[jacurtis]

Both you and the parent are correct.

The "bailout" for consumers is that they lower interest to 0%. That's what we did in 2007. If people can refinance their homes from 7% to ~2% then they save a fortune and it spurs buyers back into the market and current homeowners to move around and shuffle inventory.

Of course the Parent comment is also correct because banks get bailed out by low interest rates, but the government also bailed out several banks directly. Corporate bailouts are always a debatable topic. In one way we should let bad businesses fail, they failed because of the risks and choices they made and bailing them out is just inviting those mistakes to happen again. But on the flip side, consumers do need banks (as much as we refuse or hate to admit it). Yes banks make money off of us, but we as consumers also need banks. Which is why bailouts get approved.

We have seen this movie before. I'm not sure why everyone is debating the ending. We watched and lived the ending. It wasn't pretty in the middle there, but the market eventually recovered. Here we are getting ready to rewind and watch the movie again.

[intalentive]

>consumers do need banks

We need banking services like accounts and transactions but there’s no good reason that couldn’t be operated as a public utility.

[_heimdall]

I'm strongly opposed to the idea of citizens using government-run banks accounts. The Soviets did this and proved how easy it is for the government to control what people buy, down to the individual level a la social credit scores.

Even if the government today were to wield that power safely its simply too much risk to load that gun and hand it to all future administrations.