Topic: Is there room for a State Run Cryptocurrency? - page 2. (Read 5415 times)
This could work out well. At least it would have a built in community and some legitimacy (as long as it wasn't North Korea). Not sure they would make it open source though.
Would a state run cryptocurrency imply that it is backed by something? Also, maybe, since more people would be up for adoption and integrate it in their shops/stores if the state created it rather than an anonymous individual.
Fiat is backed by its usefulness in extinguishing tax liabilities imposed by the state, so the same utility has to be expected from a state run cryptocurrency.
Would a state run cryptocurrency imply that it is backed by something? Also, maybe, since more people would be up for adoption and integrate it in their shops/stores if the state created it rather than an anonymous individual.
The debt is on me (bank), and if I'm not able to return the debt (deposit), it will be passed to a guarantor on the debt (FDIC). If this guarantor is a state and can't pay the debt, it can either default or print more money (Fed), thus indirectly (I hope I won't have to repeat this again) passing the debt on to the taxpayers (US citizens). I see no logic at all in what you say or ask. You could just as well bumble something incoherent with a clever face.
In this scenario you still are the debtor. What you don't seem to grasp is that the money is loaned not given for free
There's no FED printing money either for FDIC. That's something you made up
It is not relevant to the point discussed whether I would remain a debtor or not. What's important here is who will pay the debts and with what means. Regarding the FED not printing money directly for the FDIC, it is not relevant here either. If it ever comes to choosing between default and printing more money, the FDIC will get all the money they would need, whether through the Treasury or directly from the FED, but this wouldn't change anything. You're just trying to cling to insignificant details and obfuscate the issue (that debts will be socialized).
What do you mean its not relevant? Thats the entire topic we are discussing. "Default" means can't pay the loan. Has FDIC borrowed any money? NO. The correct term you want is "insolvent"
Insolvency means the inability of a debtor to pay their debt. And now find the difference with your "default means can't pay the loan". And stop making value judgments, they speak more about you than me.
"Default" essentially means a debtor has not paid a debt which he or she is required to have paid.
"Insolvency" means that a debtor is unable to pay his or her debts. --> In accounting terms it means liabilities exceed assets
If liabilities of FDIC exceed its assets then FDIC is "insolvent" --> This is what we are talking about. Run on bank deposits that exceed the FDIC fund. We are not talking about FDIC defaulting on a loan. The correct term is "insolvent"
Why are you intentionally continuing to misinterpret my words?
As you again didn't notice, I was talking about bank defaults, and once again you ascribe to me what I didn't say. Default is the end result of insolvency, but this won't help you, since we are talking about socializing debts and not about the semantic differences between default and insolvency. Because you won't get it right at once, I repeat again, we are talking about socializing debts.
Also, since you took to nitpicking, I should point out that what you said before about default ("default means can't pay the loan") is essentially the same what you now say about insolvency ("insolvency means that a debtor is unable to pay his or her debts").
The debt is on me (bank), and if I'm not able to return the debt (deposit), it will be passed to a guarantor on the debt (FDIC). If this guarantor is a state and can't pay the debt, it can either default or print more money (Fed), thus indirectly (I hope I won't have to repeat this again) passing the debt on to the taxpayers (US citizens). I see no logic at all in what you say or ask. You could just as well bumble something incoherent with a clever face.
In this scenario you still are the debtor. What you don't seem to grasp is that the money is loaned not given for free
There's no FED printing money either for FDIC. That's something you made up
It is not relevant to the point discussed whether I would remain a debtor or not. What's important here is who will pay the debts and with what means. Regarding the FED not printing money directly for the FDIC, it is not relevant here either. If it ever comes to choosing between default and printing more money, the FDIC will get all the money they would need, whether through the Treasury or directly from the FED, but this wouldn't change anything. You're just trying to cling to insignificant details and obfuscate the issue (that debts will be socialized).
What do you mean its not relevant? Thats the entire topic we are discussing. "Default" means can't pay the loan. Has FDIC borrowed any money? NO. The correct term you want is "insolvent"
Insolvency means the inability of a debtor to pay their debt. And now find the difference with your "default means can't pay the loan". And stop making value judgments, they speak more about you than me.
"Default" essentially means a debtor has not paid a debt which he or she is required to have paid.
