[mrzimmerman]

Honest question, how is (in the case of SVB and Select) making sure depositors don’t lose money while the bank itself is closed and assets sold off, holders of it’s debt (those who lent money to the bank), and those that owned the stock all lose their investments?

I understand the 2008 bailouts were actually giving money to the banks that were/are deemed “too big to fail” and allowing them to more or less operate as if nothing had happened (outside of regulation changes), which seems on its face inflationary. But that’s not happened in this case, correct?

Again, honest question if I seem to be missing something.

[chrismcb]

What is the actual question here?

[mattbrewsbytes]

Guarantee of everything tells the banks they can do whatever they want with everyone else’s money to possibly make more money with zero repercussions.

If people could get bailed out of their credit card debt, how reckless would peoples spending be?

[AnimalMuppet]

Zero repercussions? How about stockholders losing 100% of their investment, and management losing their jobs? Those sure look like repercussions to me...

[quickthrower2]

Biden said the depositors money is paid out of the insurance scheme that banks pay into. Investors get a bath naturally.