What if no bailout happens?

Beth

Philosopher
Beth
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
5,598
I'm not smart about money and high finance. What is everyone so afraid will happen if the government doesn't bailout the wall street firms? Why is the bailout a better option than letting them figure out their own way out of the mess? Why is it a better option for our government than, say, financing public works projects to make sure that there are plenty of jobs for people who are willing to work and financing social security for those who are unable to work?
 
Why, then everything would collapse! COLLAPSE, I tell you! It would all just &#$@% COOOOOLLLLLLLAAAAAPSSSE! :eek::jaw-dropp:shocked::scared::yikes:
 
They're afraid that a generalised collapse of the ability to borrow and lend money will happen, which will stop non-financial companies from being able to run their businesses, and that the large fall in wealth and the value of savings (perhaps augmented by bank runs) might produce a catastrophic drop in demand on main-street World.

If that belief, or something approximating it, was correct--then the average taxpayer would face lower taxes, and higher living standards over the long run if the government utilises taxpayer-funded bailouts than if the government permitted the collapse of the financial system under the doctrine of a "bailouts are bad" principle. So it would be justified on utilitarian social welfare grounds.

In all honestly, nobody knows exactly what will or would happen and it is probably impossible to take a strong position on this, and one who does probably does not know what they are talking about. And there are moral hazards involved. [In fact--there is a view that the Fed/Treasury in the US has been too keen to avoid moral hazard and have punished shareholders (of Fannie, Freddie, Lehmans and AIG) excessively, with the result that "everybody knows that equity holders will lose everything", so the panic selling is accordingly fuelled.]
 
Beth said:
I'm not smart about money and high finance. What is everyone so afraid will happen if the government doesn't bailout the wall street firms? Why is the bailout a better option than letting them figure out their own way out of the mess? Why is it a better option for our government than, say, financing public works projects to make sure that there are plenty of jobs for people who are willing to work and financing social security for those who are unable to work?
Click to expand...

Simple answer : because if the banks collapse, credit will no longer be available, since most of the credit is backed by reserves held in investments. Heck, deposits will no longer be available as the money supply collapses, since those reserves are what your deposits have gone into.

How much actual cash do you use in your daily life? Not debit cards, not credit cards, not checks, but actual folding money? Because if the banks' investments truly tank, that will be what you're operating with.
 
drkitten said:
Simple answer : because if the banks collapse, credit will no longer be available, since most of the credit is backed by reserves held in investments. Heck, deposits will no longer be available as the money supply collapses, since those reserves are what your deposits have gone into.

How much actual cash do you use in your daily life? Not debit cards, not credit cards, not checks, but actual folding money? Because if the banks' investments truly tank, that will be what you're operating with.
Click to expand...

You're saying that if the government doesn't bail out wall street, my credit union debit card will no longer be any use to me? I honestly don't get the connection.
 
Francesca R said:
They're afraid that a generalised collapse of the ability to borrow and lend money will happen, which will stop non-financial companies from being able to run their businesses, and that the large fall in wealth and the value of savings (perhaps augmented by bank runs) might produce a catastrophic drop in demand on main-street World.
Click to expand...

Okay. I'm don't understand why they think this would result. Just like I don't understand why drkitten thinks that debit cards and checks would no longer be useful. What's the connection between wall street financial companies and my local credit union?
 
Beth said:
You're saying that if the government doesn't bail out wall street, my credit union debit card will no longer be any use to me?
Click to expand...

That's an admittedly extreme and probably over-the-top case.

But the connection is fairly simple. Banks, like every other business, are in it to make money; they make money from lending their depositors' resources out. If the credit system collapses, they will neither be able to make nor receive loans (more accurately, they will not have any rational expectation of repayment, so they will not make loans, and no one will be willing to extend them loans for the same reason.) At that point, they might as well shut up shop and return the deposits.

But they can't return the deposits because they're already lent out or invested. Without having your deposits as cash on hand, it may be forced to write them off as bad debts (or bad investments).

So where is your credit union going to find the money to pay the debit charges?
 