"Insolvency" means that a debtor is unable to pay his or her debts. --> In accounting terms it means liabilities exceed assets
If liabilities of FDIC exceed its assets then FDIC is "insolvent" --> This is what we are talking about. Run on bank deposits that exceed the FDIC fund. We are not talking about FDIC defaulting on a loan. The correct term is "insolvent"
The issue here is you don't know what you are talking about. Instead of researching by yourself and once and for all understand how it works you continue to argue w me.
Like I said, look it up for yourself or continue in ignorance. I don't care either way
The debt is on me (bank), and if I'm not able to return the debt (deposit), it will be passed to a guarantor on the debt (FDIC). If this guarantor is a state and can't pay the debt, it can either default or print more money (Fed), thus indirectly (I hope I won't have to repeat this again) passing the debt on to the taxpayers (US citizens). I see no logic at all in what you say or ask. You could just as well bumble something incoherent with a clever face.
In this scenario you still are the debtor. What you don't seem to grasp is that the money is loaned not given for free
There's no FED printing money either for FDIC. That's something you made up
It is not relevant to the point discussed whether I would remain a debtor or not. What's important here is who will pay the debts and with what means. Regarding the FED not printing money directly for the FDIC, it is not relevant here either. If it ever comes to choosing between default and printing more money, the FDIC will get all the money they would need, whether through the Treasury or directly from the FED, but this wouldn't change anything. You're just trying to cling to insignificant details and obfuscate the issue (that debts will be socialized).
What do you mean its not relevant? Thats the entire topic we are discussing. "Default" means can't pay the loan. Has FDIC borrowed any money? NO. The correct term you want is "insolvent"
Insolvency means the inability of a debtor to pay their debt. And now find the difference with your "default means can't pay the loan". And stop making value judgments, they speak more about you than me.
Haven't I already explained it that the Fed would print money for the FDIC after Congress would pass a corresponding act in case there is a need for such a legislation? Where did you get that the FDIC would be borrowing from the public? Please show me that part. Debts incur losses (if not paid indeed), they are just the two sides of the same coin. And if loss refers to income (according to your words), what the heck you began talking about losses when we were talking about debts?
If it comes down from it the FDIC would need to borrow money from the government via it's line of credit at the Treasury. Since the government is run "by the people and for the people" and since the public pays taxes to the government, the FDIC would essentially be borrowing from the public. So, in this case, the losses incurred from the uncollectible debts (bank defaults) will be paid by ordinary people directly. Now try to explain this to that guy who is ready to admit that I can't understand his explanations, but who still tries to make me explain to him how socializing debts (losses) works.
Dude, can you think logically for a second and stop being argumentative ? If you run a business and you needed an extra $1M. You borrowed $1M from your mom. Does it mean the debt is passed to your mom? You think this means your mom paid the debt?
The debt is on me (bank), and if I'm not able to return the debt (deposit), it will be passed to a guarantor on the debt (FDIC). If this guarantor is a state and can't pay the debt, it can either default or print more money (Fed), thus indirectly (I hope I won't have to repeat this again) passing the debt on to the taxpayers (US citizens). I see no logic at all in what you say or ask. You could just as well bumble something incoherent with a clever face.
In this scenario you still are the debtor. What you don't seem to grasp is that the money is loaned not given for free
There's no FED printing money either for FDIC. That's something you made up
It is not relevant to the point discussed whether I would remain a debtor or not. What's important here is who will pay the debts and with what means. Regarding the FED not printing money directly for the FDIC, it is not relevant here either. If it ever comes to choosing between default and printing more money, the FDIC will get all the money they would need, whether through the Treasury or directly from the FED, but this wouldn't change anything. You're just trying to cling to insignificant details and obfuscate the issue (that debts will be socialized).
What do you mean its not relevant? Thats the entire topic we are discussing. "Default" means can't pay the loan. Has FDIC borrowed any money? NO. The correct term you want is "insolvent"
I've said enough. Its obvious you don't know about accounting. You got everything wrong and you think you can make a blanket statement about the FED and inflation. LOL Please continue in ignorance
Haven't I already explained it that the Fed would print money for the FDIC after Congress would pass a corresponding act in case there is a need for such a legislation? Where did you get that the FDIC would be borrowing from the public? Please show me that part. Debts incur losses (if not paid indeed), they are just the two sides of the same coin. And if loss refers to income (according to your words), what the heck you began talking about losses when we were talking about debts?
