Why not let banks fail?

on . Posted in Patriot News Network

NEW YORK (PNN) - March 14, 2023 - Imagine that for the last 100 years the federal government’s policy was to bail out every business that was in danger of failing. The policy would consist of shoveling large amounts of subsidies into the business in order to help it remain in business. If, however, the business failed anyway, the federal government would pay a large sum of money to the owners of the business as well as to the business’s employees to enable them to transition to other lines of work.

For a true-blue socialist, this would sound like a tremendously fine idea.

It would conjure up images of Medicare for All, the socialist healthcare system by which the federal government would provide or guarantee healthcare services for everyone - for “free”.

In actuality, however, it would be an enormously bad idea, which I think everyone, except true-blue socialists, would instinctively realize.

After all, where would the federal government get all that money to cover all the businesses that fail on a regular basis. Taxation, of course. The feds would have to be taxing the Amerikan people big time to keep up with providing subsidies to all those failing businesses. It wouldn’t be long before Amerikans found themselves paying income taxes totaling maybe 90% or more of their incomes to provide all the money to fund this giant socialist scheme.

Moreover, all that free money would encourage all sorts of inefficient businesses. Everybody would be opening up businesses knowing that if they failed the government would be there to bail them out. Obviously, that would only exacerbate the taxation problem.

The Fascist Police States of Amerika now has an economic system in which there is massive governmental intervention, both with respect to large welfare-state programs (e.g., Social Security and Medicare) and economic regulation. Nonetheless, there is still an instinctive commitment to the principles of a genuine free-market economy - that is, one in which economic enterprise is free of government control and intervention - one in which people are free to keep everything they earn, do what they want with their own money, and freely enter into economic transactions with others. That was Amerika’s founding economic system.

Everyone knows that in a free market there are no guarantees of success. Life entails risk. Some people take the road of high risk. Others try to play it perfectly safe. Most people live their lives somewhere in between.

Many people invest money in the stock market. When they do so, they are buying stock in a particular company. They know that the value of that stock can either go up or go down. They also know that the company could go under, which could result in a total loss of their investment.

When that happens, the government doesn’t bail out the investor, even if the investor has lost his entire life’s savings. Moreover, no one cries out for the government to do so. It has become part of our economic culture that people invest their money at their own risk. If people don’t want to risk losing their money in the stock market, they should stay out of the stock market.

Obviously, this no-bail-out policy should cause people to be cautious about in which companies they invest. Since the government isn’t going to bail out investors, it behooves people to do research on companies or to rely on trusted financial advisors who have done their homework on companies. This leads to a more enlightened citizenry and more efficient businesses.

Why not treat banks the same way?

If people put their money in a bank that fails, why should they be treated any differently from people who invest their money in a company that fails? If they choose the wrong bank, why should taxpayers be forced to cover their bad or wrong decision? Why not simply let the bank go under, just like we let companies fail?

In a genuine free market, people would be much more careful about in which banks they put their money. Like with the purchase of stocks, they would be more likely to do research on banks or rely on trusted financial advisors who do that for a living.

People who wished to take bigger risks for a higher return would select banks that were riskier than others. People who wished to play it safe would select more secure banks with a lower return.

Under the bank system in which we live today, the government “insures” deposits up to $250,000. However, the government doesn’t always follow this policy. As we see with Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, the government sometimes covers all the deposits - including those that exceed $250,000 - in the event of a bank failure. Moreover, oftentimes the failed bank is simply absorbed into the banking system rather than permitted to go out of existence.

Obviously, this system doesn’t encourage due diligence on the part of depositors.

Why should anyone research the financial condition of a bank when the government is going to cover deposits if the bank fails? Why should anyone worry about buying stock in a bank if the government is going to bail out the bank if it fails?

Over time, the entire banking system inevitably becomes weaker and more unstable. At first, individual banks fail, which the government is able to cover. Ultimately, however, this type of system inevitably leads in the direction of an industry-wide banking collapse, one that the government lacks the money to cover unless it taxes the citizenry an enormously large percentage of their income.

That is, in fact, why the government continues raising the amount of its deposit “insurance” and why it continues to bail out depositors and banks that fail. The government wants to assure depositors that everything is “okay” with its socialist banking system, when, in fact, everything is not “okay” with its socialist banking system.

Among the biggest mistakes Amerika has ever made was to socialize the banking system. We should get government out of the banking business and restore our heritage of free markets to this sector of the economy. Separating banking and the state is the key to a strong and viable banking system.

Eulogies

Eulogy for an Angel
1992-Dec. 20, 2005

Freedom
2003-2018

Freedom sm

My Father
1918-2010

brents dad

Dr. Stan Dale
1929-2007

stan dale

MICHAEL BADNARIK
1954-2022

L Neil Smith

A. Solzhenitsyn
1918-2008

solzhenitsyn

Patrick McGoohan
1928-2009

mcgoohan

Joseph A. Stack
1956-2010

Bill Walsh
1931-2007

Walter Cronkite
1916-2009

Eustace Mullins
1923-2010

Paul Harvey
1918-2009

Don Harkins
1963-2009

Joan Veon
1949-2010

David Nolan
1943-2010

Derry Brownfield
1932-2011

Leroy Schweitzer
1938-2011

Vaclav Havel
1936-2011

Andrew Breitbart
1969-2012

Dick Clark
1929-2012

Bob Chapman
1935-2012

Ray Bradbury
1920-2012

Tommy Cryer
1949-2012

Andy Griffith
1926-2012

Phyllis Diller
1917-2012

Larry Dever
1926-2012

Brian J. Chapman
1975-2012

Annette Funnicello
1942-2012

Margaret Thatcher
1925-2012

Richie Havens
1941-2013

Jack McLamb
1944-2014

James Traficant
1941-2014

jim traficant

Dr. Stan Monteith
1929-2014

stan montieth

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015

Leonard Nimoy

Stan Solomon
1944-2015

Stan Solomon

B. B. King
1926-2015

BB King

Irwin Schiff
1928-2015

Irwin Schiff

DAVID BOWIE
1947-2016

David Bowie

Muhammad Ali
1942-2016

Muhammed Ali

GENE WILDER
1933-2016

gene wilder

phyllis schlafly
1924-2016

phylis schafly

John Glenn
1921-2016

John Glenn

Charles Weisman
1954-2016

Charles Weisman

Carrie Fisher
1956-2016

Carrie Fisher

Debbie Reynolds
1932-2016

Debbie Reynolds

Roger Moore
1917-2017

Roger Moore

Adam West
1928-2017

Adam West

JERRY LEWIS
1926-2017

jerry lewis

HUGH HEFNER
1926-2017

Hugh Hefner

PROF. STEPHEN HAWKING
1942-2018

Hugh Hefner 

ART BELL
1945-2018

Art Bell

DWIGHT CLARK
1947-2018

dwight clark

CARL MILLER
1952-2017

Carl Miller

HARLAN ELLISON
1934-2018

Harlan Ellison

STAN LEE
1922-2018

stan lee

CARL REINER
1922-2020

Carl Reiner

SEAN CONNERY
1930-2020

dwight clark

L. NEIL SMITH
1946-2021

L Neil Smith

JOHN STADTMILLER
1946-2021

L Neil Smith