In short, banks, (and non-bank financial institutions like AIG too) are linked to the rest of the economy much more intimately than firms in other industries. You could think of them as the hubs of a spoke-and-wheel network of financial interconnections whose integrity is widely believed to be vital to the smooth operation of your local store, credit card company, gas station, butcher, baker and brewer too.
 
Last edited:
Beth said:
Okay. I'm don't understand why they think this would result. Just like I don't understand why drkitten thinks that debit cards and checks would no longer be useful. What's the connection between wall street financial companies and my local credit union?
Click to expand...


One connection would be:
AIG insures loans made to banks, insurance covering credit made. So say if the loan insurers go down, your local credit union is extremely likely to be incredibly nervous about lending anyone cash at all -- including you.
 
Beth said:
Okay. I'm don't understand why they think this would result. Just like I don't understand why drkitten thinks that debit cards and checks would no longer be useful. What's the connection between wall street financial companies and my local credit union?
Click to expand...

The Wall Street financial companies are holding most of your local credit union's money, the stuff that makes the connection between their assets (the loans that they are due) and their liabilities (the deposits that are due YOU). This is generally a good thing because Wall Street pays much better than a cookie jar. But it means if the connection gets broken -- if the money they thought they had to pay day-by-day expenses vanishes -- then the bank will cease to operate, even though it's still got assets on hand.
 
drkitten said:
That's an admittedly extreme and probably over-the-top case.

But the connection is fairly simple. Banks, like every other business, are in it to make money; they make money from lending their depositors' resources out. If the credit system collapses, they will neither be able to make nor receive loans (more accurately, they will not have any rational expectation of repayment, so they will not make loans, and no one will be willing to extend them loans for the same reason.) At that point, they might as well shut up shop and return the deposits.

But they can't return the deposits because they're already lent out or invested. Without having your deposits as cash on hand, it may be forced to write them off as bad debts (or bad investments).
Click to expand...
This is the part I don't get. They'll still be receiving my deposits (with which to pay my debit and checking transactions) and they'll still be receiving my loan payments, including interest, so they would continue to be making money. Nor do I understand why they would write off my deposits as bad debts. That doesn't make sense to me. If they would be forced to write off their loans to the wall street firms as bad debts, it makes more sense to me to have the government bailout consist of paying off such debts to other institutions so that they don't, in turn, go bankrupt than to bailout the wall street firms so they can continue operating.
So where is your credit union going to find the money to pay the debit charges?
Click to expand...
From my paycheck that gets deposited there just prior to my spending the money. I understand what you're saying. But I don't see why bailing out the wall street firms is a good solution to the problem. Why not bail out the banks and credit unions that have loaned their deposits to the wall street firms instead?

Francesca R said:
In short, banks, (and non-bank financial institutions like AIG too) are linked to the rest of the economy much more intimately than firms in other industries. You could think of them as the hubs of a spoke-and-wheel network of financial interconnections whose integrity is widely believed to be vital to the smooth operation of your local store, credit card company, gas station, butcher, baker and brewer too.
Click to expand...

This makes some sense to me, but to continue with the wheel analogy, if the hub is disintegrating, perhaps it would be better to replace with a new carbon-fiber composite hub that will work better, last longer and cost less. Or perhaps it would be better to consider whether we need to continue with such an antiquated hub and spoke wheel system. A redesign might be a better course of action than trying to pick the pieces and continue on with the same old same old. Particularly when the cost of repairs is so high. So why is the bailout of these firms a good idea?

Gurdur said:
One connection would be:
AIG insures loans made to banks, insurance covering credit made. So say if the loan insurers go down, your local credit union is extremely likely to be incredibly nervous about lending anyone cash at all -- including you.
Click to expand...
I actually kind of understood the reasons for the AIG bailout. It's this latest one that has me completely befuzzled.

drkitten said:
The Wall Street financial companies are holding most of your local credit union's money, the stuff that makes the connection between their assets (the loans that they are due) and their liabilities (the deposits that are due YOU). This is generally a good thing because Wall Street pays much better than a cookie jar. But it means if the connection gets broken -- if the money they thought they had to pay day-by-day expenses vanishes -- then the bank will cease to operate, even though it's still got assets on hand.
Click to expand...
Okay, banks all over the country have put their assets into these firms, and then draw on them when they need them. Why are we bailing out the wall street firms instead of the banks that were their customers?
 
