Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (100868)	8/15/2009 12:48:38 PM
From: mishedlo	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

But without FDIC, we would have a repeat of the bank failures in 1932 Hmmm Let's explore the success of the FDIC in bank failure prevention Check out these graphs calculatedriskblog.com BTW in my model bank runs would practically stop without insurance. Checking accounts are supposed to be available on demand. Lending out money available on demand is fraud. I would require 100% reserves on checking accounts. Funds would be protected up to an infinite limit instead of $125K or $250K. If banks wanted to offer private insurance on that, then fine. It would really be insurance against bank fraud and would be extremely cheap. Problem solved. Mish