>Everyone should be spreading their savings around different banks.
Depending on the country this will not save you. You can have it in N banks, and still get back up to a fixed X amount, because the amount is per person, not per account.
And this assumes people have "savings".
Most people outside of the 10% echo chamber live paycheck to paycheck.
> Everyone should be spreading their savings around different banks.
Which savings? 60% of the US population has less than 1.000 $ in liquid savings per [1]. In Germany it's 33% per [2].
When the recession hits (not if but when) people are going to get fucked. The 2008 crisis wiped out what many people had and its aftermath left them unable to rebuild their savings, and social security institutions have been wrecked since neoliberalism took over - I certainly expect (food) riots once recession hits. The Yellow Vests in France are an example what a still relatively rich but angry population can do, and extrapolating from that reveals a not very nice future.
I didn't make a claim, so I don't need to support or refute it. But back to the point. Not having money is functionally the same as stopping your supply of food. So if the recession is deep enough that enough people can't buy food anymore there may be riots and looting.
Above posters said that 60% of Americans don't have meaningful savings. That would mean in the event that they can't afford food, more than half of America might start a revolt. (Of course depending on the size of the recession).
My point is: you’re confusing catastrophe with recession.
In a food supply halting catastrophe we’ve got problems, catastrophic problems.
A recession that hits any significant portion of the population will have political-will to find alternative outcomes, and probably won’t happen with the rapidity catastrophes are usually associated with. Eg. food aid, wealth redistribution, easy / no-interest credit, government jobs.
I’m not saying any and every political outcome won’t result in a catastrophe, but every food halting catastrophe is, by definition, a massive catastrophe.
You may have a wider point though: just in time manufacturing / delivery in the food industry means probably most of the world is a few meals away from panic.
> Is a recession a food supply halting catastrophe?
It can very easily turn into one, look at what is happening in Venezuela or in Russia. Or what may happen with Britain and the Brexit, with the additional difficulty there that warehouses have been replaced by trucks which means that food supply is endangered in case of unplanned border controls.
The majority of recessions probably don't turn in to food supply halting catastrophes.
I'd argue Venezuela has experienced a cascade of poor choices well beyond your average general decline in economic activity.
Do you really believe Britain is on the brink of a Brexit induced food supply halting catastrophe? I'd seriously like to believe trade relations are strong and that selling in to a 60+ million population market is a strong incentive to keep trade relations well lubricated.
Depending on the country this will not save you. You can have it in N banks, and still get back up to a fixed X amount, because the amount is per person, not per account.
And this assumes people have "savings".
Most people outside of the 10% echo chamber live paycheck to paycheck.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/09/shutdown-highlights-that-4-i...
https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/22/pf/emergency-expenses-house...
https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/financial-security-...