Last edited:
Beth said:
This makes some sense to me, but to continue with the wheel analogy, if the hub is disintegrating, perhaps it would be better to replace with a new carbon-fiber composite hub that will work better, last longer and cost less. Or perhaps it would be better to consider whether we need to continue with such an antiquated hub and spoke wheel system. A redesign might be a better course of action than trying to pick the pieces and continue on with the same old same old. Particularly when the cost of repairs is so high. So why is the bailout of these firms a good idea?
Click to expand...
Those metaphrorical ideas might be wise but they are not something that policymakers have the luxury to design and ececute at the moment where they think the vehicle is veering off a cliff.
 
I don't know if hub and spoke metaphor is correct probably more like a lawn sprinkler system. Investors are the the aquifer which supplies water to the sprinkler system. Consumer banks and consumer investment firms are the hoses supplying the sprinklers which are the investment banks. Watering the business (grass) which use the money to maintain or increase operations by maintaining adequate cash flow. These businesses in turn pay workers (consumers) just as the water from the sprinklers might drip down to the aquifer recharging it.

Now if you cut back the flow in any area, the system reduces the growth of the grass. The Fed is trying to maintain this flow of water to ensure that business will not completely fail (grass die) which in my analogy would block the flow of water to consumers. This metaphor doesn't allow for the addition of new water but imagine that the grass somehow created new water that got pumped in the aquifer when it grew. Now if one sprinkler fails, some grass may die or a redundant sprinkler may keep that grass growing but if 90% of them fail then the lawn may die which means no water will eventually recharge the aquifer.

In the end, this is all about maintaining cash flow between consumers, banks and businesses that employee consumers.
 
Francesca R said:
Those metaphrorical ideas might be wise but they are not something that policymakers have the luxury to design and ececute at the moment where they think the vehicle is veering off a cliff.
Click to expand...

Our economy is veering off a cliff? Everyone on the news talks like that too. How is it our economy is veering of the cliff just because stock prices are going down and investment firms going under? But it wasn't going off a cliff when mortgage foreclosures were going through the roof?
 
I don't know if it is veering off a cliff. That is the genuine *fear* of policymakers. and for "why", this is going in cirles: because the financial payments system is at the centre of almost all economic activity in the developed world, and mortgage foreclosures, at the rate they are occuring, are not.
 
The real question is:

Was the risk to the economy so severe that it is worth taxpayers accepting the risk for the bad loans these companies made and/or purchased?

For instance, if 90% of the lending and investing that these banks ended tomorrow due to insolvency, this would halt the flow of cash to successful businesses that go to these banks for ongoing operations. Businesses like Walmart do not actually buy all that inventory that sits in their stores, they borrow money from an investment bank or other source to pay for that much of that inventory and pay it back when they sell it. (Walmart also beats up its suppliers so they take the risk of borrowing and not Walmart.) If that money becomes unavailable, Walmart either fails or it has to buy its inventory with cash on hand which slows the turn over of merchandise reducing its income and reducing the size of its business which hurts its workers.

However, the question no one can answer is, if we let all these investment bankers fail, how broad would the impact be? And, if it is a wide impact, are we better off letting them fail to insure investment bankers do due dilligence on their loan portfolios so they are not putting our money in junk that will never see a payoff instead of the taxpayers accepting the loan risk for all these junk investments.
 
Beth said:
I'm not smart about money and high finance. What is everyone so afraid will happen if the government doesn't bailout the wall street firms? Why is the bailout a better option than letting them figure out their own way out of the mess? Why is it a better option for our government than, say, financing public works projects to make sure that there are plenty of jobs for people who are willing to work and financing social security for those who are unable to work?
Click to expand...

If bank bailouts don't happen, then due to fractional reserve banking they will become insolvent, and their depositors and counter-parties will also become insolvent. This means the "savings" of people like you will vanish into thin-air, like what happened in the great depression. Now, you may be wondering how all of this could happen with FDIC, however, FDIC only has roughly $45B in funding to cover $1T (or possibly much more) in at-risk deposits. The men behind the curtain have decided to bail out the banks before bailing out FDIC, as presumably this would be less catastrophic.

Of course, the real question that isn't being answered, at least by the media or other pundits, is how did we get into this mess in the first place? The answer, of course, is that it was inevitable given the system. We have a system of endless inflation and monetization of debt, coupled with fractional reserve banking, which is inherently unstable. No one typically complains during the boom phase, when money is cheap and prosperity in the form of ever-rising real estate prices seems limitless. But like every great party, the hangover can be brutal. It will take years to reconcile all of the mismanagement and malinvestment that has occurred due to the Federal Reserve, and it will be painful.
 
Tippit said:
Of course, the real question that isn't being answered, at least by the media or other pundits, is how did we get into this mess in the first place? The answer, of course, is that it was inevitable given the system. We have a system of endless inflation and monetization of debt, coupled with fractional reserve banking, which is inherently unstable. No one typically complains during the boom phase, when money is cheap and prosperity in the form of ever-rising real estate prices seems limitless. But like every great party, the hangover can be brutal. It will take years to reconcile all of the mismanagement and malinvestment that has occurred due to the Federal Reserve, and it will be painful.
Click to expand...

I haven't thought much about the issues of fractional reserve banking. Are you thinking we should not have this or that the deposits required by the regulators are too small?
 
seayakin said:
I haven't thought much about the issues of fractional reserve banking. Are you thinking we should not have this or that the deposits required by the regulators are too small?
Click to expand...

I am a proponent of the abolition of central banks, sound money, and 100% reserve banking on demand (non-time) deposits. This would serve to eliminate the business (boom-bust) cycle, enable free market interest rates, and enable steady, sustainable economic growth without monetary policy arbitrarily benefiting bankers, real estate owners, or any other special interest.

This of course is antithetical to the massive corporate welfare that is occurring right now, and it's not likely to be a subject you will see brought up by the media anytime soon. It is however, perhaps the most important subject that intelligent people can reflect upon.
 
Tippit said:
I am a proponent of the abolition of central banks, sound money, and 100% reserve banking on demand (non-time) deposits. This would serve to eliminate the business (boom-bust) cycle, enable free market interest rates, and enable steady, sustainable economic growth without monetary policy arbitrarily benefiting bankers, real estate owners, or any other special interest.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate on this? I don't see the connection I must be missing something.
 
Personally, I think this is the GWB's last grab at the American's cash...Just steal 700 freakin' billion dollars on the way out the door.

Even conservative members of congress are gonna fight this give away.

It's a joke, and should be taken as such.

When I bought a couple thousand shares of MSFT, I could have lost all that money, or made the killing I did.

This bailout is like a dude jumping into the Sands casino and betting all his cash on 21 black, then the wheel stops on 7 red, and the gambler yells, "I WON".

I hope congress will refuse this non-sense.
 
I am a proponent of the abolition of central banks, sound money, and 100% reserve banking on demand (non-time) deposits. This would serve to eliminate the business (boom-bust) cycle, enable free market interest rates, and enable steady, sustainable economic growth without monetary policy arbitrarily benefiting bankers, real estate owners, or any other special interest.
Click to expand...

It would also eliminate almost all bank loans, and make money for new businesses almost impossible to get.
Frankly, Tippit, like so many other opponents of fractional banking, although they claim to love the captalist system, do not have the slightest freaking idea of how it operates.

Wildcat: You know what I think of Ron Paul, but has Paul advocated the abolition of fractional banking? I know he is heavy into the Get rid of the Fed woo,the Gold standard woo, and the let banks print their own money woo, but I was not aware he anti fractional banking.
And, to be fair, a great many libertarians have split with Paul over these issues.
 
XBoxWarrior said:
Personally, I think this is the GWB's last grab at the American's cash...Just steal 700 freakin' billion dollars on the way out the door.

