Complete Captcha

• 1 week - 35 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 53 Goods vs 17 No Goods

1. Economist
   55d7
   

   No they wouldn't. Depositors with less than $250,000 would be treated the same, but those with more than $250,000 would NOT be.

   And I'm saying that those don't, in practice, exist to any noticeable degree. I've looked at these community banks for my research, and they simply don't have a ton of uninsured deposits. Once again, my point is that the article is trying to make you scared about how the government is going to bailout the coastal elites while you cuddly little small town americans are going to be high and dry. But that's not true, unless you are a non-coastal elite you are going to be bailed out in the exact same way that the depositors of SVB was.

   1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !

2. Economist
   7bae
   

   Bitcoin is a honeypot in my opinion. After people load up on Bitcoin the government will bl0ck the on and off ramps and cr1minalize trading it (using the public ledger to try and track down any who use it). It will still have some value as a blck market store of value, but unless you have your bitcoin personally custodianed and know how to transact away from the main exchanges you will be out of luck.

   I've changed my mind about BTC at this point. I'd rather roll with the decentralized scam than the centralized one.

   1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

3. Economist
   7bae
   

   More than half of all bank deposits are now in the uninsured category.

   No they wouldn't. Depositors with less than $250,000 would be treated the same, but those with more than $250,000 would NOT be.

   And I'm saying that those don't, in practice, exist to any noticeable degree. I've looked at these community banks for my research, and they simply don't have a ton of uninsured deposits. Once again, my point is that the article is trying to make you scared about how the government is going to bailout the coastal elites while you cuddly little small town americans are going to be high and dry. But that's not true, unless you are a non-coastal elite you are going to be bailed out in the exact same way that the depositors of SVB was.

   1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

4. Economist
   55d7
   

   More than half of all bank deposits are now in the uninsured category.

   No they wouldn't. Depositors with less than $250,000 would be treated the same, but those with more than $250,000 would NOT be.

   And I'm saying that those don't, in practice, exist to any noticeable degree. I've looked at these community banks for my research, and they simply don't have a ton of uninsured deposits. Once again, my point is that the article is trying to make you scared about how the government is going to bailout the coastal elites while you cuddly little small town americans are going to be high and dry. But that's not true, unless you are a non-coastal elite you are going to be bailed out in the exact same way that the depositors of SVB was.
   

   In community banks?

   1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

5. Economist
   220e
   

   Bitcoin is a honeypot in my opinion. After people load up on Bitcoin the government will bl0ck the on and off ramps and cr1minalize trading it (using the public ledger to try and track down any who use it). It will still have some value as a blck market store of value, but unless you have your bitcoin personally custodianed and know how to transact away from the main exchanges you will be out of luck.

   I've changed my mind about BTC at this point. I'd rather roll with the decentralized scam than the centralized one.
   

   P2P will be there and it will be increasingly easier to use. There is no notion of "criminalizing" that unless the powers that be want to completely jump the shark. Which I'd welcome. Not worried about it. I think there is way too much money to be made for them to blanket ban everything.

   1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

6. Economist
   53bf
   

   All the libertarian VCs get bailed out. That's the thing we know for sure.

   1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

7. Economist
   41be
   

   The point was to limit bailouts to only extreme cases that could garner support of super majority of regulators

   1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !

8. Economist
   7bae
   

   I don't know what the exact percentage is for community banks, but it is sizeable. Uninsured deposits aren't exclusively at the largest banks.

   https://www.axios.com/2023/03/17/the-fdics-long-game

   More than half of all bank deposits are now in the uninsured category.

   No they wouldn't. Depositors with less than $250,000 would be treated the same, but those with more than $250,000 would NOT be.

   And I'm saying that those don't, in practice, exist to any noticeable degree. I've looked at these community banks for my research, and they simply don't have a ton of uninsured deposits. Once again, my point is that the article is trying to make you scared about how the government is going to bailout the coastal elites while you cuddly little small town americans are going to be high and dry. But that's not true, unless you are a non-coastal elite you are going to be bailed out in the exact same way that the depositors of SVB was.
   

   In community banks?

   1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

9. Economist
   7bae
   

   Which can be achieved with only D votes because of a Federal Reserve quirk (Fed governors serve 14 year terms but B1den has been able to appoint 4 governors already and will soon appoint a 5th).

   The point was to limit bailouts to only extreme cases that could garner support of super majority of regulators

   1 week ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

10. Economist
    41be
    

    And could easily happen with Rs

    Which can be achieved with only D votes because of a Federal Reserve quirk (Fed governors serve 14 year terms but B1den has been able to appoint 4 governors already and will soon appoint a 5th).

    The point was to limit bailouts to only extreme cases that could garner support of super majority of regulators
    

    1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !

11. Economist
    7bae
    

    Which is why either the Fed's governance structure needs to be reformed or the law should require Congressional approval for any emergency actions like the systemic risk exception. The Fed is currently "independent" in name only.

    And could easily happen with Rs

    Which can be achieved with only D votes because of a Federal Reserve quirk (Fed governors serve 14 year terms but B1den has been able to appoint 4 governors already and will soon appoint a 5th).

    The point was to limit bailouts to only extreme cases that could garner support of super majority of regulators
    

    1 week ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

12. Economist
    9d92
    

    Good for Biden. This means that banks that donated to Reps will fail and not be able to donate money to candidates in the future that would overthrow the American system like they tried to do on Jan 6. Bravo and thank you Mr. President for saving America!

    their long term interests divulge in prversion and dark skin.

    They will not last.

    1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

13. Economist
    cc6a
    

    The video in the tweet doesn't work. Do you have a different link?

    1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

14. Economist
    7bae
    

    The video link in this article still works.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/your-bank-important-enough-save-dont-count-it

    The video in the tweet doesn't work. Do you have a different link?

    1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

15. Economist
    9d92
    

    Good for Biden. This means that banks that donated to Reps will fail and not be able to donate money to candidates in the future that would overthrow the American system like they tried to do on Jan 6. Bravo and thank you Mr. President for saving America!

    their long term interests divulge in prversion and dark skin.
    They will not last.

    Yep. But still will take another eight years or so to expire.

    1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

Reply