She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.
Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.
I am praying that enough Senators and their donors do, though.
Sadly multiple GOP senators are quoted in that Post article about how while her ideas suck on ice, it'd be nice to have one person pushing those ideas on Fed board, for um..reasons.
That reminds me of the mindset I saw a lot of during the '08 collapse. Where people seemed to legitimately believe that random typical guy who wants to buy a house ought to be the expert about mortgages, financing, and real estate rather than the fucking bank.
She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.
Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.
I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.
Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.
I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).
Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism
FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks
TBTF is a legit thing, yes, but pointing to FDIC as an issue with it is ridiculously ignorant for someone appointed to the Fed
Captain Inertia on
+21
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.
Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.
I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).
Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism
FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks
Shelton’s comment is ridiculously ignorant
Until the and S&L debacle in the 80s we were averaging less than 40 bank failures a year after the FDIC was put in during the New Deal. It more than has done its job and still serves a very big purpose in maintaining stability and availability of capital.
Granted the last 2 years have been absolute shit with more than 4% of local branch offices of FDIC participating entities getting shuttered since 2017, but that's an exception when looking at the last 80+ years.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.
Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.
I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).
Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism
FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks
TBTF is a legit thing, yes, but pointing to FDIC as an issue with it is ridiculously ignorant for someone appointed to the Fed
It's almost as though Federal Deposit Insurance is some kind of Insurance Policy. Who could have guessed?
That reminds me of the mindset I saw a lot of during the '08 collapse. Where people seemed to legitimately believe that random typical guy who wants to buy a house ought to be the expert about mortgages, financing, and real estate rather than the fucking bank.
I can't even begin to explain how much that attitude aggravates me. Cause none of the people who make those arguments are experts on anything and often don't realize that their success heavily benefited from the system, just as much as it may have from savvy decisions.
Also, it's a stupid Randian argument that lady is making when the truth is, you shouldn't need to be a bonafide bank expert just to have a safe fucking place to put your money.
Dark_Side on
+24
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.
Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.
I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).
Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism
FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks
Shelton’s comment is ridiculously ignorant
Until the and S&L debacle in the 80s we were averaging less than 40 bank failures a year after the FDIC was put in during the New Deal. It more than has done its job and still serves a very big purpose in maintaining stability and availability of capital.
Granted the last 2 years have been absolute shit with more than 4% of local branch offices of FDIC participating entities getting shuttered since 2017, but that's an exception when looking at the last 80+ years.
Pretty sure you can attribute this to mergers and acquisitions after the bailouts.
She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.
Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.
I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).
Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism
FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks
Shelton’s comment is ridiculously ignorant
Until the and S&L debacle in the 80s we were averaging less than 40 bank failures a year after the FDIC was put in during the New Deal. It more than has done its job and still serves a very big purpose in maintaining stability and availability of capital.
Granted the last 2 years have been absolute shit with more than 4% of local branch offices of FDIC participating entities getting shuttered since 2017, but that's an exception when looking at the last 80+ years.
Pretty sure you can attribute this to mergers and acquisitions after the bailouts.
That's since 2017. Actually that's probably more attributable to the rise of online banking than anything else (I've never set foot in a bank, for example, cause I've only ever used USAA).
She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.
Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.
I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).
Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism
FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks
Shelton’s comment is ridiculously ignorant
Until the and S&L debacle in the 80s we were averaging less than 40 bank failures a year after the FDIC was put in during the New Deal. It more than has done its job and still serves a very big purpose in maintaining stability and availability of capital.
Granted the last 2 years have been absolute shit with more than 4% of local branch offices of FDIC participating entities getting shuttered since 2017, but that's an exception when looking at the last 80+ years.
That's probably more to do with how bank branches were being used more like billboards to get mortgage applicants to pick them rather than one of the other Big 4, and that isn't really a sustainable business model when most people just need a website and an ATM. The only time I've gone inside a bank branch since our mortgage a few years ago has been to break $20's into small bills.
She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.
Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.
I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).
Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism
FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks
Shelton’s comment is ridiculously ignorant
Until the and S&L debacle in the 80s we were averaging less than 40 bank failures a year after the FDIC was put in during the New Deal. It more than has done its job and still serves a very big purpose in maintaining stability and availability of capital.
Granted the last 2 years have been absolute shit with more than 4% of local branch offices of FDIC participating entities getting shuttered since 2017, but that's an exception when looking at the last 80+ years.
Pretty sure you can attribute this to mergers and acquisitions after the bailouts.
I think this is probably the case. Around here all the closing banks wind up mostly being rebranded as another bank. Seems like we are seeing a bit of a wave of mid sized credit unions/banks buying up some of the smaller local ones.
That reminds me of the mindset I saw a lot of during the '08 collapse. Where people seemed to legitimately believe that random typical guy who wants to buy a house ought to be the expert about mortgages, financing, and real estate rather than the fucking bank.
I can't even begin to explain how much that attitude aggravates me. Cause none of the people who make those arguments are experts on anything and often don't realize that their success heavily benefited from the system, just as much as it may have from savvy decisions.
Also, it's a stupid Randian argument that lady is making when the truth is, you shouldn't need to be a bonafide bank expert just to have a safe fucking place to put your money.
It reminds me of a chapter from one of Elizabeth Warren's books (from before she entered politics) about how most of the finance and debt traps that people fall into today literally just didn't exist for my grandparents. Either they hadn't been invented, or were expressly barred from various statutes and regulations making it illegal. They might have been more likely to get turned down for a loan that they needed, or have a lower credit limit, but that also means they were more protected from falling into debt and poverty traps with usurious rates.
It also eliminated the mental load of having to figure all this shit out, since it was outsourced to someone as their actual full time job. Especially retirement.
That reminds me of the mindset I saw a lot of during the '08 collapse. Where people seemed to legitimately believe that random typical guy who wants to buy a house ought to be the expert about mortgages, financing, and real estate rather than the fucking bank.
I can't even begin to explain how much that attitude aggravates me. Cause none of the people who make those arguments are experts on anything and often don't realize that their success heavily benefited from the system, just as much as it may have from savvy decisions.
Also, it's a stupid Randian argument that lady is making when the truth is, you shouldn't need to be a bonafide bank expert just to have a safe fucking place to put your money.
It reminds me of a chapter from one of Elizabeth Warren's books (from before she entered politics) about how most of the finance and debt traps that people fall into today literally just didn't exist for my grandparents. Either they hadn't been invented, or were expressly barred from various statutes and regulations making it illegal. They might have been more likely to get turned down for a loan that they needed, or have a lower credit limit, but that also means they were more protected from falling into debt and poverty traps with usurious rates.
It also eliminated the mental load of having to figure all this shit out, since it was outsourced to someone as their actual full time job. Especially retirement.
I'm doing research on the finance markets for low-income Americans, do you know which books these were?
That reminds me of the mindset I saw a lot of during the '08 collapse. Where people seemed to legitimately believe that random typical guy who wants to buy a house ought to be the expert about mortgages, financing, and real estate rather than the fucking bank.
I can't even begin to explain how much that attitude aggravates me. Cause none of the people who make those arguments are experts on anything and often don't realize that their success heavily benefited from the system, just as much as it may have from savvy decisions.
Also, it's a stupid Randian argument that lady is making when the truth is, you shouldn't need to be a bonafide bank expert just to have a safe fucking place to put your money.
It reminds me of a chapter from one of Elizabeth Warren's books (from before she entered politics) about how most of the finance and debt traps that people fall into today literally just didn't exist for my grandparents. Either they hadn't been invented, or were expressly barred from various statutes and regulations making it illegal. They might have been more likely to get turned down for a loan that they needed, or have a lower credit limit, but that also means they were more protected from falling into debt and poverty traps with usurious rates.
It also eliminated the mental load of having to figure all this shit out, since it was outsourced to someone as their actual full time job. Especially retirement.
