The rich still would pay for FDIC payments, just like they now. You would just see some individuals have less damage, specifically when bank assets in their name are commensurate with bank debt in their name. FDIC payouts would be slightly larger, but again, these are recouped by banking fees, largely paid by the rich