Re:SVB Depositors, Investors Tried to Pull $42B Thursday
by mike_d on Saturday March 11, 2023 @12:27AM
(#35105719)
All cars have seat belts. It isn't effective policy to require them.
Re:SVB Depositors, Investors Tried to Pull $42B Thursday
by NovemberWhiskey on Saturday March 11, 2023 @12:44AM
(#35105805)
You need to extend your metaphor.
Imagine instead that the government was paying car manufacturers more than the cost of installation for every seat belt in a car.
You wouldn’t need to have a policy requiring seatbelts: every car would be liberally festooned with them.
Re:SVB Depositors, Investors Tried to Pull $42B Thursday
by pishpash on Saturday March 11, 2023 @12:01PM
(#35110213)
But it costs the taxpayer money that way via the interest payments, whereas one more regulation doesn't.
Re:SVB Depositors, Investors Tried to Pull $42B Thursday
by NovemberWhiskey on Saturday March 11, 2023 @12:11PM
(#35110317)
Honestly, if you don't understand the difference between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve (as this comment suggests), I'm sorry to say that you're not going to find this conversation very enlightening.
In economic terms: the supply of reserves was so high that it was in an inelastic part of the demand curve for reserves.
The new regime (“ample reserves”) depends on administered interest rates, rather than reserve requirements, to set short-term interest rates.
It is absolutely not the case that the reserve requirements were removed to allow banks to reduce their reserves.