If it comes down from it the FDIC would need to borrow money from the government via it's line of credit at the Treasury. Since the government is run "by the people and for the people" and since the public pays taxes to the government, the FDIC would essentially be borrowing from the public. So, in this case, the losses incurred from the uncollectible debts (bank defaults) will be paid by ordinary people directly. Now try to explain this to that guy who is ready to admit that I can't understand his explanations, but who still tries to make me explain to him how socializing debts (losses) works.
Dude, can you think logically for a second and stop being argumentative ? If you run a business and you needed an extra $1M. You borrowed $1M from your mom. Does it mean the debt is passed to your mom? You think this means your mom paid the debt?
The debt is on me (bank), and if I'm not able to return the debt (deposit), it will be passed to a guarantor on the debt (FDIC). If this guarantor is a state and can't pay the debt, it can either default or print more money (Fed), thus indirectly (I hope I won't have to repeat this again) passing the debt on to the taxpayers (US citizens). I see no logic at all in what you say or ask. You could just as well bumble something incoherent with a clever face.
In this scenario you still are the debtor. What you don't seem to grasp is that the money is loaned not given for free
There's no FED printing money either for FDIC. That's something you made up
It is not relevant to the point discussed whether I would remain a debtor or not. What's important here is who will pay the debts and with what means. Regarding the FED not printing money directly for the FDIC, it is not relevant here either. If it ever comes to choosing between default and printing more money, the FDIC will get all the money they would need, whether through the Treasury or directly from the FED, but this wouldn't change anything. You're just trying to cling to insignificant details and obfuscate the issue (that debts will be socialized).
Haven't I already explained it that the Fed would print money for the FDIC after Congress would pass a corresponding act in case there is a need for such a legislation? Where did you get that the FDIC would be borrowing from the public? Please show me that part. Debts incur losses (if not paid indeed), they are just the two sides of the same coin. And if loss refers to income (according to your words), what the heck you began talking about losses when we were talking about debts?
If it comes down from it the FDIC would need to borrow money from the government via it's line of credit at the Treasury. Since the government is run "by the people and for the people" and since the public pays taxes to the government, the FDIC would essentially be borrowing from the public. So, in this case, the losses incurred from the uncollectible debts (bank defaults) will be paid by ordinary people directly. Now try to explain this to that guy who is ready to admit that I can't understand his explanations, but who still tries to make me explain to him how socializing debts (losses) works.
Dude, can you think logically for a second and stop being argumentative ? If you run a business and you needed an extra $1M. You borrowed $1M from your mom. Does it mean the debt is passed to your mom? You think this means your mom paid the debt?
The debt is on me (bank), and if I'm not able to return the debt (deposit), it will be passed to a guarantor on the debt (FDIC). If this guarantor is a state and can't pay the debt, it can either default or print more money (Fed), thus indirectly (I hope I won't have to repeat this again) passing the debt on to the taxpayers (US citizens). I see no logic at all in what you say or ask. You could just as well bumble something incoherent with a clever face.
In this scenario you still are the debtor. What you don't seem to grasp is that the money is loaned not given for free
There's no FED printing money either for FDIC. That's something you made up
Haven't I already explained it that the Fed would print money for the FDIC after Congress would pass a corresponding act in case there is a need for such a legislation? Where did you get that the FDIC would be borrowing from the public? Please show me that part. Debts incur losses (if not paid indeed), they are just the two sides of the same coin. And if loss refers to income (according to your words), what the heck you began talking about losses when we were talking about debts?
If it comes down from it the FDIC would need to borrow money from the government via it's line of credit at the Treasury. Since the government is run "by the people and for the people" and since the public pays taxes to the government, the FDIC would essentially be borrowing from the public. So, in this case, the losses incurred from the uncollectible debts (bank defaults) will be paid by ordinary people directly. Now try to explain this to that guy who is ready to admit that I can't understand his explanations, but who still tries to make me explain to him how socializing debts (losses) works.
Dude, can you think logically for a second and stop being argumentative ? If you run a business and you needed an extra $1M. You borrowed $1M from your mom. Does it mean the debt is passed to your mom? You think this means your mom paid the debt?
The debt is on me (bank), and if I'm not able to return the debt (deposit), it will be passed to a guarantor on the debt (FDIC). If this guarantor is a state and can't pay the debt, it can either default or print more money (Fed), thus indirectly (I hope I won't have to repeat this again) passing the debt on to the taxpayers (US citizens). I see no logic at all in what you say or ask. You could just as well bumble something incoherent with a clever face.
