Yellen Admits CCP-Linked Silicon Valley Depositors Will Be Bailed Out by U.S. Banks

[Nickyjo]

Newsom had millions in that bank. Nothing further need be said.

From what I read, he put his assets in a blind trust. But that bears investigation nonetheless.

 

[Helix]

I wonder if the Chinese communist party will be bailing out entire countries.

 

[Paradoxical]

From what I read, he put his assets in a blind trust. But that bears investigation nonetheless.

The Silicon Valley is craw with workers and they catered to rich and powerful in politics.

 

[JasperL]

Ahhh. Maria Bartiromo. She's basically Tucker Carlson with smaller boobs.

She's always been a person of no principles. I remember when she was on CNBC cheerleading for tech firms right up until the NASDAQ collapsed. It was embarrassing watch her invite on these CEOs of companies at just insane valuations, lob them softballs, giggle, all but get on her knees fawning over them. And so she got them on the show all the time - it was better than paid PR for the CEO and the company.

 

[Napoleon]

It's a head scratcher to me, too. In fact, I would never even characterize it as "bailing out". To me, "bailing out" refers to what would be done to cover the losses of the bank itself, it's management, and the bank's shareholders - not the bank's depositors. They did nothing wrong. In fact, their deposits cannot even be considered speculative. The bank was merely their vault - a place for safe keeping and safe disbursement. It's hard to imagine why anyone would have a problem with covering those monies.

Because the truth of banking is that it is not a safe place where your money is segregated and gathers dust in a vault. Your money is no longer “your” money when you deposit it. The deposits are pooled and invested by the bank. That’s why deposit insurance exists and if you have uninsured deposits then you are knowingly taking a risk.

 

[MamboDervish]

Why?

That should be obvious. Because if deposits in the bank aren’t safely insured for depositors, then everyone withdraws their money from the banks, and the banking system collapses.

 

[Paradoxical]

That should be obvious. Because if deposits in the bank aren’t safely insured for depositors, then everyone withdraws their money from the banks, and the banking system collapses.

So, lemme get this straight. I don't have even 250K to keep in a bank. I, and millions more people like me should bail out the millionaires like Newsome, Pelosi, Warner, Trump and others? The same people the left excoriates. Should I also pay the mortgage on their third homes cause it might cause trouble in the real estate world?

 

[MamboDervish]

So, lemme get this straight. I don't have even 250K to keep in a bank. I, and millions more people like me should bail out the millionaires like Newsome, Pelosi, Warner, Trump and others? The same people the left excoriates.

Oh, please. Don't be stupid. If all the people you're alluding to, including everyone with 300K, 400K, 750K, etc, lose their savings, then everyone everywhere withdraws all their money from all the banks to put it somewhere else - including under their pillow, dumb as that might be. People keep their money in banks because they trust banks. No more trust = no more banks. Capiche?

What happens then? Do you really need your hand held through this? If you're advocating another run on the banks - another 1929 Great Depression - then you're a fool. If you're not advocating that, then what the **** is the point of your questions? We don't need another collapse of the banking system. Period.

Get it? Or do you just refuse to get it because there's some idiotic ideological point you seem desperate to make? If that's the case, then spare us all, because you've failed to make it.

Should I also pay the mortgage on their third homes cause it might cause trouble in the real estate world?

Yeah ..... you should go pay the mortgage on someone's third home. Let us all know how that works out for you.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

Is China or Joe Biden responsible for Silicon Valley Bank? I can't keep track of what the latest right-wing propaganda is saying.

Neither. It's SOROS!!

 

[MTAtech]

Janet Yellen admits that overseas depositors linked to the Chinese Communist Party will be bailed out by the US banking system (which the American people are hostages to):

Yellen Admits CCP-Linked Silicon Valley Depositors Will Be Bailed Out by U.S. Banks | National Review

‘I don’t believe there is any legal basis to discriminate among uninsured depositors,’ Yellen stated.

www.nationalreview.com

CCP-linked Silicon Valley Bank depositors could be 'made whole' by US: Yellen

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said that Chinese Communist Party-linked (CCP) depositors of Silicon Valley Bank could be "made whole" by the U.S. banking system.

www.foxbusiness.com

So if Russian depositors linked to Putin had money in SVB, should they be bailed out?