That's why I often wish we could get people on Fed Boards and into government that understand the financial world where you're not shuttling around 100k in the stock market as play money, and juggling two homes. Because none of them seem to understand the predatory, insane world of things like payday loans, check cashing outfits, and now car title loan operations. Or even how big banks routinely try to fuck over and scam their poorest customers. (It's also why Warren is my pick for president)
That reminds me of the mindset I saw a lot of during the '08 collapse. Where people seemed to legitimately believe that random typical guy who wants to buy a house ought to be the expert about mortgages, financing, and real estate rather than the fucking bank.
I can't even begin to explain how much that attitude aggravates me. Cause none of the people who make those arguments are experts on anything and often don't realize that their success heavily benefited from the system, just as much as it may have from savvy decisions.
Also, it's a stupid Randian argument that lady is making when the truth is, you shouldn't need to be a bonafide bank expert just to have a safe fucking place to put your money.
It reminds me of a chapter from one of Elizabeth Warren's books (from before she entered politics) about how most of the finance and debt traps that people fall into today literally just didn't exist for my grandparents. Either they hadn't been invented, or were expressly barred from various statutes and regulations making it illegal. They might have been more likely to get turned down for a loan that they needed, or have a lower credit limit, but that also means they were more protected from falling into debt and poverty traps with usurious rates.
It also eliminated the mental load of having to figure all this shit out, since it was outsourced to someone as their actual full time job. Especially retirement.
I'm doing research on the finance markets for low-income Americans, do you know which books these were?
It was either All Your Worth or the Two Income Trap. Pretty sure it was Two Income Trap.
Both were initially published in 2004/2005 so any data would be out of date.
That reminds me of the mindset I saw a lot of during the '08 collapse. Where people seemed to legitimately believe that random typical guy who wants to buy a house ought to be the expert about mortgages, financing, and real estate rather than the fucking bank.
I can't even begin to explain how much that attitude aggravates me. Cause none of the people who make those arguments are experts on anything and often don't realize that their success heavily benefited from the system, just as much as it may have from savvy decisions.
Also, it's a stupid Randian argument that lady is making when the truth is, you shouldn't need to be a bonafide bank expert just to have a safe fucking place to put your money.
It reminds me of a chapter from one of Elizabeth Warren's books (from before she entered politics) about how most of the finance and debt traps that people fall into today literally just didn't exist for my grandparents. Either they hadn't been invented, or were expressly barred from various statutes and regulations making it illegal. They might have been more likely to get turned down for a loan that they needed, or have a lower credit limit, but that also means they were more protected from falling into debt and poverty traps with usurious rates.
It also eliminated the mental load of having to figure all this shit out, since it was outsourced to someone as their actual full time job. Especially retirement.
That's why I often wish we could get people on Fed Boards and into government that understand the financial world where you're not shuttling around 100k in the stock market as play money, and juggling two homes. Because none of them seem to understand the predatory, insane world of things like payday loans, check cashing outfits, and now car title loan operations. (It's also why Warren is my pick for president)
Conversely, a lot of those people are directly or indirectly invested in companies that offer payday loans, check cashing outfits, and usurious car loans. The secret problem with alleviating poverty in this country is that there is an insane amount of money to be made exploiting the poor, and whole swathes of our leaders at every level benefit from these poverty extraction industries.
My experience with people advocating for a return to the gold standard is they have no idea what money is or how it works.
In my experience it's not that they don't understand money, it's that they don't understand how...well, how anything at all works. Those that aren't gifters, that is. The non-grifting sort don't have the ability to abstract things, they don't get how symbolism works. It isn't ignorance, it's like there's a lack of development of that part of their imagination.
Then there's the educational aspect of it. The badly and in need of replacing supply vs demand lessons in basic econ and social study courses. As anyone on the street how stores set their prices and that's the answer you'll get. Which is...disappointing at this juncture of history.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.
Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.
I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).
Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism
FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks
Shelton’s comment is ridiculously ignorant
Until the and S&L debacle in the 80s we were averaging less than 40 bank failures a year after the FDIC was put in during the New Deal. It more than has done its job and still serves a very big purpose in maintaining stability and availability of capital.
Granted the last 2 years have been absolute shit with more than 4% of local branch offices of FDIC participating entities getting shuttered since 2017, but that's an exception when looking at the last 80+ years.
Pretty sure you can attribute this to mergers and acquisitions after the bailouts.
That's since 2017. Actually that's probably more attributable to the rise of online banking than anything else (I've never set foot in a bank, for example, cause I've only ever used USAA).
We’re all trying to replicate USAA and/or CapOne, btw....
Terry Pratchett's Making Money is my favorite example of the pointlessness of a gold standard.
Just an empty vault that everyone assumed was full of gold if they decided they wanted to turn their money in for some metal. But no one did because it was worthless for day to day life.
Terry Pratchett's Making Money is my favorite example of the pointlessness of a gold standard.
Just an empty vault that everyone assumed was full of gold if they decided they wanted to turn their money in for some metal. But no one did because it was worthless for day to day life.
The unobtainium standard.
0
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
Terry Pratchett's Making Money is my favorite example of the pointlessness of a gold standard.
Just an empty vault that everyone assumed was full of gold if they decided they wanted to turn their money in for some metal. But no one did because it was worthless for day to day life.
The unobtainium standard.
Stephan Lang (with mech knife) for security sold separately
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Modern conservatives are literally the descendants of the rural whites who were screaming about being crucified on a cross of gold in the 19th century.
Modern conservatives are literally the descendants of the rural whites who were screaming about being crucified on a cross of gold in the 19th century.
...
I don't think you understood what William Jennings Bryan was arguing.
Modern conservatives are literally the descendants of the rural whites who were screaming about being crucified on a cross of gold in the 19th century.
...
I don't think you understood what William Jennings Bryan was arguing.
That the gold standard was limiting money supply and causing farmers and businessmen to be unable to repay loans - thus losing their property to the banks - despite an otherwise healthy economy? Hence the irony.
She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.
Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.
I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).
Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism
FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks
Shelton’s comment is ridiculously ignorant
Until the and S&L debacle in the 80s we were averaging less than 40 bank failures a year after the FDIC was put in during the New Deal. It more than has done its job and still serves a very big purpose in maintaining stability and availability of capital.
Granted the last 2 years have been absolute shit with more than 4% of local branch offices of FDIC participating entities getting shuttered since 2017, but that's an exception when looking at the last 80+ years.
Pretty sure you can attribute this to mergers and acquisitions after the bailouts.
That's since 2017. Actually that's probably more attributable to the rise of online banking than anything else (I've never set foot in a bank, for example, cause I've only ever used USAA).
We’re all trying to replicate USAA and/or CapOne, btw....
Ha, so true. Good ol FinServ.
That said, my boss's boss is ex USAA and awesome
Modern conservatives are literally the descendants of the rural whites who were screaming about being crucified on a cross of gold in the 19th century.
...
I don't think you understood what William Jennings Bryan was arguing.
In fact the cross of gold was ABOUT getting rid of the gold standard. Talk about irony here.
Posts
I guarantee that for nearly anyone in the trump administration, the answer to any question beginning with those three words is 'No.'
No but seriously That’s So RavenGOP to nominate someone to a department/agency they don’t see the value of
I am praying that enough Senators and their donors do, though.
Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.
Sadly multiple GOP senators are quoted in that Post article about how while her ideas suck on ice, it'd be nice to have one person pushing those ideas on Fed board, for um..reasons.
I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).
it's like, y'all, it only has value because you believe it has value
It is a better heat conductor than banknotes.
Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism
FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks
TBTF is a legit thing, yes, but pointing to FDIC as an issue with it is ridiculously ignorant for someone appointed to the Fed
But by the same token, banknotes make for better insulation
Terrible for kindling tho
Until the and S&L debacle in the 80s we were averaging less than 40 bank failures a year after the FDIC was put in during the New Deal. It more than has done its job and still serves a very big purpose in maintaining stability and availability of capital.
