 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Five more banks fail - 120 for the year |
| From: | |
N. Mihalos
|
posted
Sat, Nov 7 2009, 8:21am
|
Four banks fail - Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota and Missouri - Nov. 6, 2009
So far 2009 has seen more than four times the number that were closed in 2008. It's the highest total since 1992, when 181 banks failed.
Probably don't know what I'm talking about but I think the FDIC is overreacting for one, because this is probably costing the FDIC more money to do this than it would to pay up on the insured deposits. I dunno, just my random thoughts.
Then again maybe the FDIC wants to reduce the number of banks out there?
Also, when a bank is seized its assets go to another bank which is like taking from the poor (share holders lose everything) and giving to the rich. So in the end all I can see is there being one or two really big banks with no competition.
Yes, I see a conspiracy in the works. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Five more banks fail - 120 for the year |
| From: | |
Ursustyrannis
|
posted
Mon, Nov 9 2009, 8:01pm
|
As I've said before, dissolve the Fed Reserve, give money printing back to the Treasury. Then tell all the states and territories to set up their own banks.
Private banks are of course fully allowed to exist, but watch them fall all over themselves trying to emulate the policies of the state banks.
Oh another thing, state banks are _never_ allowed to be privatized. Should a state bank be "pressured" to do that, then they should write out a buy-out for their employees and have their monies divided up for state residents equally. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
