#SiliconValleyBank #banks #us #usbank #americanbank

00:00 – INTRO
01:06 – FOR
02:33 – AGAINST
04:11 – MORE

After 2007-08, bank bailouts are back in fashion. Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse have brought them into sharp focus. Many argue that bailouts were necessary to avoid a meltdown. Others argue that too big to fail has become even bigger to fail, and both moral hazard and systemic risk have increased.

Geneva is the chair of the World Schools Debating Championship – the youngest ever person to hold the position. In the past, she was the treasurer of the Oxford Union, the head of Oxford Debating, and reached the semifinals of both the World Universities Debating Championship and the European Universities Debating Championship.

In this video, Geneva looks at the arguments for and against the new bank bailouts. She also synthesizes both sides of the argument at the end of the video.

Fair Observer is an independent nonprofit media organization that has published more than 2,500 voices from over 90 countries, including statesmen, retired military officers, former diplomats and leading professors, along with some of the brightest young public intellectuals from around the world.

Check us out:
Follow Fair Observer on
►LinkedIn:
►Facebook:
►Instagram: ►Twitter: …(read more)

LEARN MORE ABOUT: Bank Failures

REVEALED: Best Investment During Inflation

HOW TO INVEST IN GOLD: Gold IRA Investing

HOW TO INVEST IN SILVER: Silver IRA Investing

In 2008, the world economy experienced a severe economic crisis, and the American government bailed out several banks to avoid their imminent bankruptcy. This move helped stabilize the financial sector, but it also raised questions about government intervention in the free market economy.

The bailout package was criticized as an unfair use of taxpayers’ money, as it seemed like the government was rewarding the banks for their reckless behavior that led to the crisis. Besides, there were concerns that the bailout would create moral hazard- a situation where banks would take increasing financial risks, knowing that they would be bailed out if they failed.

Fast forward to 2023, and there are already debates on whether there should be another round of bank bailouts. Some economists and policymakers argue that the world’s economy is still fragile, and a financial crisis could occur anytime soon. Therefore, there is a need for governments to have a contingency plan to prevent such a scenario from happening.

However, there are also opposing views that a bailout package could do more harm than good. For instance, by bailing out failing banks, the government is essentially rewarding bad actors and creating moral hazard. Moreover, a bailout package creates a dependency culture where the banks always expect the government to bail them out when things go wrong.

The FO° debate on the subject of bank bailouts has been a significant source of contention among various stakeholders. FO° debate is an online platform that allows members to contribute to debates on various topics. In the FO° debate on bank bailouts, members have brought up critical points for and against the idea of another bailout package.

Those in support of a bailout suggest that it is essential to prevent a financial crisis that could have severe consequences for the global economy. They argue that a bailout package would restore confidence in the financial system, thereby boosting investors’ confidence and stimulating economic growth.

On the other hand, those against a bailout package suggest that it would only reward bad actors and create moral hazard. They point out that bailouts only serve to delay an inevitable market correction, which would only lead to a more severe crisis in the future.

In conclusion, the issue of bank bailouts in 2023 remains a topic of debate among economists and policymakers. There are valid points on both sides of the argument, and ultimately, the decision to have another bailout package depends on how policymakers view the potential risks and benefits of such a move.