Majority of them actually, about every channel I sub to mentions about being demonetized for one reason or other and have alternative means to support them, and I do mean majority, guitar channel plays too many bars of a song, demonetized, channel covering ukraine war or other conflicts, demonetized, podcast has a guest, demonetized, news channel covers a topic, demonetized. YT is garbage, but that's just my personal perspective.
Banks require us to give them large amounts of trust. We deposit our money. They lend that money out, while the general public is under the impression that you deposit money and it stays there. The bank's very business model relies on all of their depositors not needing/withdrawing their money at the same time; should everyone happen to need/withdraw their money at the same time, the bank would fail. Fractional reserve banking at its finest.
A lot of people don't earn enough money to care. Just as most people don't understand how their TV, smartphone or kidney works they don't need to know how the banking industry works.
Government puts the deposit guarantee at 250k. That covers the vast majority of society and prevents riots in the streets.
>the general public is under the impression that you deposit money and it stays there
After decades of reruns and annual 24-hour marathons of "It's a Wonderful Life" I don't think the general public is unaware of this very basic aspect of the banking industry. I knew by the time I was 8 that the money was in Joe's house etc., and I didn't grow up in a household that had any particular knowledge of the banking & finance industry.
If you asked most people "Do banks keep all of the money everyone deposits in one big vault, or a bunch of little vaults, all of the time?" I think most people would at least have some vague notion that the answer is "Um, No?"
You don't have to trust the bank, as long as the bank is a FDIC member and you're not depositing personal business amounts of money you only need to trust the government to keep your deposit safe.
You're right, we don't have to trust them, because we know we cannot trust them. Regular banks are not keeping your money ready for you to withdraw. They are investing your money (the profits are for them, the losses are for the taxpayers), while they hope that not everyone want their money at the same time. Binance is accused to mix customer funds with their own funds. If it were a bank, that would be essentially a given. Not necessarily defending Binance, but ...
I don't think any modern (post-1600AD) bank ever just kept depositors money ready for withdrawal.
Mixing shareholder equity with depositor funds is a totally different thing. In general, depositors are a bank's most senior creditors (they get money before the electric bill gets paid) and shareholders are the least senior (they only get money after ever single other bill is paid). Mixing these funds makes a mess of that promise and should rightfully reduce trust that Binance would be willing or able to pay depositors in a crisis.
I'm not sure you read the article, it's not about shareholder equity...
> I don't think any modern (post-1600AD) bank ever just kept depositors money ready for withdrawal.
I'd have thought it was a more modern issue, but let's agree. And that seems in any case perfectly fine for most, or at least for many people. Incidentally, playing with customer money was what FTX has been doing, albeit it was amateur, no official oversight, ...
Eh, the FDIC is $250k per account, and total coverage in the fund is pretty small. I'd think we'd stop making blanket statements like this after seeing a couple large bank failures back-to-back in the US. If there are more, we won't be able to make all retail depositors while without significant additional tax revenue or currency debasement.
The stats I can find show that 95%+ of Americans have less than $100k of savings, and much of savings is in non-cash means, so $250k per account seems completely sufficient to consider that yes, people are protected.
If a bank failure like SVB was not covered ad-hoc and out of policy by FDIC, the economic impact of thousands of companies suddenly going bankrupt and tens of thousands more pulling out of other banks across the country would probably be pretty significant, even though the majority of the country isn’t directly vulnerable to FDIC limits.
How many people would you presume are vs aren't covered by FDIC in full? In joint accounts, the limit goes to $500k.
Sure, you've got some businesses with poor risk and treasury management who might be carrying a bunch of cash in a demand deposit account that isn't covered, but your vast majority of depositors will be fine.
This raises some pretty interesting thoughts to the table that I think many people don't see:
Yes, 95% of the US population don't have more than $250,000. Let's say that that 95% has on average something like $5,000 in saving/actives. The problem is not that the FDIC will not "honor" those millions of $5,000 checks. The problem is that most of those "actives" are actually managed by other entities, who "bulk load" the money into bank accounts. Adding those up will make more than $250,000 pretty quickly. So the question still remains: If a bank goes under, and say, a hedge-fund with retirement money is saving a good chunk of its customer funds in said bank under a consolidated account with more than $250,000. Will the FDIC cover the excess to make the hedge-fund whole?
It's like the farce that a lot of those Crypto centralized companies put in their websites: "We are FDIC insured" ... well yeah, their accounts might be FDIC insured, but it is only THEIR first $250,000 that is insured, not the first $250,000 of each of their customers.
a quick google search suggests that this is false. Given the FDIC's perfect 100 year track record of covering depositors, the burden of proof is on naysayers.
Nope. Banks are just the devil you know, so they get more of a free pass. You're desensitised to banks, but sensitive to anything else that may end up being "just as bad" as the banks.
Banks already exist, don't inflict more similar behaviour on us! Please!
The fact that Elm had traction and popular support (books/youtube tutorials/etc) most language or framework projects would kill for and then basically dropped is almost criminal in my mind.
The house hold sector wants to save net. The corporate sector wants to save net. The government wants to save net. Tell me, where is the money supposed to come from? Will you drop it with a helicopter?
At some point some people have to spend off their money.
Anti-competition isn't about that relationship, it's about how it changes the playing field between Pfizer and it's competition, MS as a platform holder doesn't compete with Activision the publisher, but Sony competes with MS as a platform holder, and that the deal would harm it's ability to compete with MS.
Pretty wild that nVidia/ARM deal or the Microsoft/Activision deal can and will be prevented by anti-competition agencies, but deals like these just fly by without a hitch. It's almost like there aren't any medical patents at all or that the competition in the field is super healthy.
SQLite by D. Richard Hipp also still maintains it by himself
I guess Linux kernel could also be considered still being maintained by a single person even though it's mostly contributions from other people, don't know the rules
