[nostrebored]

Right, but the FDIC explicitly says large amounts may take longer in the status quo. The only reason to have money in the bank is for a reasonably safe, liquid form of money.

If they aren’t providing safety or liquidity, why should you use them?

[iamthirsty]

They are providing safety and liquidity, your statement is laughable, honestly.

The safety is personal — no one can rob your home when you're gone and steal the money under your mattress because it's not under there, it's in a bank.

And in regards to liquidity, if you can tell me the exact day, time, and amount you tried to pull out of a consumer bank (large household bank names) and instead of getting cash in hand the bank told you "sorry, we spent your money on loans, we don't have any to give you", I'd love to see it.

Bonus points if then the FDIC didn't cover it.

Banks provide both safety and liquidity at the consumer level. It would also be a really bad idea to continue to encourage everyone to pull money out of banks and hold it in cash — both economically and personally. People largely benefit from banks existing, that's, well, why they exist!

[UncleEntity]

> Right, but the FDIC explicitly says large amounts may take longer in the status quo.

Right, you can’t ramp up the printing presses instantly — which is literally what they would do if they had to.

I think people are missing the point that if it ever got so bad the FDIC had to worry about covering everyone your biggest worry would be the roving gangs looking for the Mormon food caches.