[luckylion]

Why are you pretending that Roku would get $250k and not a cent more? They won't. The bank has plenty of assets, they'll take a 5% loss for their strategy of taking on counter party risk, not a 99% loss.

Everyone is going to be able to pay their employees, unless they're looking for a reason not to.

[macintux]

I was replying primarily to this sentence.

> For depositors it's made whole, not bailed out, when of course it's no less a bail out.

It's not a bail out for depositors.

[luckylion]

But if they were to get 100% of their deposits, even if the bank's assets would only cover e.g. 95%, it would be a bail out, wouldn't it? The government would step in and cover the difference with tax payer money.

Because that seems to be what some people are demanding, but they don't use the term bailout, because of the connotations.

[macintux]

Yes, that would be a bailout. That’s not what the government is talking about (yet).

[luckylion]

But that's what everyone is talking about when they say the government "should make depositors whole", because otherwise they won't be getting their whole money back. And clearly nobody would say "I want the government to follow the known procedures, get your congressman on the phone today". They want the government to deviate from the known and agreed upon procedures: they want a bailout.

There wouldn't be any necessity to say anything at all if that wasn't their demand.