Granted the last 2 years have been absolute shit with more than 4% of local branch offices of FDIC participating entities getting shuttered since 2017, but that's an exception when looking at the last 80+ years.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
It's almost as though Federal Deposit Insurance is some kind of Insurance Policy. Who could have guessed?
I can't even begin to explain how much that attitude aggravates me. Cause none of the people who make those arguments are experts on anything and often don't realize that their success heavily benefited from the system, just as much as it may have from savvy decisions.
Also, it's a stupid Randian argument that lady is making when the truth is, you shouldn't need to be a bonafide bank expert just to have a safe fucking place to put your money.
The 40,000,000,000,000 Weimar Deutschemark note is still the gold standard of firestarters.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Pretty sure you can attribute this to mergers and acquisitions after the bailouts.
That's since 2017. Actually that's probably more attributable to the rise of online banking than anything else (I've never set foot in a bank, for example, cause I've only ever used USAA).
That's probably more to do with how bank branches were being used more like billboards to get mortgage applicants to pick them rather than one of the other Big 4, and that isn't really a sustainable business model when most people just need a website and an ATM. The only time I've gone inside a bank branch since our mortgage a few years ago has been to break $20's into small bills.
It reminds me of a chapter from one of Elizabeth Warren's books (from before she entered politics) about how most of the finance and debt traps that people fall into today literally just didn't exist for my grandparents. Either they hadn't been invented, or were expressly barred from various statutes and regulations making it illegal. They might have been more likely to get turned down for a loan that they needed, or have a lower credit limit, but that also means they were more protected from falling into debt and poverty traps with usurious rates.
It also eliminated the mental load of having to figure all this shit out, since it was outsourced to someone as their actual full time job. Especially retirement.
To be fair some are rich assholes who’d love a return to inherently deflationary currency
I'm doing research on the finance markets for low-income Americans, do you know which books these were?
That's why I often wish we could get people on Fed Boards and into government that understand the financial world where you're not shuttling around 100k in the stock market as play money, and juggling two homes. Because none of them seem to understand the predatory, insane world of things like payday loans, check cashing outfits, and now car title loan operations. Or even how big banks routinely try to fuck over and scam their poorest customers. (It's also why Warren is my pick for president)
It was either All Your Worth or the Two Income Trap. Pretty sure it was Two Income Trap.
Both were initially published in 2004/2005 so any data would be out of date.
Conversely, a lot of those people are directly or indirectly invested in companies that offer payday loans, check cashing outfits, and usurious car loans. The secret problem with alleviating poverty in this country is that there is an insane amount of money to be made exploiting the poor, and whole swathes of our leaders at every level benefit from these poverty extraction industries.
In my experience it's not that they don't understand money, it's that they don't understand how...well, how anything at all works. Those that aren't gifters, that is. The non-grifting sort don't have the ability to abstract things, they don't get how symbolism works. It isn't ignorance, it's like there's a lack of development of that part of their imagination.
Then there's the educational aspect of it. The badly and in need of replacing supply vs demand lessons in basic econ and social study courses. As anyone on the street how stores set their prices and that's the answer you'll get. Which is...disappointing at this juncture of history.
We’re all trying to replicate USAA and/or CapOne, btw....
Just an empty vault that everyone assumed was full of gold if they decided they wanted to turn their money in for some metal. But no one did because it was worthless for day to day life.
The unobtainium standard.
Stephan Lang (with mech knife) for security sold separately
~ Buckaroo Banzai
...
I don't think you understood what William Jennings Bryan was arguing.
That the gold standard was limiting money supply and causing farmers and businessmen to be unable to repay loans - thus losing their property to the banks - despite an otherwise healthy economy? Hence the irony.
Ha, so true. Good ol FinServ.
That said, my boss's boss is ex USAA and awesome
In fact the cross of gold was ABOUT getting rid of the gold standard. Talk about irony here.