Re:Silicon Valley Bank unmasks the hypocrisy of libertarian ...
by AdamN on Wednesday March 15, 2023 @08:38AM
(#35167330)
They didn't change any rules - they just followed the processes they already had - which was to declare the bank systemically important.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Silicon Valley Bank unmasks the hypocrisy of libertarian ...
by mihaaly on Wednesday March 15, 2023 @09:09AM
(#35167770)
Tell it to other cases where deposits are lost above the insurance limit, tell them please to their face that the rules are the same and not changed ad-hoc.
Re:Silicon Valley Bank unmasks the hypocrisy of libertarian ...
by travisjungroth on Wednesday March 15, 2023 @12:11PM
(#35170529)
I would, but I’ve been looking for a case where were over the limit deposits were lost and can’t find one. Also, if it’s before 2008, the laws were significantly changed and the rules wouldn’t be the same but not ad hoc either.
Re:Silicon Valley Bank unmasks the hypocrisy of libertarian ...
by mihaaly on Wednesday March 15, 2023 @03:29PM
(#35173502)
Except that there were no blanket federal guarantee in previous failures BEFORE some private institution acquired the remians of the failed bank and just then they CHOSE standing for full the deposit if they thought so (most of the cases). Not always, not for everyone. Private cas to case agreement not new central rule! The rule was only up to the limits of insurance and so The Enloe State Bank, Covenant Bank, NOVA Bank, Jasper Banking Company, Eastern Shore, Home Savings of America, and several more (all after 2008) where clients did not have the balance above the insurance limit. Do you have some incentive here attempting to mislead?