Bank collapse

[Mikey 16,578]

9 hours ago, arein0 said:

That's only partially true. You are forgetting that in Trumps bipartisan bank reform....

Ah, so Biden's inflation is Trump's fault. Of course it is, I should have known! The banks were invested in United States treasuries. That is considered the safest investment possible. The only risk is if Washington allows inflation to run wild due to irresponsible spending. Sadly, Biden didn't disappoint in the irresponsible spending department.

9 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Excessive government spending has been happening since Dubya....

But it took Bungling Biden to be so irresponsible as to create raging inflation.

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

DeSantis answers questions and comments on issues like one of those Speak and Say toys where you pull a string and it randomly lands on some canned response.  Allows him not to think but still belch out hot button buzzwords that generate Pavlovian reactions from the MAGA base.

Don't speak so critically about your next President!  I guess he really has botched Florida because all those people are leaving Florida for New York and California..... Oh, wait

[Mikey 16,578]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Whatcha disagreeing with, @Mikey?

Just laughing at how you libs crawfish back in time and blame everything on some Republican, no matter how far in the distant past. I hear Hoover was a disaster with the banking system. Why haven't you brought him into this discussion? That would be another way to distract attention from Biden's blunders.  Talk about a spendthrift! LBJ had proven to be the world's worst, at least until Biden came along.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

8 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Don't speak so critically about your next President!  I guess he really has botched Florida because all those people are leaving Florida for New York and California..... Oh, wait

I'll criticize anyone I feel like when they espouse idiotic positions or make idiotic statements.  SVB didn't fail because of "woke economics."  But Ron never misses a chance to throw up a dog whistle of wokeism to get the mindless minions to salivate.

[Mikey 16,578]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I'll criticize anyone I feel like when they espouse idiotic positions or make idiotic statements.  SVB didn't fail because of "woke economics."  But Ron never misses a chance to throw up a dog whistle of wokeism to get the mindless minions to salivate.

I would call Biden's irresponsible spending woke economics. That woke economics spending spree is what caused inflation to be the worst in 40 years and inflation is what led to the devaluation of U.S. treasuries that resulted in the bank collapse.

"Woke economics" will make a handy campaign slogan.

Am I to take it that if the choice comes down to Biden or DeSantis in November of '24 you'll once again be supporting Biden?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Just now, Mikey said:

I would call Biden's irresponsible spending woke economics. That woke economics spending spree is what caused inflation to be the worst in 40 years and inflation is what led to the devaluation of U.S. treasuries that resulted in the bank collapse.

"Woke economics" will make a handy campaign slogan.

Look, take this weird ADHD thing you've got going where you just flit from random flower to random flower unable to follow the actually subject somewhere else.  DeSantis didn't argue the bank failed because of Biden's "irresponsible spending woke economics."  But nice job cramming another goofy use of "woke" into an unrelated matter.

DeSantis specifically called out this bank's DEI efforts as the reason they weren't focused on banking fundamentals and why they got in bad shape.  Not a peep about Biden or spending or any such thing.

We sort of smile knowingly or spar a bit and let you get away with this bob and weave routine when the subject is just sports.  But if you can't offer something of more value than this pathetic tactic in here, you won't be in the political forums much longer.

 

Just now, Mikey said:

Am I to take it that if the choice comes down to Biden or DeSantis in November of '24 you'll once again be supporting Biden?

I didn't "support Biden" the first time, so there is no "once again" to it.  Whether DeSantis can work his way into being supportable is up to him.  This kind of brain dead politics won't do it though.

 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

31 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Just laughing at how you libs crawfish back in time and blame everything on some Republican, no matter how far in the distant past. I hear Hoover was a disaster with the banking system. Why haven't you brought him into this discussion? That would be another way to distract attention from Biden's blunders.  Talk about a spendthrift! LBJ had proven to be the world's worst, at least until Biden came along.

I just went back to the last balanced budget and the conscious decision by a President to move away from it. Isn’t that the logical decision point? And Dubya wasn’t that long ago.