Your narrative is absurd, Namely, that narrative is that since the FDIC protects depositors, wouldn’t it be terrible if China or Russia were depositors and they would get made whole by FDIC.

 

[MTAtech]

The thing no one has talked about in why saving banks is important is how tenuous confidence in the system is and how easy it would be to trigger a major run on the banks that would collapse perfectly healthy ones. So much of this is a psychological game, and it doesn't take much to panic the herd. So let's say if governments were to say "sorry bruh, you lose and that's that". That could very well trigger others to pull their money from banks where there's no immediate threat as well just out of the fear of their money being at risk.

What's been clear for a very long time is banks are a critical component of any economic system, which means there should be rigorous review of how they manage their money so we're aware of the risks their taking and ensure they're able to cover those risks. I think in the end it means a bit less risk taking and profit, but a more stable environment requiring less intervention by the government when things go wrong. The irony here is middle size banks like SVB had just lobbied to have regulations eased during the last administration, and what's clear is their assessment that banks of their size (in assets) not systematically important was incorrect.

 

[Paradoxical]

Oh, please. Don't be stupid. If all the people you're alluding to, including everyone with 300K, 400K, 750K, etc, lose their savings, then everyone everywhere withdraws all their money from all the banks to put it somewhere else - including under their pillow, dumb as that might be. People keep their money in banks because they trust banks. No more trust = no more banks. Capiche?

What happens then? Do you really need your hand held through this? If you're advocating another run on the banks - another 1929 Great Depression - then you're a fool. If you're not advocating that, then what the **** is the point of your questions? We don't need another collapse of the banking system. Period.

Get it? Or do you just refuse to get it because there's some idiotic ideological point you seem desperate to make? If that's the case, then spare us all, because you've failed to make it.


Yeah ..... you should go pay the mortgage on someone's third home. Let us all know how that works out for you.

What happens then?
personal responsibility

 

[Nickyjo]

What happens then?
personal responsibility

Not sure I understand. You’d eliminate things like the FDIC?

 

[Nickyjo]

What happens then?
personal responsibility

Not sure I understand. You’d eliminate things like the FDIC?

 

[Paradoxical]

Not sure I understand. You’d eliminate things like the FDIC?

People could have put their money in several banks knowing the limits of bailouts.

 

[Nickyjo]

People could have put their money in several banks knowing the limits of bailouts.

Didn’t answer my question, or I missed your point.

 

[Paradoxical]

Didn’t answer my question, or I missed your point.

I didn't miss your point at all, which was and is a diversion asking if I think the FDIC should be eliminated. I actually do but that is not what the premise of my argument is, and I am saddened that those on the left just don't seem to grasp the importance of morals in a society today.

Mambo is another far leftist (I believe "progressive is just an attempt to flower up Marxism, socialist, Communist, far left) who suggested anyone who was not in favor of the taxpayers bailing out the "rich" would create a run on the banks.

There is a $250,000 limit per bank, meaning that rich people who are smart would know this and armed with that knowledge would have money in several or more banks, and if they had more money than that could own physical gold, silver and keep millions of that commodity in safe deposits at several banks with the rest overseas or in stocks and bonds and mutual funds.

BUT...........since the failed bank was hard left progressive and the rich depositors were politicians and connected wealthy that donated to them, the left is all for me bailing out the rich who did not exercise personal responsibility. But lack of personal responsibility is championed by the Progressive with abortion, school loan forgiveness, CRT, equity training, lowering of requirements for police and other government jobs.

 

[sanman]

Your narrative is absurd, Namely, that narrative is that since the FDIC protects depositors, wouldn’t it be terrible if China or Russia were depositors and they would get made whole by FDIC.

FDIC doesn't "make depositors whole" -- it's an insurance provider, and that's not what insurance companies do

try asking your auto insurance company or your home insurance company to "make you whole" while filing a claim. Try to even have "make you whole" put into the insurance contract. You'll be laughed out of the office.

"Make whole" is not a financially viable concept. Insurers insure upto a certain limit -- that's what the laws of reality allow, as opposed to your delusional fantasies.

"I'll just turn on the infinite money tap -- just like I use it to pay for social programs --- and...."

 

[WillyPete]

Janet Yellen admits that overseas depositors linked to the Chinese Communist Party will be bailed out by the US banking system (which the American people are hostages to):

Yellen Admits CCP-Linked Silicon Valley Depositors Will Be Bailed Out by U.S. Banks | National Review

‘I don’t believe there is any legal basis to discriminate among uninsured depositors,’ Yellen stated.

www.nationalreview.com

CCP-linked Silicon Valley Bank depositors could be 'made whole' by US: Yellen

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said that Chinese Communist Party-linked (CCP) depositors of Silicon Valley Bank could be "made whole" by the U.S. banking system.

www.foxbusiness.com

So if Russian depositors linked to Putin had money in SVB, should they be bailed out?

My uderstanding is they said they'd bail ALL their customers out. If China's a legit customer, then they're a legit customer.

If we shouldn't make our financial institutions available to China as a national policy, that's a whole different conversation.

 

[MTAtech]

FDIC doesn't "make depositors whole" -- it's an insurance provider, and that's not what insurance companies do

try asking your auto insurance company or your home insurance company to "make you whole" while filing a claim. Try to even have "make you whole" put into the insurance contract. You'll be laughed out of the office.

"Make whole" is not a financially viable concept. Insurers insure upto a certain limit -- that's what the laws of reality allow, as opposed to your delusional fantasies.

"I'll just turn on the infinite money tap -- just like I use it to pay for social programs --- and...."

Semantics. The FDIC insures depositors, whoever they are and guarantees the deposit. They don't make judgments about what country the depositor is from -- as it should be.

This is just another one of your looney threads.

 

[Paradoxical]

FDIC doesn't "make depositors whole" -- it's an insurance provider, and that's not what insurance companies do

try asking your auto insurance company or your home insurance company to "make you whole" while filing a claim. Try to even have "make you whole" put into the insurance contract. You'll be laughed out of the office.

"Make whole" is not a financially viable concept. Insurers insure upto a certain limit -- that's what the laws of reality allow, as opposed to your delusional fantasies.

"I'll just turn on the infinite money tap -- just like I use it to pay for social programs --- and...."

Someone asked me if the FDIC should be abolished and I said YES, but they are here so that is wishful thinking. You are correct that "many" insurance policies do not make people "whole". However, with replacement cost policies on structures, a person will get a new building in replacement of their damaged or destroyed building UP TO the policy limit. If they turn out to be underinsured, they eat the overage. This is perfect fairness because both parties know the rules. Also, the insurance company can properly assess their risk and charge a premium accordingly.

Let's use this debacle as an example if it was handled by private insurance companies as it should have been done all along. You put your money in the bank and are a small fry and the bank says to you "We will cover you up to $250,000. if we go under at no charge to you and how we do that is to pay you less than the going interest on your deposits so we can take out insurance ourselves if we go bankrupt. We will show you our insurance policy that proves this.

BUT.........if you have more money than that, we welcome it, but we must charge for that because there is a larger risk, and we do that in the same manner as the small fries by giving you less interest on your balance. If you like that, please sign here, or shop around at banks B and C and then come back here after you find out we are giving you the straight scoop.

Insurance companies take out their own insurance called Catastrophe insurance so they don't go under. They also lay off a portion of their large risks to others.

When the government gets involved, things always get effed up and, in this case, you and I pay for their malfeasance.

 

[Kushinator]

Is China or Joe Biden responsible for Silicon Valley Bank? I can't keep track of what the latest right-wing propaganda is saying.

They are playing on the fact that many of the GQP base would have been open to the idea of selectively choosing which depositors are eligible to stay in possession of their funds.

~Putin something Russian assets were something sometime unfair something .~

 

[Kushinator]

How do you LEGALLY block them from receiving this bail-out?

Executive order would probably hold until the damage is done... but wait, the SC would uphold anyway.

 

[Kushinator]

People could have put their money in several banks knowing the limits of bailouts.

FDIC insurance is a bailout now in RW fantasy land. Good to know.

 

[MTAtech]

People could have put their money in several banks knowing the limits of bailouts.

First, FDIC is $250,000 per account, not total in the bank.
Second, that isn't practical for companies like ADP, who collect different companies monies and put it in one account to write all the checks. If they weren't protected, workers wouldn't get paid.
Third, this makes the case for increasing the limit on FDIC insurance but you want to eliminate FDIC. That's the way it was in 1929 and it didn't go well.