3 ms·

Yes. What are these repeated bailouts by taxpayers that you mentioned? And you can't think of any way that the federal government providing retail banking serv

by bpt3 8mo ago

Yes. What are these repeated bailouts by taxpayers that you mentioned? And you can't think of any way that the federal government providing retail banking services could possibly go wrong?

lotsofpulp 8mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bank_failures_in_the_United_States_(2008–present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bank_failures_in_the_U... https://americandeposits.com/insights/brief-history-us-bank-failures/ https://americandeposits.com/insights/brief-history-us-bank-... >In response to these significant failures, the FDIC took historic action to restore faith in the banking system and protected all deposits – even those above the traditional limit. However, it is important to note that the FDIC limit did not change, nor did the standard process for protecting deposits. Instead, the extended protection offered to depositors of Signature Bank and SVB was an exception to the normal operating procedure. I do not have a comprehensive list of every time depositors have been bailed out, but I have read about it multiple times in my adult life of the last 25 years. >And you can't think of any way that the federal government providing retail banking services could possibly go wrong? The federal government already controls all the banks. What could go wrong that they already do not have the power to make go wrong? The act of maintaining a central database of funds so that individuals can transfer money to one another is a relatively simple and cheap problem, one perfectly suited to be provided by the government. It should be infrastructure, just like printing money is infrastructure under the purview of the government.
- bpt3 8mo ago
  All this demonstrates is that you don't understand how the US banking system works. Bank failures != taxpayer funded bailouts. Also, I don't know what you have been reading, but a comprehensive list of times that depositors have been bailed out by taxpayers (or anyone else, as the FDIC is not bailing out anyone by definition) would be quite short. Lastly, there is a huge distinction between regulating banks and directly controlling access to an individual's funds. If you really can't see any theoretical problems there, I suggest you work on your creativity.
- nobody9999 8mo ago
  >The act of maintaining a central database of funds so that individuals can transfer money to one another is a relatively simple and cheap problem, one perfectly suited to be provided by the government. It should be infrastructure, just like printing money is infrastructure under the purview of the government. You mean like FedNow[0], which many banks are eschewing in favor of services life Zelle[1]? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedNow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedNow [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelle

by bpt3 8mo ago

Yes. What are these repeated bailouts by taxpayers that you mentioned? And you can't think of any way that the federal government providing retail banking services could possibly go wrong?

lotsofpulp 8mo ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bank_failures_in_the_United_States_(2008–present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bank_failures_in_the_U... https://americandeposits.com/insights/brief-history-us-bank-failures/ https://americandeposits.com/insights/brief-history-us-bank-... >In response to these significant failures, the FDIC took historic action to restore faith in the banking system and protected all deposits – even those above the traditional limit. However, it is important to note that the FDIC limit did not change, nor did the standard process for protecting deposits. Instead, the extended protection offered to depositors of Signature Bank and SVB was an exception to the normal operating procedure. I do not have a comprehensive list of every time depositors have been bailed out, but I have read about it multiple times in my adult life of the last 25 years. >And you can't think of any way that the federal government providing retail banking services could possibly go wrong? The federal government already controls all the banks. What could go wrong that they already do not have the power to make go wrong? The act of maintaining a central database of funds so that individuals can transfer money to one another is a relatively simple and cheap problem, one perfectly suited to be provided by the government. It should be infrastructure, just like printing money is infrastructure under the purview of the government.

bpt3 8mo ago
All this demonstrates is that you don't understand how the US banking system works. Bank failures != taxpayer funded bailouts. Also, I don't know what you have been reading, but a comprehensive list of times that depositors have been bailed out by taxpayers (or anyone else, as the FDIC is not bailing out anyone by definition) would be quite short. Lastly, there is a huge distinction between regulating banks and directly controlling access to an individual's funds. If you really can't see any theoretical problems there, I suggest you work on your creativity.
nobody9999 8mo ago
>The act of maintaining a central database of funds so that individuals can transfer money to one another is a relatively simple and cheap problem, one perfectly suited to be provided by the government. It should be infrastructure, just like printing money is infrastructure under the purview of the government. You mean like FedNow[0], which many banks are eschewing in favor of services life Zelle[1]? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedNow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedNow [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelle