Maybe I’m missing something here, but my take on this is that if the strength of the middle class is contingent upon government guarantees of bank deposits, then the middle class never really existed in the first place.
The article makes no sense. I think what is going on is that the stock holders were to be the last paid in case of liquidation, but now it is depositors who will be reimbursed last.
>>Maybe I’m missing something here, but my take on this is that if the strength of the middle class is contingent upon government guarantees of bank deposits, then the middle class never really existed in the first place.
When “money people” speak of the middle class, they mean small investors and wealthy retirees. They act like wage earners don’t exist and that the only productivity in America is moneychanging.
Good call, plus this particular author likes “scary” scenarios that rarely come to pass.