As far as excessive spending goes your boy Trump was a champion. Reagan, too. Facts rarely have any bearing on your beliefs. @Son of A Tiger here’s some truth for you.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

For the past five decades, one party has been more fiscally conservative.  Then, there is the party who wishes to cut taxes for the wealthy and, privatize all government functions.

Privatizing may in fact be the most impactful.  Small government by many metrics except,,, cost and corruption.

[AuCivilEng1 11,004]

28 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I would call Biden's irresponsible spending woke economics. That woke economics spending spree is what caused inflation to be the worst in 40 years and inflation is what led to the devaluation of U.S. treasuries that resulted in the bank collapse.

"Woke economics" will make a handy campaign slogan.

Am I to take it that if the choice comes down to Biden or DeSantis in November of '24 you'll once again be supporting Biden?

For all of us that actually know what words mean, I’m not sure that “woke economics” is going to work. 
 

Do you really not understand that guys like DeSantis are using buzz words to rile up dumb dumbs? Come on man. Don’t let them treat you like you’re stupid. Be better.

[Cardin Drake 1,825]

Arguing about which party is more fiscally irresponsible is like arguing who is more promiscuous, Lindsay Lohan or Madonna.  It's pointless; they both are, it's just a question of who they cozy up to and who they screw.  That's only half the problem though. The other half is the Fed. Look at Japan to see where we are headed. They are further down the path than we are. Nobody will buy their debt because the rates are so low, so the government "buys" virtually all of it. Meanwhile the yen is falling, adding to the inflation problem. Japan tried hard for years to trigger inflation. Now they are wondering how the hell they are going to stop it.  In a capitalistic free market interest rates are set by the market. Historically, that has been about 3% above the inflation rate.  Today's interest rates are still absurdly low by those historical standards. Almost every bank bought treasuries paying a ridiculously low interest rate without hedging the position..  That is very risky when interest rates rise. So will the banks pay the price?  Likely not, the taxpayers will.  THE FED SHOULD NOT BUY TREASURIES. And they never did until about 14 years ago. It's the same as printing money.

[arein0 950]

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

Ah, so Biden's inflation is Trump's fault. Of course it is, I should have known! The banks were invested in United States treasuries. That is considered the safest investment possible. The only risk is if Washington allows inflation to run wild due to irresponsible spending. Sadly, Biden didn't disappoint in the irresponsible spending department.

But it took Bungling Biden to be so irresponsible as to create raging inflation.

Don't speak so critically about your next President!  I guess he really has botched Florida because all those people are leaving Florida for New York and California..... Oh, wait

Thanks for telling me you didn't read my post. 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

[TexasTiger 12,835]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Aside from head slapping, @wdefromtx do you not see our system tends to favor those already well off? 

[AuCivilEng1 11,004]

1 hour ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

For all of us that actually know what words mean, I’m not sure that “woke economics” is going to work. 
 

Do you really not understand that guys like DeSantis are using buzz words to rile up dumb dumbs? Come on man. Don’t let them treat you like you’re stupid. Be better.

I would like to add to this. Going off of the Webster Dictionary definition of “woke”, it can be reasonable to assume that “woke economics” is the practice of including people of different racial and social backgrounds into economic decisions and policies. Now thatyou know this, Mikey, are you actually against this practice or do you just admit that you don’t know what tf “woke” means? It’s one of the two, buddy.

Edited March 14, 2023 by AuCivilEng1

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Aside from head slapping, @wdefromtx do you not see our system tends to favor those already well off? 

If you cannot realize this by virtue of extreme inequality,,, you will not see it in any of the details.

The government if for sale.  One party wants to promote this idea.  One party wants to limit this idea.

 

[AuCivilEng1 11,004]

10 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Of course. The government has saved tons of money, because the republicans have all but axed college loan forgiveness. You have to save money at the expense of middle class people, to feed the money to the rich who also want to risk their money. US economics 101, bro.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

19 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Aside from head slapping, @wdefromtx do you not see our system tends to favor those already well off? 

Of course our system favors those that are already well off. 

Do you not see that covering SVB deposits over $250K will save people's jobs, will allow the companies that have their accounts their meet payroll? Guess the Tweet you posted forgot to mention that.