Did you forget about your own claims dude? I was not talking about privatizing profits, which you obviously failed to see, but was talking about just one particular example of socializing losses, i.e. socializing bank debts. Nevertheless, I'm pleased that you finally looked at what Google says about this notion.
Your claim was that if FDIC fund was insufficient the Fed would print money to lend them. This is already not true. Credit comes from the Treasury who can not expand money supply
Even IF this was true, then its the FED that holds the debt not the public.
IF the FDIC is borrowing from the public then the public is holding debt making it an asset for the public (not a liability).
Debts & losses are not same things. Loss refers to income. Debt refers to asset / liability. You can't use these terms interchangeably unless you don't understand accounting
Please, if you have a point then explain yourself instead of giving straw men
Haven't I already explained it that the Fed would print money for the FDIC after Congress would pass a corresponding act in case there is a need for such a legislation? Where did you get that the FDIC would be borrowing from the public? Please show me that part. Debts incur losses (if not paid indeed), they are just the two sides of the same coin. And if loss refers to income (according to your words), what the heck you began talking about losses when we were talking about debts?
So, in this case, the losses incurred from the uncollectible debts (bank defaults) will be paid by ordinary people directly. Now try to explain this to that guy who is ready to admit that I can't understand his explanations, but who still tries to make me explain to him how socializing debts (losses) works.
Dude, can you think logically for a second and stop being argumentative ? If you run a business and you needed an extra $1M. You borrowed $1M from your mom. Does it mean the debt is passed to your mom? You think this means your mom paid the debt?
If FDIC borrows money from Treasury, then FDIC is debtor. Treasury/ creditor gets interest payments.
You're just reaching now. FDIC doesn't cover defaults. They insure deposits. Just forget your political bias and do some research. Sheesh
Did you forget about your own claims dude? I was not talking about privatizing profits, which you obviously failed to see, but was talking about just one particular example of socializing losses, i.e. socializing bank debts. Nevertheless, I'm pleased that you finally looked at what Google says about this notion.
Your claim was that if FDIC fund was insufficient the Fed would print money to lend them. This is already not true. Credit comes from the Treasury who can not expand money supply
Even IF this was true, then its the FED that holds the debt not the public.
IF the FDIC is borrowing from the public then the public is holding debt making it an asset for the public (not a liability).
Debts & losses are not same things. Loss refers to income. Debt refers to asset / liability. You can't use these terms interchangeably unless you don't understand accounting
Please, if you have a point then explain yourself instead of giving straw men
Haven't I already explained it that the Fed would print money for the FDIC after Congress would pass a corresponding act in case there is a need for such a legislation? Where did you get that the FDIC would be borrowing from the public? Please show me that part. Debts incur losses (if not paid indeed), they are just the two sides of the same coin. And if loss refers to income (according to your words), what the heck you began talking about losses when we were talking about debts?
So, in this case, the losses incurred from the uncollectible debts (bank defaults) will be paid by ordinary people directly. Now try to explain this to that guy who is ready to admit that I can't understand his explanations, but who still tries to make me explain to him how socializing debts (losses) works.
Haven't I already explained it that the Fed would print money for the FDIC after Congress would pass a corresponding act in case there is a need for such a legislation? Where did you get that the FDIC would be borrowing from the public? Please show me that part. Debts incur losses (if not paid indeed), they are just the two sides of the same coin. And if loss refers to income (according to your words), what the heck you began talking about losses when we were talking about debts?
Theres no protocol for FDIC getting money from the Fed. FDIC would get money from Treasury. I said this like 3 times already. You are explaining something you made up and does not reflect any factual evidence. Just doesn't work how you imagine. Accept it or go on being ignorant
Why do you read my posts so carelessly? In case the FDIC cannot cover the defaulted banks debts (which have become losses) by the available means (money from the Treasury), Congress would have to pass an act that would make the Fed print more money. It doesn't matter if this money is obtained by the FDIC from the Treasury or directly from the FED. You are trying to get away with petty semantics and particulars leaving out the whole point of passing debts (which are now losses) on to taxpayers indirectly. Read again, indirectly.
If FDIC borrows the money the debt isn't "socialized" because its the FDIC that holds the debt. You are claiming that FDIC borrows money and taxpayers has to repay the debt. WRONG. FDIC repays the debt. Theres no way for them to pass it off to taxpayers. They can pass it on to banks by raising premiums then banks can pass onto bank customers by raising fees.
