Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: eskimospy
....? Three questions for you:
1.) Do you know the reasons why the government has the power to seize banks through the FDIC? Do you agree with it, or disagree?
I do agree with the FDIC's ability to seize bank, and
only banks.
2.) Do you know that these other institutions serve many of the same functions as banks that the FDIC is already able to seize in case of insolvency?
The issue is that they also serve
other functions; so, until you can replace that word with "all," the Feds should not be authorized to seize complete control.
3.) If this is the case, why would you be okay with the government having the power to seize some, but not others?
See the answer to #2. I also do not trust the Government enough to limit their powers of seizure to those companies with some ambiguous relation to banking.
I mean, if you think the government shouldn't be able to take over failed banks to begin with and wish to see the FDIC abolished, I would disagree but I would understand your position. To say that because now the FDIC could seize insolvent investment banks along with regular banks that we're on a path to being able to nationalize Microsoft doesn't seem logically supportable.
Oh, and quit it with the 'government knows best' bullshit.
As far as I can tell, the only determining factor that the Government has identified, thus far, is the ambiguous notion of "too big to fail." With that being their only restriction, the potential seizure of companies like Microsoft doesn't seem so outlandish.
IOW, what checks and balances will be in place to prevent the Executive branch from reaching beyond the banking industry itself?
If you haven't noticed, the Government hasn't done much lately to demonstrate their grasp of cause and effect and the laws of unintended consequences. Give them an inch, and...
Facebook
Twitter