Even conservative members of congress are gonna fight this give away.

It's a joke, and should be taken as such.

When I bought a couple thousand shares of MSFT, I could have lost all that money, or made the killing I did.

This bailout is like a dude jumping into the Sands casino and betting all his cash on 21 black, then the wheel stops on 7 red, and the gambler yells, "I WON".

I hope congress will refuse this non-sense.
Click to expand...

You really don't know much about economics, do you?
Or do you want the whole economy to collapse so we can have the Socialist Revolution you so despertly want?
 
Francesca R said:
I don't know if it is veering off a cliff. That is the genuine *fear* of policymakers. and for "why", this is going in cirles: because the financial payments system is at the centre of almost all economic activity in the developed world, and mortgage foreclosures, at the rate they are occuring, are not.
Click to expand...

Well, it's nice to know not everyone agrees that the economy will veer off a cliff. But I heard on NPR tonight about how Sec. of Treasury Paulson says that if congress doesn't act quickly, the results will be dire. What does that mean in this context? What are the dire results he is predicting will happen without massive intervention? Does he think civilization will break down like in New Orleans after Katrina? Are people going to be dying because the stock market is in turmoil? I just don't get it.

Anyway, thanks for your response. You're worth listening to.
 
Beth said:
..... But I heard on NPR tonight about how Sec. of Treasury Paulson says that if congress doesn't act quickly, the results will be dire. What does that mean in this context? What are the dire results he is predicting will happen without massive intervention? ....
Click to expand...


1) House prices going waaaay down. Lots of people caught with negative equity.

2) Quite likely a fair few runs on certain banks, leading to their closures.

3) A hell of a lot of bankruptcies in any case.

4) Big unemployment, very nasty general recession for a long while.

Those are the dire consequences he is talking of.
 
Gurdur said:
1) House prices going waaaay down. Lots of people caught with negative equity.
Click to expand...

I can understand that's a problem, (I don't especially want to owe more than my house is worth) but it also makes housing more affordable to those who can't afford the high prices it's been at. At any rate, that doesn't seem to quite rate the description of 'dire'.
2) Quite likely a fair few runs on certain banks, leading to their closures.
Click to expand...
With most banks having federal insurance for their deposits, this seems like this effect would be limited.
3) A hell of a lot of bankruptcies in any case.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that it's a problem that requires a $700,000,000,000 solution. Bankrupcy laws were tightened up a few years ago claiming that would solve the excessive bankrupcy problem.
4) Big unemployment, very nasty general recession for a long while.

Those are the dire consequences he is talking of.
Click to expand...

That last is the only problem that really could be considered dire IMO. Unfortunately, I don't have much confidence that a) this is inevitable without quick action or b) that this proposed bailout would work to avert it. I suspect it might be better to use the funds in other ways to deal with that situation. Thanks for laying some reasons out. I appreciate the info.
 
Beth said:
I can understand that's a problem, (I don't especially want to owe more than my house is worth) but it also makes housing more affordable to those who can't afford the high prices it's been at. At any rate, that doesn't seem to quite rate the description of 'dire'.
Click to expand...


Bloody dire for those so caught with negative equity, and I think you under-estimate the flow-on effects. Start thinking whole suburbs with a whole lot of boarded-up houses; invitations to crime and climbing crime rates. Detroit, Chicago, and so on.

With most banks having federal insurance for their deposits, this seems like this effect would be limited.
Click to expand...

This is where the problem of private insurance comes in, and again, flow-on effects.

I'm not sure that it's a problem that requires a $700,000,000,000 solution. Bankrupcy laws were tightened up a few years ago claiming that would solve the excessive bankrupcy problem.
Click to expand...


But certain stockmarket trading regulations were loosened 13 months ago. And others earlier still. That is where much of the problem lies.

That last is the only problem that really could be considered dire IMO. Unfortunately, I don't have much confidence that a) this is inevitable without quick action or b) that this proposed bailout would work to avert it. I suspect it might be better to use the funds in other ways to deal with that situation. Thanks for laying some reasons out. I appreciate the info.
Click to expand...


