Quote from: Smartprofit on Today at 10:39:12 AM

Quote from: jackg on Today at 01:37:47 AM

A lot of people were suggesting on other sites that SVB collapsed because a lot of money was held in government bonds and was hard to liquidate because of the rise in interest rates. If that was the case, why was there no facility for the bonds to just be bought back and instead the bank had to collapse into a bigger one that could make more profit from it (or have a greater burden themselves).

The US government, in my opinion, is currently behaving like the government of a socialist, not a capitalist country.

A bank is a commercial structure, the main purpose of which is to make a profit.

327 million US taxpayers do not own large banks. So why on earth should their taxes be used to bail out the banks (buying government bonds, etc.)?

Under capitalism, all subjects of the market economy bear full responsibility for their actions. Therefore, in the event of the collapse of a commercial bank, depositors incur losses (this teaches them to be careful and responsible for their actions). Persons guilty of fraudulent activities that led to the bankruptcy of the bank are criminally liable for the crimes they committed (including criminal negligence).

As a result, only the most efficient and respectable organizations, professional managers, as well as the most cautious and responsible investors remain on the market.

If the US government wants to manually manage the economy by bailing out inefficient banks with taxpayer money, then perhaps it makes sense to abandon capitalism altogether and move towards a planned economy?

In theory good idea in practice not so good.

Svb had lots of large deposits from companies for payroll purposes.

So the 250,000 insured amount makes it impossibly hard to have enough cash insured for payrolls.

What is needed is a true business/payroll insurance that does not involve regular peoples savings.

So far not one word on this idea 💡 which is obviously needed.