3 ms·

Any one know how much it would cost to let a failing bank go down, but compensate the people with their money in that banks? I never found out why we couldn't

by alan_cx 14y ago

Any one know how much it would cost to let a failing bank go down, but compensate the people with their money in that banks? I never found out why we couldn't let that happen. If a bank fails, and I have $10,000 in it, give me the money, not the failed bank. Then I can pick a new back, which should in theory be stronger with the new influx of customers form the now dead bank. Besides, what happened to capitalism and competition? We capitalists seem to ditch those principles the second it goes wrong, expecting socialist payouts from the people to bail them out. No, businesses go bust, that is the whole point. Survival of the fittest. Strength through competition. That is the American way, no? Worse still, was the bail out of the car industry. How did that happen? A whole load of new companies killed off right there. People would have left, some would start new firms, some would got an bolster existing firms, and so on. Now, the same stagnation remains because it was propped up. Ah, pah. Just another one of those things that leaves me depressed, confused, and cold.

nickik 14y ago
The US allready has the FDIC, meaning that in every account you allready have 50k insured, witch would take care of the 'poor people who suffer the most'. Saving the banks was never about saving the poor who have money in the bank, or saving the 'banking system'. > That is the American way, no? Not anymore, banks are saved, so are car companys, motorcycle companys and so on. The 'socialist' swedenish let there car company fail.
znowi 14y ago
> I never found out why we couldn't let that happen. Because they frightened everyone with an imminent apocalypses if we were not to save their fraudulent asses. I believe we should have let them fail. It would not be pretty, but we'd manage. Long term benefits would surpass temporarily hardship. First it would cleanse the system and second set a strong precedent. Besides, it would be very much in terms with capitalism - failed in competition goes under. Yet funny how the banks that lobby for ever more independence, rely so heavily on social welfare from the government :)

by alan_cx 14y ago

nickik 14y ago

The US allready has the FDIC, meaning that in every account you allready have 50k insured, witch would take care of the 'poor people who suffer the most'. Saving the banks was never about saving the poor who have money in the bank, or saving the 'banking system'. > That is the American way, no? Not anymore, banks are saved, so are car companys, motorcycle companys and so on. The 'socialist' swedenish let there car company fail.

znowi 14y ago

> I never found out why we couldn't let that happen. Because they frightened everyone with an imminent apocalypses if we were not to save their fraudulent asses. I believe we should have let them fail. It would not be pretty, but we'd manage. Long term benefits would surpass temporarily hardship. First it would cleanse the system and second set a strong precedent. Besides, it would be very much in terms with capitalism - failed in competition goes under. Yet funny how the banks that lobby for ever more independence, rely so heavily on social welfare from the government :)