Look, an awful lot of people are running around like chooks with their heads cut off outta fear and trepidation; the stock market is being all bearish again, because they now suspect the emergency bail-out is not sufficient.

A lot of good regulation a while back would have averted this all; note that predatory lending and the subprime market is illegal in many other countries other than the USA. But those countries lent USA banks money; and so they get done over too. It's not looking terribly good. I would say personally taht the consequences of no bail-out plan would in fact be very dire, unless you regard mass unemployment, huge waves of bankruptcies and so on as a mere laughing matter, in which case, OK.

Personally, I'm fairly safe and insulated from all that; but it is a social problem, and not just in the USA, but because of loans to USA banks, for other countries as well.
 
I think the harm is less if we allow the crash to proceed.

I believe all we will do with a bailout is enrich people who ought not be enriched, and postpone the crash while at the same time increasing its magnitude.
 
Wikipedia's article on the Panic of 1907 is pretty darn good. I encourage you to read it.

What's at stake here is the ability to pay money at one place and have it received in another. Without that no business can operate.
 
Last edited:
To Beth:

I am not sure if the following fits somewhere in the picture, but I think it does. (Others will correct me if necessary)

You talk about your debit card. This implies you pay things with money you already have (on an account) This system ensures you don't buy many more things than your income will allow.

The problem lies with credit cards. Some Americans buy too much with credit, basically, buy now, pay later.

I read somewhere that the majority of Americans still have no or very little credit card debt, but a minority has a huge debt, so huge that on average the debt is around $10,000 per household.

So what has this to do with Wall Street collapses? I am not sure, but some relation will exist I assume. Money will be more expensive? So this debt is more expensive.. Banks will ask credit card holders to pay more back each month. More households will get into trouble, not able to pay back etc.... Feel free to elaborate on this, those who know more about it than me.
 
Gurdur said:
Bloody dire for those so caught with negative equity, and I think you under-estimate the flow-on effects. Start thinking whole suburbs with a whole lot of boarded-up houses; invitations to crime and climbing crime rates. Detroit, Chicago, and so on.
Click to expand...
I agree, these are serious problems. But how is it that bailing out wall street financial firms will avert or solve this problem? Seems like it would be better to help out the folks who can't manage to pay their mortgages than the firms that lent them the money.

This is where the problem of private insurance comes in, and again, flow-on effects.
Click to expand...
And again, what is the connection to the bailout of wall street financial firms? How will the US government buying up bad securities fix this problem?
But certain stockmarket trading regulations were loosened 13 months ago. And others earlier still. That is where much of the problem lies.
Click to expand...
I recall my mother complaining back in the early 80's that the deregulation that Reagan was doing would lead to another market crash and depression. No disagreement with you here. The problem is, I don't see how bailing out the wall street financial firms is a particularly good solution to the problem.

Look, an awful lot of people are running around like chooks with their heads cut off outta fear and trepidation; the stock market is being all bearish again, because they now suspect the emergency bail-out is not sufficient.
Click to expand...
Okay. The stock market goes up and down. It's been bullish most of my adult life, but I understand that bear markets are part of it's natural cycle. Why is this a problem that requires a $700,000,000,000 solution?
A lot of good regulation a while back would have averted this all; note that predatory lending and the subprime market is illegal in many other countries other than the USA. But those countries lent USA banks money; and so they get done over too. It's not looking terribly good. I would say personally taht the consequences of no bail-out plan would in fact be very dire, unless you regard mass unemployment, huge waves of bankruptcies and so on as a mere laughing matter, in which case, OK.
Click to expand...
I agree that good regulation and oversight would have been prudent. I agree that mass unemployment, huge waves of bankruptcies, etc. are serious problems. What I don't follow is the idea that bailing out the wall street firms is a good approach to avert that scenario. It seems more like throwing good money after bad IMO. Sometimes it's better (and cheaper) to simply accept the losses and rebuild from scratch than try to repair a broken system.
Personally, I'm fairly safe and insulated from all that; but it is a social problem, and not just in the USA, but because of loans to USA banks, for other countries as well.
Click to expand...
Well, according to the news this morning, congress will likely negotiate some sort of bailout with the financial leaders by next week.
 