You again failed to notice that I said "indirectly". How many times should I repeat it once you take notice? The FDIC repays the debt with the newly printed money, but the money which made up the debts didn't disappear into nothing. Is it that hard to understand?
Debt is not losses. Debt is an asset for lender and liability for borrower. If you borrow $1M to buy a house you didn't lose $1M. You have a liability. If the house falls below your buying price then you lose money. You can't even get simple concepts right
Uncollectible debts become losses and are written off as such. In effect, it means that you can't get back the money that has been loaned, but the money is still there, it just changed hands. This is just what happens when a bank defaults (read, has no more money). Gonna deny this?
As much as I am in favor of Bitcoin I don't think it is well tested enough. I would wait 5 years or so at the least, and take everything the community learned over that time into consideration before making a national cryptocurrrency.
That may make it sound as though I have a negative view of Bitcoin, but I don't. Bitcoin is the only digital currency even remotely close to meeting my standards for a national currency. In my opinion, a centralized 100% digital currency simply isn't acceptable.
Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have finally begun to make digital currencies a viable option.
I agree. Bitcoin is way too new to be used universally throughout any country by any means. There is also not sufficient technology in place is the majority of countries as smart phone access does not reach all corners of any country. That may make it sound as though I have a negative view of Bitcoin, but I don't. Bitcoin is the only digital currency even remotely close to meeting my standards for a national currency. In my opinion, a centralized 100% digital currency simply isn't acceptable.
Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have finally begun to make digital currencies a viable option.
Right. Even in rich countries like the US and EU not everyone has a smart phone or PC, not to mention internet. I suppose the government could distribute hardware wallets. Although chances are they'd screw that up worse than Butterfly labs. $600M for a website that doesn't even work proves their technological and fiscal incompetence.
As much as I am in favor of Bitcoin I don't think it is well tested enough. I would wait 5 years or so at the least, and take everything the community learned over that time into consideration before making a national cryptocurrrency.
That may make it sound as though I have a negative view of Bitcoin, but I don't. Bitcoin is the only digital currency even remotely close to meeting my standards for a national currency. In my opinion, a centralized 100% digital currency simply isn't acceptable.
Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have finally begun to make digital currencies a viable option.
I agree. Bitcoin is way too new to be used universally throughout any country by any means. There is also not sufficient technology in place is the majority of countries as smart phone access does not reach all corners of any country. That may make it sound as though I have a negative view of Bitcoin, but I don't. Bitcoin is the only digital currency even remotely close to meeting my standards for a national currency. In my opinion, a centralized 100% digital currency simply isn't acceptable.
Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have finally begun to make digital currencies a viable option.
As much as I am in favor of Bitcoin I don't think it is well tested enough. I would wait 5 years or so at the least, and take everything the community learned over that time into consideration before making a national cryptocurrrency.
That may make it sound as though I have a negative view of Bitcoin, but I don't. Bitcoin is the only digital currency even remotely close to meeting my standards for a national currency. In my opinion, a centralized 100% digital currency simply isn't acceptable.
Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have finally begun to make digital currencies a viable option.
That may make it sound as though I have a negative view of Bitcoin, but I don't. Bitcoin is the only digital currency even remotely close to meeting my standards for a national currency. In my opinion, a centralized 100% digital currency simply isn't acceptable.
Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have finally begun to make digital currencies a viable option.
Did you forget about your own claims dude? I was not talking about privatizing profits, which you obviously failed to see, but was talking about just one particular example of socializing losses, i.e. socializing bank debts. Nevertheless, I'm pleased that you finally looked at what Google says about this notion.
Your claim was that if FDIC fund was insufficient the Fed would print money to lend them. This is already not true. Credit comes from the Treasury who can not expand money supply
Even IF this was true, then its the FED that holds the debt not the public.
IF the FDIC is borrowing from the public then the public is holding debt making it an asset for the public (not a liability).
Debts & losses are not same things. Loss refers to income. Debt refers to asset / liability. You can't use these terms interchangeably unless you don't understand accounting
Please, if you have a point then explain yourself instead of giving straw men
Haven't I already explained it that the Fed would print money for the FDIC after Congress would pass a corresponding act in case there is a need for such a legislation? Where did you get that the FDIC would be borrowing from the public? Please show me that part. Debts incur losses (if not paid indeed), they are just the two sides of the same coin. And if loss refers to income (according to your words), what the heck you began talking about losses when we were talking about debts?
