As someone who belongs to “all of us”, i vote to not bail us out if shit hits the fan. No need to ask me when it happens, OK? No really, it’s nice of you but we really dont need to be bailed out. You are welcome :)
Iceland let it's banks default, and is now doing rather well.
In fact, bank failure and then having the government only guarantee ~$50k of funds per person is a good way to hand wealth to the people and take it from corporations and the super wealthy.
I was going to write a shitty reply to this, but the more research I did, the more it seems actually this went pretty well for them. UK and NL governments that lost deposits in the Icelandic banks mostly got their cash back (eventually), there was recession and unemployment but not that much worse than other countries, and the country is in good standing again with the markets.
I would note that this is much much easier to do if your investors are foreign, rather than domestic pension funds, so it doesn’t bring down the government, though.
> good way to hand wealth to the people and take it from corporations and the super wealthy
Hence the power that be try to prevent it best they can. In some cases, unsuccessfully (Iceland) and in others, a bit more successful (the US). But seemingly, they're only able to delay the inevitable, not completely prevent it.
Is everyone just glossing over the fact that the feds make a profit on bailing the banks out? Seems like a win win to take over ownership in the event of a bank failure.
Was this definitely not accounting trickery? Like even the way money is created is intentionally convoluted and approximately 1% of the population even attempts to understand it. Can we really trust the accounting of bank bailouts which stood to be unpopular when the accounting produced a convenient outcome? Has anyone plausible analyzed this to a convincing level of detail?
This was explained by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show ad neausum in 2008 and was common discourse for years after. No. It's not accounting trickery. Rather than allow the company aka the bank to go fully bankrupt the government simply forces a sale of the shares of the bank to the government. The original stock owners basically take a cap gains loss (potentially based on their cost basis). The bank then continues to operate as normal. This prevents a run on the bank and keeps it stable. Then 2-3 years later the stock recovers and the government sells its shares. Since they bought low this is highly profitable. Anyway yes and yes. The 2008 bailout ended up making a profit for tax payers. Thanks Obama.
If there was a reliable profit to be made, a third party would do it.
I suspect the real profit is made by also being in a position to adjust laws and rules to make sure your investment survives, as well as turning low rated bonds effectively into government bonds. All those things are at the expense of others in the bigger picture.
3rd parties don't have the capital to front the losses. That's the whole point for the government to do it. The feds get the advantage that they basically get to force the existing creditors to sell at a loss. Presumably that's what everyone here wants. The existing owners to pay a penalty on the failure and for everyone else to remain whole if possible. Well that's exactly how a bank "bail out" works. So what's the actual problem? The only one's "hurt" are the owners who miss managed the business.
We have similar FDIC insurance in the US. The solution is companies have many, many deposit accounts to still get the insurance, mostly for payroll purposes.
Could easily change the rules so real humans get government insurance, but companies do not.
And perhaps have the insurance pay out only once per year per person too, so that when multiple bank failures happen at once there is not much benefit to splitting funds.
But that defeats the purpose of depositor's insurance. The purpose isn't to make sure people get their money back; that's only a side effect. The point of depositors insurance is to avoid bank runs, which can be contagious.
The cause of the run isn't that important, and if you banking system collapses because companies pull out all their money you're not in a better position than if individuals do.
Big corporate borrowed the money already, so it will stay with some (other) big corporate in this scenario. The bankers who did it will see that coming and move their money elsewhere and keep their money as well.
What you suggest will hit normal persons.
What we really need is people going to jail that let stuff like that happen. Let them bear actual responsibility for their 1,000k+ salary.
The issue is that major US banks are systematically important to the US and also everyone else. Practically nobody cares about Icelandic banks - not even their depositors if their deposits were protected by the state (which they were).
If a bank like JP Morgan were to fail, the event would be without exaggeration cataclysmic to everyone, even small local banks and credit unions. Even if ultimately the clients of JPM could be made whole, the weeks of uncertainty and frozen funds would single handedly obliterate the financial systems across the globe. It's the age old adage: "if you get margin called and get wiped out, it doesn't matter that you'd have recovered just 2 weeks later". The world as a whole is deeply leveraged. It's that leverage that affords us the ability to supercharge all the growth, from AI to drugs research, insurance, EV... everything. But that leverage comes at a cost, which is that systemically important institutions failing can have disastrous cascading de-leveraging effects.
I'm sure we'd more or less all survive and the world would recover, but it would likely be a 2008 GFC style scenario most likely.
The collapse of Landsbanki was absolutely not a nothingburger. Risked triggering a 21st Century Cod Wars: the UK government was forced to use organised crime laws to freeze its UK assets to protect UK savers in Icesave, to whom the Icelandic government did not clearly intend to extend protection.
Things have changed since 2009. It would be private credit which fails this time, not the banks.
Private credit is not supposed to be systemically important and it's not supposed to need bailing out. Maybe we'll find out how true that is in practice.
Why would you think that? You think pension funds and governments didn't invest this time? Because that's the problem, governments either investing everyone's money directly (to fund their own loans and expenditures, or should I say fund their own expenses using pension money without admitting that's what they're doing to pensioners) or indirectly force investments (you'll find pension funds worldwide are legally only allowed to invest in loans to the government and specific things the government allows (like politicians' charities). "For safety", of course, no other motivations there)
We can check if governments went back to their own tricks or not after 2008. What were the interest rates after 2008? Quick check ... yep, they went back to the old tricks.
When "shit hits the fan". Either governments really cut spending, leave pensioners without income and see their new loan interest spike to 10%+ (if they're lucky) ...
OR they do a massive cash injection saving the banks, and increase spending.
Which would you chose? It doesn't even matter. If you were the government and chose the first option, you would quickly find suddenly everyone across the political spectrum uniting to depose you. A decent chunk of people would literally not have any other choice but to do that.
(of course, as per usual governments aren't behaving "correctly" according to economic theory. If you take the old "government as spender of last resort" governments should have radically cut spending in the last 10 years, because there was no need for extra spending. If you take the new "government invests pensions", then of course government spending needs to be investment. In other words, governments only allowed to spend like a normal investor, expecting and demanding a return. Ie. no social spending increases. In practice governments increased spending at any cost, and so we're in trouble again)
Oh and should I mention that for any other entity investing pension money in loans to yourself is a very unique thing in law. It is THE ONLY financial crime where corporate structures do not protect management. You're the worldwide president of ExxonMobil? Doesn't matter. You do with employee pension money what government does with it? (ie. loan it to yourself, in this case ExxonMobil). You go to jail. Directly and long-term. In America. In Spain. In Japan. In fucking Vatican city.
Pensions will have exposure, probably through private credit, and probably in the range of 5% to 10% of assets. It's a lot, and it'll hurt people. But I'm not at all sure it is enough to require a bailout.
US government direct investment exposure is not likely to motivate a bailout in my view. The government might be motivated to bail people out for other reasons but not because they've lent too much.
Everyone else is literally everyone else. It doesn't matter what you have or what you do for a living, the collapse of the financial system is going to affect you negatively.
If a large private corporation is allowed to grow to the size of “the financial system”, regulators have failed their responsibilities, and need to unwind that immediately.
Wild that we all lived exactly the same way before AI
Really changed so little in my life. I just use chatgpt instead of Google search now
It's being marketed as some ground breaking revolutionary change when all it is is a better widget
Remove it and the worst that will happen is that I'll go back to writing my emails and my code by hand - something I've done for the last 20 years anyway
I think it's a real pity that of the "four boxes of liberty", Musk has interfered with the first three: soap, Twitter; ballot, the lawsuits about million dollar rewards for voting; jury, selecting his jurisdiction, dismantling enforcement institutions via DOGE.
On the plus side, it's only "interfered with" rather than "completely eliminated".
Still, glad I have an ocean between me and the USA.
Who wouldn't? In the real world, the top elected officials and the justice system are covering up sex trafficking of children among the US elites, and that's only the tip of the iceberg. The system is psychotic and what's strange is there haven't been more people like Luigi.
And the importance of the justice system working properly is that when it fails constantly and deliberately, many will come to the conclusion that the only option left is murder.
Well, I really wish that anyone, no matter their income level or job description, is immune against murder; or are we just throwing out civilization now?
It's of topic but, what if our current civilization is failing them? Like, of the system is broken and an individual acts to protect themselves or their family, the individual is still blamed.
That's how revolution starts.
And there are many revolutions that we (in USA) claim are good! Our own, from Britain, the French one. Of course others are bad (depending on where your vantage)
It's just that, sometimes the murder is (retrospectively) justified. Like in a war, they're killing us so we kill them.
But class war isn't fought with uniformed combatants.
And, in USA at least, many of our politicians are bought quite blatantly. If they aren't serving the citizens perhaps they have thrown out civilization and the social contracts first?
It's all quite complicated.
In general though, murder bad and government should serve the poorest citizens forst, corporations last.
> “As someone who belongs to “all of us”, i vote to not bail us out if shit hits the fan.”
You have alighted onto an interesting topic: “bail out”. I believe a closely related word on the semiotic chain is “retreat”.
I don’t feel that our culture would wish to “retreat” from AI. I know quite a few managers and programmers who absolutely delight in the fruits of the industry.
No doubt the titans of the AI industry, who stand to lose their shirts, would also like a bailout. As would the workers under their leadership. Finally, if the governments of the world are taking “AI” technologies as seriously as I think they are, then I should expect a bailout in the event of bubble go boom is inevitable.
> No doubt the titans of the AI industry, who stand to lose their shirts
No they don't.
They stand to lose points on their dollar-denominated high scores. If every one of the AI companies went belly-up, their execs would all live very, very comfortably for the rest of their lives even if they never got another job.
Let's call it a "figurative expression" then. You could say it would be a "retreat" to not bailout AI. A turn away. Run. For example if the investment in data centers using borrowed money is not paid back on-time, and the investments fail, and there is no bailout, resulting in a cascade of business failures, then the I would say we "retreated" from AI. Retreat from the Technology. Retreat from the Economics of AI services. Hoo-Haa!
For example, if crypto failed there might be a "retreat" as far as crypto is not a bedrock of the banking industry. But I'm probably wrong in my characterization of crypto. Whatever. Not like Crypto can be compared to Tulip Mania. Now there's a retreat.
Unfortunately, the votes for a regime of permanent bailouts were already in when Ben Barnacke made his famous speech proposing helicopters over cities if deflation reached a crisis level (though the Internet says Milton Friedman thought of this first). Some later observed "the helicopters only seem to go to Wall Street", which isn't surprising.
Obvious ones are those who can extract value from this companies now ( high salaries/bonus etc ), swapping worthless paper for real assets, Nvidia and their share holders etc. Investors who hold short positions etc.
If you loan me 10 pounds and I simply keep it or spend it but refuse to pay you back - aren't I the winner and you the loser?
Claiming that the market is a positive sum system, because I use that 10 pounds to invent something that changes world productivity is missing the fact that there is a constant stream of huge energy inputs from the sun - that's ultimately what allows the local entropy to decrease - not that you lent me 10 pounds.
I borrow you 10 money i use to buy my chair-making tools. I make the chair, sell it 20 money, then pay you 12 money back for the service rendered. Basically money is supposed to be a tool that help us creating capital by exchanging goods.
But aren't you confusing the means of exchange with the creation of value.
The creation of value is me taking energy from the sun and converting that into a chair.
You lending me money is you extracting value from artificially being a middleman.
It would have been more efficient to write an IOU to the tool maker, make the chair and pay back the tool maker directly.
Now sure that IOU isn't that fungible - however that highlights one of the absurdities ( if I understand it correctly ) of the current banking system where private banks are able to in effect issue IOU's on their own basis but put mine and your name on it as a guarantor - resulting in the public having to bail out banks when they over extend.
> The creation of value is me taking energy from the sun and converting that into a chair.
Which requires money to do. If you borrow that money to enable using solar to make furniture, then you can repay that money with interest and keep a profit for yourself. Both the borrower and lender come out with more money than they had when they started.
That's not a zero-sum game.
Now, it's 100% true that borrowing and lending can (and often is) done in a way to make it a zero-sum game, but that's just because the world (including the big-time corporate world, and especially including major IT companies) is full of scammers.
Originally, money is a IOU and basically a tool to trade between communities. The individualization of capital (capitalism basically) made place for private loan and artificial middlemen like i wrote in the previous comment. And yes, you can work without it, but this is the way things works in the west since the 18th century, 17th century in GB.
------------
To be clear about how banks work: they don't loan money, they create it via accounting. You go to a bank and ask for 20 money at 10% interest, they will write in their asset column "20 money" and in their liability "20 money", give you the newly created 20 money and create a "coupon" of 2 money (sorry that's the french word, i don't know how englo people call that). If needed (like a liquidity crunch), they can sell the coupon worth 2 money at 1 money, or even your loan worth 20 money 18 to another bank, but they will keep the liability in their own books. If the liability become higher than the assets, bankruptcy. Notice that the money you put in the bank isn't touched.
The money you put in bank, they invest in low risk assets like government bonds, through their investment funds. Since those are locked assets, if too many people want their money back at the same time, the bank enter a liquidity crunch, have to sell the locked assets at a discount, and put the losses on their own funds, in the "liability" column.
Wether it's caused by a credit crunch or because loans aren't being repaid, if a bank "liability" column has a higher value than its "assets" column, they enter bankruptcy. The state auctions customer-linked investment off (i think that's more complex and depends on the local laws, in my country you have a transfer provision where the customer and the bonds linked to some of his bank accounts are transfered to a new bank) where those are slowly sold at a higher value than the failing bank would have gotten, slowly reimbursing the customers. It is _very_ rare that bank customers loose any money in the long run (they do suffer opportunity cost though, their assets are locked and don't earn any interests, so in a way, they loose a little). in the 2007-2008 crisis, the issue is that banks split loans weirdly and did a lot of accounting shenaningans tying each international bank to each others.
True but the opportunity cost is truly lost. Entropy comes for everyone. If we spend a lot of money digging holes in the ground then filling them again, maybe no money was lost.
Sure - but that's a meta question of whether the current economic/political systems are delivering good allocation of resources for whatever target function you favour.
And that's complex - even in your simple example you can argue that people have likely improved their capability to dig and fill holes - and the latter skill is particularly valuable in the UK right now.
But money talks, I guess.