News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federa... by Lionga on Monday March 13, 2023 @04:04AM (#35132545)
Anyone having a bank account will pay for it trough the banks fees/rates etc. Yellen avoided directly using tax money for the bail out, but it just is the next closest thing.
Re:Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federa... by tgma on Monday March 13, 2023 @04:55AM (#35132956)
It really isn't though. Sure, at some level of abstraction, someone, somewhere, will have to pay for it, but this is clearly distinct from one's capacity as a taxpayer. All banks, however, benefit from the trust in banking system, so make sense for them to foot the bill. It's unclear how much of that will directly materially affect the average US depositor compared to letting SVB clients lose their shirt and thus erode the trust of the entire banking system.
Re:Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federa... by RandomLensman on Monday March 13, 2023 @05:10AM (#35133058)
If in the end the government is needed to (at least temporarily) backstop any deposits anyway, then why have commercial banks for deposits in the first place? Might was well give anyone an account at the Fed or something like that and fund loans and other assets at commercial banks out of bonds, CDs, etc. and never deposits.
Re:Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federa... by hackernewds on Monday March 13, 2023 @05:18AM (#35133119)
You're getting close to the farce. there really are only two banking systems in the US.

there is a centralized bank that is the Federal reserve

and there is a decentralized bank which is Bitcoin

Re:Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federa... by toyg on Monday March 13, 2023 @06:07AM (#35133528)
> Might was well give anyone an account at the Fed or something like that

That's an interesting proposition, that was simply unfeasible from a practical perspective until very recently.

A consumer bank needed branches, and tills, and vaults, and all sorts of things to serve customers, so it was just unfeasible for most nation-states to eat the costs of all that - while private entities were incentivised to set all of that up so that they could raise money to invest for their own profit.

Now that money is increasingly a purely digital construct, a true National Bank could actually be feasible at low cost, providing a 100% safe deposit system for consumers that will never pay any interest. Private banks would likely still exist, they'd just provide more incentives to depositors (i.e. higher returns). This would make private banks a bit less central to the whole system, and make society a bit more fault-tolerant in this area.

It's an interesting policy proposition, and maybe talking about it would be a bit more productive than the average thread on banks.

Re:Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federa... by pengstrom on Monday March 13, 2023 @06:46AM (#35133856)
Exactly, this seems like such an obvious solution. What is the (non-ideological) catch?
Re:Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federa... by CTDOCodebases on Monday March 13, 2023 @07:29AM (#35134200)
The fed would have to service the entire population of the USA and provide customer support services for all those individuals.

They could put the onus of control of the funds/account into the hands of the depositor and use a CBDC but trust in government is an issue here.

Re:Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federa... by op00to on Monday March 13, 2023 @07:45AM (#35134328)
The absolute worst assessment for FDIC insurance for the riskiest banks is ~.042% of [assets - equity]. For every $100 of deposits, the riskiest banks pay 42 cents in FDIC assessments. The safest banks pay about ~.005%. Pick a safe bank. Or don't. The cost doesn't really matter.