Hi,
I've been asking for opinions about a proposal that's come up here in Scotland. We're going to the polls in the next month to decide whether we want to split from England and become an independent country - basically the end of the United Kingdom that's lasted 400 years.
There's been plenty of discussion not only on whether we should, but whether we could (practically.) One of the major stumbling blocks is the use of GBP - the Bank of England has said a post-independent Scotland can't use it. Bit mean, but there you are.
I've been asking for opinions about a proposal that's come up here in Scotland. We're going to the polls in the next month to decide whether we want to split from England and become an independent country - basically the end of the United Kingdom that's lasted 400 years.
There's been plenty of discussion not only on whether we should, but whether we could (practically.) One of the major stumbling blocks is the use of GBP - the Bank of England has said a post-independent Scotland can't use it. Bit mean, but there you are.
I'm sorry, but why would Scotland even consider using a currency under the control of a foreign government?
So the question came up - If Scotland needs a new currency, why not set up a State-Run Cryptocurrency?
Here's my thoughts on the issue.
http://cryptocurrencymadesimple.com/should-scotland-set-up-a-state-run-cryptocurrency/
Also, it appears that Ecuador got there first:
http://cryptocurrencymadesimple.com/ecuador-nationalise-cryptocurrency/
Would love to here what you guys think.
Here's my thoughts on the issue.
http://cryptocurrencymadesimple.com/should-scotland-set-up-a-state-run-cryptocurrency/
Also, it appears that Ecuador got there first:
http://cryptocurrencymadesimple.com/ecuador-nationalise-cryptocurrency/
Would love to here what you guys think.
Adopting a national cryptocurrency would require the participation of all the citizens.
Scotland, as of 2012, has a home internet access and personal internet use rate of 67% and 71% respectively.
Potentially up to a third of its citizens could be excluded from the new crypto landscape. That is, for lack of a better word, tyrannical.
Further, existing banking infrastructure, private and public debts, monetary instruments, etc. would all go into major upheaval at the sudden imposition of a cryptocurrency.
Cryptocurrency must be allowed to grow organically - not imposed, IMHO.
Haven't I already explained it that the Fed would print money for the FDIC after Congress would pass a corresponding act in case there is a need for such a legislation? Where did you get that the FDIC would be borrowing from the public? Please show me that part. Debts incur losses (if not paid indeed), they are just the two sides of the same coin. And if loss refers to income (according to your words), what the heck you began talking about losses when we were talking about debts?
Theres no protocol for FDIC getting money from the Fed. FDIC would get money from Treasury. I said this like 3 times already. You are explaining something you made up and does not reflect any factual evidence. Just doesn't work how you imagine. Accept it or go on being ignorant
If FDIC borrows the money the debt isn't "socialized" because its the FDIC that holds the debt. You are claiming that FDIC borrows money and taxpayers has to repay the debt. WRONG. FDIC repays the debt. Theres no way for them to pass it off to taxpayers. They can pass it on to banks by raising premiums then banks can pass onto bank customers by raising fees.
If you explained how I just did then you can argue the concept "privatized profits, socialized losses" NOT "socialized debts". You can't pass off your debts like that. You can default or you can restructure
Debt is not losses. Debt is an asset for lender and liability for borrower. If you borrow $1M to buy a house you didn't lose $1M. You have a liability. If the house falls below your buying price then you lose money. You can't even get simple concepts right
Did you forget about your own claims dude? I was not talking about privatizing profits, which you obviously failed to see, but was talking about just one particular example of socializing losses, i.e. socializing bank debts. Nevertheless, I'm pleased that you finally looked at what Google says about this notion.
Your claim was that if FDIC fund was insufficient the Fed would print money to lend them. This is already not true. Credit comes from the Treasury who can not expand money supply
Even IF this was true, then its the FED that holds the debt not the public.
IF the FDIC is borrowing from the public then the public is holding debt making it an asset for the public (not a liability).
Debts & losses are not same things. Loss refers to income. Debt refers to asset / liability. You can't use these terms interchangeably unless you don't understand accounting
Please, if you have a point then explain yourself instead of giving straw men
Haven't I already explained it that the Fed would print money for the FDIC after Congress would pass a corresponding act in case there is a need for such a legislation? Where did you get that the FDIC would be borrowing from the public? Please show me that part. Debts incur losses (if not paid indeed), they are just the two sides of the same coin. And if loss refers to income (according to your words), what the heck you began talking about losses when we were talking about debts?
Jump to: