this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
281 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
59596 readers
3235 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Republicans deregulate banks every time they get into office.
They are against things like the CFPB but they aren’t getting rid of the FDIC which is the good faith backing of the US banking system. The 1% isn’t so liquid that they wouldn’t lose huge amounts of money with a full scale banking crisis
I don't know how relevant FDIC is to the 1%; it only covers 250k, and only in things like checking and savings accounts and CDs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation
Most of the 1% wealth is probably tied up in things like stocks and real estate, or maybe they diversify all over the place.
It doesn't only cover 250k. There are different rates of coverage per account type, number of account holders, and bank. You can have millions of dollars covered by FDIC by moving portions of your money around to different accounts and different banks.
The FDIC coverage wouldn’t be what they would be worried about. They wouldn’t have their accounts much above FDIC limits.
My point is that the FDIC serves to prevent a banking crisis that would limit their ability to liquidate their assets and realize their wealth
Ah gotcha, that makes sense. Thanks.