Beth said:
I agree that good regulation and oversight would have been prudent. I agree that mass unemployment, huge waves of bankruptcies, etc. are serious problems. What I don't follow is the idea that bailing out the wall street firms is a good approach to avert that scenario. It seems more like throwing good money after bad IMO. Sometimes it's better (and cheaper) to simply accept the losses and rebuild from scratch than try to repair a broken system.
Click to expand...

My main concern (and I don't have an answer) is will a bailout also encourage reckless investment in the future? Certainly, if we do nothing there will be a lot of short term economic pain (3-10 years) which will certainly be severe for many workers. From what I'm reading, some economists feel it will be so widespread that we can't afford to do nothing and others think the impact on the federal debt will be so draining on the economy to cause bigger long term problems. Anyone see forecasts, which scenario is most probable if we do nothing:

-Mild: 8% average national unemployment rate for 3 years and 30% of our homeowners becoming renters

-Mid 9% average national unemployment rate for 5 years and 50% of our homeowners becoming renters

-Severe 10-12% average national unemployment rate for 6+ years and 70% of our homeowners becoming renters (e.g Great Depression like)

Ben Bernanke studied the Great Depression as an academic and he clearly fears the latter consequence.

Personally, I'm very conflicted about the right way to go and how severe the risk is to the economy.
 
drkitten said:
How much actual cash do you use in your daily life? Not debit cards, not credit cards, not checks, but actual folding money? Because if the banks' investments truly tank, that will be what you're operating with.
Click to expand...


I'm not the OP: Depressingly, only cash. I have a bank account I don't have any reason to use, but no overdraft as no bank will give me one, no loans, no stocks, no credit rating. My earnings are cash, from television, and I rarely receive cheques. I might try claiming some HB if things get worse though. I own no property beyond the things in my house - clothes etc. This is not even my computer, it's my housemates. So really I should not worry about Global Economic Collapse?

Actually, I think I should. If the banks go down, the supermarkets, the transport companies, all the people who provide me with food etc go down too? Dunno. Just asking!

cj x
 
martu said:
Care to elaborate on this? I don't see the connection I must be missing something.
Click to expand...

You're "missing" the fact that Tippit is proposing bat-guano insane economic theories that have no relationship to the real world and get policy makers in trouble every time they even approach them.

Don't bother looking for the connection. It exists only in his fever-ridden paranoiac imaginings.
 
Beth said:
With most banks having federal insurance for their deposits, this seems like this effect would be limited.
Click to expand...

Federal insurance is actually quite limited; not only is it very limited in extent (only to the first $100,000 of deposits), but it also can take a lot of time for the claims to work their way through the system.

And that's why your debit card would stop working. If your deposits are in a bank that has had to shut down for cash flow reasons (i.e. there was a run on the bank) there's no reason for merchants to honor a promise to pay "eventually."
 
drkitten said:
Simple answer : because if the banks collapse, credit will no longer be available, since most of the credit is backed by reserves held in investments. Heck, deposits will no longer be available as the money supply collapses, since those reserves are what your deposits have gone into.

How much actual cash do you use in your daily life? Not debit cards, not credit cards, not checks, but actual folding money? Because if the banks' investments truly tank, that will be what you're operating with.
Click to expand...
You see? This is why the bulk of the money supply ought not be bank credits. This sort of catastrophe is inevitable. Now, not only do the banks get to walk away from the profits of this deranged monetary system, but the public gets the double-whammy of suffering the fallout, and paying for the bailout.
 
Beth said:
You're saying that if the government doesn't bail out wall street, my credit union debit card will no longer be any use to me? I honestly don't get the connection.
Click to expand...
You know how there's money? Well, funny story: it happens that most of what you use in your day-to-day life isn't actually money created by the government, but credits, created by private institutions. Should it be the case that major financial institutions become insolvent, these bank credits will simply disappear. Essentially, it would be like the bulk of our money simply disappeared overnight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom