As long as the government backs up deposits in the banks, those banks ought to be regulated to prevent them taking the kinds of risks they took.
Banks that want to play the high risk games ought not to be so backed up by FDIC.
I don't think the deposit insurance system has much to do with it. It never covered the large "hot money" deposits. What REALLY was the bailout was the use of the FDIC to guarantee bank holding company debt and other measures forced on the FDIC by Treasury and the Fed in 2008--2010. The trillions of these bailout guarantees were at least four times the amount of insured deposits in the country's banking system. Anybody read Shiela Bair's book?
Oh I think that FDIC played it role in the meltdown.
When the market first began to understand the degree to which the banks had screwed up, there was a rush on the banks that so alarmed the Treasury and FED that they immediately increased FDIC to $250,000 per account to assure depositors that their money was still safe.
But you ARE correct that the Treasury and FED went FAR FAR FAR beyond THAT, by also guaranteeing the effected banks that they would assume the responsibility for the TOXIC ASSETS they ALL HAD on their books.
The actual amount those guarantees were covering depends of estimates because there was no mark to market way of determining just how TOXIC those "assets" really were.
I have read estimates from reputable economists ranging from the Fed's estimate of $4 TRILLION to estimates as high as $21 Trillion.
Why such a vast range?
Because nobody knew (still don't know, I think) just how low those TOXIC "assets" could have gone down IF they'd GONE TO MARKET FOR EVALUATION!
CITIZENS? What part of the narrative that we very nearly had a complete MELTDOWN OF THE WORLD'S ECONOMIC SYSTEM do you as yet not understand?
Last edited: