Dr V Posted March 27, 2009 Report Posted March 27, 2009 Someone with a financial background, please help me understand what is presented as obvious. Clearly I'm still not getting it. What are the terrible consequences of letting US banks and the likes of AIG die a natural death? I keep hearing that this is not an option, but I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of why. Savings up to a certain amount are protected (insured) in case a bank goes belly-up. So far, so good. This insurance is the only thing that should in all fairness be payed out (to investors, not the banks as such) in case of a bank's demise. From what I understand bailouts have nothing to do with this, they are something entirely different. Of course some large part of the economy will hurt for a while if the banks are not bailed out. But are they really the only game in town? Surely something more healthy and less huge will very quickly take their place (albeit a different place)- credit unions, co-operatives. Right...? Quote
eyeball Posted March 27, 2009 Report Posted March 27, 2009 What are the terrible consequences of letting US banks and the likes of AIG die a natural death? Hah, another trouble-maker. Welcome to the club. Surely something more healthy and less huge will very quickly take their place (albeit a different place)- credit unions, co-operatives. I see you've answered your own question. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.