[DH]

So Mr. Banker, “depositor bailouts” you say. I guess you mean people who put their savings into a bank for two reasons. One is to hold until they can spend it and the other is to have a return on investment (interest). Right?

Now, explain to me the difference in me taking my money and placing it into a company’s stock to hold and hopefully receive a return on my money in the way of increased stock valuation? The same principle applies to life insurance companies.

Now, with that in mind, why is it good to bail out banks while it’s bad to bail out other enterprises? Worse yet, why is it good to take my hard earned (and wisely managed money) to give (excuse the term...I mean confiscate my money through taxes) to give to banks that are poorly managed?

I await your reply with great excitement and anticipation, knowing that the reply will certainly “get my mind right.”

[TheConservativeBanker]

First, you seem to deliberately disregard the fact that I stated that I am in favor of phasing out deposit insurance. It ultimately facilitates imprudent banking and causes depositors to not be prudent in their choice of banks.

My point was that “bank bailouts” do not generally put money in the pockets of bankers or their shareholders. They generally prevent deposit holders from losing their money when a bank fails.

If you really read my posts, you would have seen that I neither defend nor promote bailouts. I merely suggest that we correctly identify who is being bailed out.

BTW, did you take a “nasty pill” with your coffee this morning.

Cheers.