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.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greatplains_guy who wrote (68237)	1/16/2014 5:30:35 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

My opinion: To stop all of this creeping Gigantism in banking and the 'too big to be allowed to fail' crapola just CHARGE the banks more (on a sliding scale) for the federal guarantee on deposit insurance. If they WANT to offer deposit services that carry federal insurance (which is exactly what puts the taxpayers on the hook when and if the banks blow-up because of their own risk taking) then charge them more (a lot more) if they engage in operations (massively leveraged betting/trading, etc.) that put those federally guaranteed deposits at risk. Hard-nosed financial logic will then produce both smaller, safer banks that mostly just do traditional banking and lending... and also big risk taking cowboy operations (Goldman, anyone?) that either have to do without insurance on their deposit base, or else who have to insure deposits themselves, on their own dime... and who can fail away in the fine old 'creative destruction' Shumperterian Capitalist model, but WITHOUT ever troubling the taxpayers when they periodically blow up and go belly-up.