Always up to date with the latest of Jim Rogers, John Stossel, Marc Faber, Peter Schiff and Ron Paul!
Watched it three times to really understand its meaning, but some things are still a bit weird. A private fdic? What the??
or rather several competing deposit insurance companies. Not just a privatised govt monopoly.
as an example, although europe does have a FDIC-like agency, it only insures deposits up to 20000 EUR and only 90% of it.so what a lot of banks are doing is join a private insurance organisation which insures all deposits, and they pay a premium for that.and they're actually advertising that fact to their customers, especially right now, the way it should be.although the system in europe is not ideal (the private insurance has some kind of state guarantee, too...) it showw you the idea of a private FDIC.
So without a FDIC, you would still have deposit "protection" because the banks would just have some kind of insurance? But if the private sector can take care of this, why do we have a FDIC? Why does the government (and therefore the taxpayer) needs to guarantee all bank accounts?
Dr. Ron Paul
one of the biggest unknown truths with FDIC insurance is that something like 98% of all deposit accounts are under this limit, with most not even approaching the then $100k and now $250k limits.wealth has been disproportionally accelerated upwards in the past 3 decades. if we see Argentina like inflation from the early 2000, the middle classes savings could become worthless overnight.I think without the FDIC people would be more cautious about where they store their wealth. Thereby they will keep a closer eye on and watch what and how their respective bank makes loans and manages itself.It is this reliance on external forces (most of the time government) that allow our liberties to be taken from us.end the fed!