>>21746997>I dont see them doing anything worthwhile during an actual crisis.As in? They've been around for WW2, the Savings & Loan Crisis, 2008, and SVB. That's as much realistic crisis testing as any institution gets.
And going "Well, what if they disappeared tomorrow? And maybe we should abolish them!" is as retarded as saying that stuff about, I dunno, the army.
>there wouldn't have been a need to bail out banks if people's money was safe e.g. protected by FDIC, no?Your money isn't safe at banks. That's why you earn interest. Your money disappears into someone's mortgage or Apple's payroll or X6okT5If's student loans. That's how it's been for the past ten thousand years.
But for the average depositor? 2008 wasn't about the FDIC's payout and SVB was only a controversy because so many tech startups were well over the $250k limit and hadn't done the appropriate reinsuring/structuring you're supposed to do with giant cash piles (lookup CDARS).
If we do end up in some hyperinflationary hellscape where the FDIC stops doing what they've been doing and resolving things over a weekend, see my earlier comments about you having bigger fucking problems.
>Also it's the only instance of a business shoulding extra costs and not immediately passing it on to customers so sounds good.That's absolutely not true. We do end up paying for FDIC insurance. It's just miniscule because of the scale.
Notice how $650b in bank failure assets only needed $20b to be made whole? Divide that $20b across every bank and bank customer in America.
