Yes, because there’s a trade off. Either the growth rate of the money supply has to be reduced, which would impoverish many politically connected actors, or the value of money will fall at a higher rate causing populist unrest. Either way the stock of money’s value is determined by the amount of goods that stock can acquire.
Over levered risk built on cheap money was a huge driver of inflation. They need to let those bets fail to let the money drain out of the system. But they won’t. This would have been a deflationary event.
Fractional reserve is inherently financially unstable. Investing deposits while simultaneously promising to pay them on demand is inherently financially unstable. There’s over 100 years repeatedly demonstrating this. Like clockwork, this exact scenario gets repeatedly demonstrated.
inflation weakens it, waters it down. Destruction is when it fails..
inflation can and probably will lead to destruction. but a bank failing not not being propped up like during the GFC is destruction.
Arguably, they should have let those banks fail. instead this inflation is a direct result of that propping up (plus a bunch of other money printing actions)
The bank did fail. The OP literally is a press release stating that the bank has utterly ceased to exist as a business and that the FDIC has established a temporary one in its place, while they look for another bank to buy the remaining assets. Shareholders are getting precisely jack shit.
So many people here are just imposing their incorrect assumptions about what's happening over the facts of what's actually happening. There's plenty of legitimate anti-government arguing about regulatory-capture to be done in other threads.