You seem kinda butthurt that people have done well for themselves and would rather see folks at companies that deposited at SVB get hurt and potentially lose their jobs because their well off bosses and businesses have too much money. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

Of course our system favors those that are already well off. 

Do you not see that covering SVB deposits over $250K will save people's jobs, will allow the companies that have their accounts their meet payroll? Guess the Tweet you posted forgot to mention that.

You seem kinda butthurt that people have done well for themselves and would rather see folks at companies that deposited at SVB get hurt and potentially lose their jobs because their well off bosses and businesses have too much money. 

I think this is a misreading of what he said.  No one, least of all Tex, is begrudging people making a lot of money.  What is reasonably being said is that there are clear rules on how much money is insured (up to $250k), these businesses and wealthy clients of this bank know this and ignored it and yet get bailed out fully anyway.  I know why the government is doing it (you cite several reasons) but it does highlight the fact that the rules don't apply to some and that should be a problem for anyone who believes the law should be a level playing field.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

12 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Of course our system favors those that are already well off. 

Do you not see that covering SVB deposits over $250K will save people's jobs, will allow the companies that have their accounts their meet payroll? Guess the Tweet you posted forgot to mention that.

You seem kinda butthurt that people have done well for themselves and would rather see folks at companies that deposited at SVB get hurt and potentially lose their jobs because their well off bosses and businesses have too much money. 

That’s an asinine reply. Biden just altered fdic insurance by executive fiat— you often take issue with that, don’t you? Altering risk rules midstream has long term systemic implications. Perhaps it’s time for a rethink, but pointing out that huge deviation is not an indication of “butt hurt” or resenting those who done well for themselves. To paraphrase our last president, “I do prefer those who’ve done well for themselves AND managed their risks wisely.” They certainly have the resources to get good guidance to do so.

BTW, I’m fortunate to have more than $250K in a bank. But I’ve managed to stay fully insured within the existing rules.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

That’s an asinine reply. Biden just altered fdic insurance by executive fiat— you often take issue with that, don’t you? Altering risk rules midstream has long term systemic implications. Perhaps it’s time for a rethink, but pointing out that huge deviation is not an indication of “butt hurt” or resenting those who done well for themselves. To paraphrase our last president, “I do prefer those who’ve done well for themselves AND managed their risks wisely.” They certainly have the resources to get good guidance to do so.

Only take issue when I think that it is something that is unwarranted. I think Biden did the right thing by working to get the entire deposits covered. Do you? Or would you rather them hold to $250K limit and let whatever happens happen? 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

12 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Only take issue when I think that it is something that is unwarranted. I think Biden did the right thing by working to get the entire deposits covered. Do you? Or would you rather them hold to $250K limit and let whatever happens happen? 

It’s a tough, complex question and I’m open to hear different perspectives on it. As I said up the thread I thought some of your points had merit. If we do it, we need to adjust the rules to fit whatever limited circumstances that are used to justify it in this case and apply them going forward. But I also think that while a  policy adjustment may be warranted in this case, it opens up valid criticism about how money is found to make folks whole who are already better off than most who are often told “we can’t afford that.”

This guy has done very well for himself and says it’s a mistake:

https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/svb-bailout-shows-capitalism-is-breaking-down-ken-griffin/

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

It’s a tough, complex question and I’m open to hear different perspectives on it. If we do it, we need to adjust the rules to fit whatever limited circumstances that are used to justify it in this case and apply them going forward. But I also think that while a  policy adjustment may be warranted in this case, it opens up valid criticism about how money is found to make folks whole who are already better off than most who are often told “we can’t afford that.”

Are they telling some depositors they can't afford to insure them?

[TexasTiger 12,835]

3 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Are they telling some depositors they can't afford to insure them?

Not too my knowledge.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Not too my knowledge.

Who are you referring to  that were told "we can't afford that?" 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

5 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Who are you referring to  that were told "we can't afford that?" 

Health care, college costs, etc.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

18 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Health care, college costs, etc.

Are you saying we should pay for those out of the Deposit Insurance Fund?