Avatar
Mike Brock
b9003833fabff271d0782e030be61b7ec38ce7d45a1b9a869fbdb34b9e2d2000
Unfashionable.

I think I'm done for the day arguing with anarcho-capitalists and extreme libertarians who are primarily concerned fitting these events into a political narrative, rather than adjudicating them on the merits.

It's weird to call it a bailout, when the regulators literally walked through the front doors and put these institutions into receivership. Acting like it's outrageous that the government would protect depositors, when anybody who isn't an anarcho-capitalist or extreme libertarian is, has obviously been sleeping through the whole part where, yes, we have regulatory bodies with the legal mandate and authority, authorized by Congress, to protect depositors in events exactly like this.

Sorry. That wasn't directed at you. I was agreeing with you and directing my comment at others who are ... making shit up.

Yeah. I mean, there's plenty of reasons to be mad at how our financial system works, and how it unfairly benefits certain people to the detriment of others, without having to make shit up to serve a narrative.

That's where I think you're wrong. The equity holders are getting wiped out and taking all the losses.

I mean, they're taking steps to make sure depositors are whole. But the underlying point is there's enough assets to make depositors whole to begin win. They're not doing TARP.

For what it's worth, claims that the Fed is turning the money printer on to bail out the banks doesn't seem quite accurate.

1. Because they're explicitly allowing these institutions to fail.

2. The banks have sufficient assets on their balance sheets to pay out all deposits. The only issue is the maturity dates on those assets, relative to deposit durations. The mechanisms they appear to be using do not seem to involve any injection of taxpayer capital or money creation by the Fed.