#financial regulation failures

[signode-blog]

The 2008 Market Crash: Causes, Impacts, and Lessons Learned

l. Introduction The 2008 market crash stands as one of the most significant financial upheavals in modern history, reshaping economies and livelihoods around the globe. Understanding the causes and impacts of this crisis is crucial for navigating future economic challenges. ll. Background of the 2008 Market Crash A. Economic conditions leading up to the crash Prior to 2008, the United States…

[iwan1979]

will it lead to financial melt down if there r gonna b more banks to n shutdowns within next few weeks? Silicon Valley Bank's shutdown is the US' largest failure since Washington Mutual went bust in 2008 during the financial crisis.

[necroromantics]

How To Write ASPD / Psychopathy

half educational, half ramble. dedicated to the creepypasta fandom.

(check out my how-to-write bipolar + ticci toby here)

What is ASPD?

Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) is characterized by a disregard for others rights and feelings. It's a personality disorder, which means the mindsets and behaviours associated with this condition are deeply ingrained and maladaptive.

The current DSM-5 diagnostic criteria states that to be diagnosed with ASPD, a patient needs to have a long-term (occurring since at least age 15), consistent, and persistent history of three or more of the following:

failure to conform to social norms; repeatedly breaking rules/laws that may be grounds for arrest

deceitfulness; lying, tricking others for personal gain

impulsivity or a failure to plan ahead

irritability and aggression; fighting, hostility, outbursts

reckless disregard for the safety of self or others

irresponsibility; repeated failure to comply to work or financial obligations

lack of remorse; being indifferent to or rationalizing having mistreated or hurt others

ASPD, by definition, can only be diagnosed in people who are 18+. Minors cannot have ASPD due to treatment and intervention reasons. A minor who exhibits traits of ASPD will be diagnosed with Conduct Disorder.

At it's core, though it may seem like people with ASPD are just hostile and insensitive and rude, is a defense mechanism formed in childhood, typically in response to an abusive environment. Self-preservation and a "dog eat dog world" mindset are very common in those with ASPD. Everything is about doing what it takes to retain social dominance, control, and ultimately safety. Boredom and risk-taking is also very common in people with ASPD, and many people with this condition have never had proper, healthy influences in childhood to teach them proper manners, social norms, morals, or how to regulate their emotions and aggression.

It is a chronic condition that affects about 1-3% of the population. Its very prevalent in the prison population as well. ASPD not only causes a person to potentially cause harm to others, but is a condition that very negatively impacts the patients themselves.

(Note: The term "sociopathy" is typically used to refer to an extreme presentation of ASPD. "Psychopathy" may sometimes be seem as a very very extreme presentation of ASPD)

What is Psychopathy?

Psychopathy refers to a set of traits/issues that might be seen in patients. It is NOT a diagnosis. If psychopathic traits cause dysfunctional behaviour in an individual, they will most likely be diagnosed with ASPD.

Psychopathy is now most commonly used in research settings to use it as a term that describes certain patterns and behaviours. It is something professionals study, not diagnose.

The traits related to psychopathy are:

manipulative behaviour; superficial charm, persistent lying, deceiving others

grandiose sense of self

lack of remorse or guilt; lack of empathy, callousness, shallow emotional expressions

reckless lifestyle; need for stimulation, parasitic (constantly takes from others), lack of realistic long-term goals, impulsivity

antisocial behaviour; poor behavioural control, early behavioural problems, trouble with the law in youth

Not all psychopathic people fit the criteria for ASPD, not all are disordered by their traits, and not all people with ASPD are considered psychopathic. But there is a very big overlap.

Psychopathy is typically only recognized in a forensic or research setting. It is often wrongfully used in the media to describe people who are serial killers, abusive, or used to dehumanize others.

Personally, I believe that media and creators need to move away from the terms psychopath/sociopath. They have far too much negative connotation that only exists to demonize people who suffer with unconventional traits. If you want to write psychopathy correctly, do your research on what it looks like in its presentation, and just drop the label.

What are some harmful tropes with ASPD/Psychopathy in media?

ASPD and Psychopathy have been tossed around in many different settings as ways to cheaply create an evil villain, or a cold calculated monster, or a reckless criminal. There has been only one instance in my lifetime of watching hundreds of movies and shows that I have seen an accurate, humanizing portrayal of ASPD. (That show is House MD by the way, I highly recommend if you want to see good representation).

So what are some of the tropes to acknowledge and avoid?

1. Psychopathic serial killer

Have you seen American Psycho? Great movie. Don't do that. While the character Patrick Bateman is commonly associated with the terms "narcissist" and "psychopath", he also is a satirical character who is a very dramatized and exaggerated presentation of some psychopathic traits.

I will be honest. A lot of real-life serial killers do suffer from various mental health conditions, but correlation is not causation. In the Creepypasta fandom we are surrounded by different characters who are almost all serial killers, and people like to make things easy and just throw the label of "psychopath" onto them and call it realistic. This is very cheap, and very harmful.

If you want to write a psychopathic serial killer character, then acknowledge how harmful, fear-mongering, and dehumanizing this trope is towards people who actually suffer from these traits.

2. ASPD synonymous with abusive behaviour

ASPD is a disorder that does cause people to do and say things that will harm others in some way. Cluster B personality disorders are commonly seen as 'social disorders', as in they cause dis-order in interpersonal relationships, and in response to society. Borderline personality disorder (BPD) for example may cause somebody to threaten harm to themselves in response to percieved abandonment, or to have intense fights due to emotional dysregulation.

ASPD in particular may cause someone to be insensitive towards others problems, lack morality, be aggressive or hostile, put others down, or get into reckless situations. This is why they are disorders. Because they cause significant and serious problems in the persons life.

It is not pretty, and it's not fair, and yes, people with disorders may cause harm to others due to behaviours associated with their condition. But there is a difference between causing harm, and abusing another person.

Lying to someone is not inherently abusive. Being reckless is not inherently abusive. Being an insensitive asshole is not inherently abusive. To not understand the nuance and the complexity of these situations is to completely demonize and stigmatize a serious mental health condition. You don't call people with BPD abusive for their actions inherently, because you acknowledge they are hurting and only doing what they know to cope with this hurt. Of course it's unhealthy. That's what a disorder is. That does not make someone abusive by default. Anyone with any condition, even neurotypical people can be abusive.

3. Cold, emotionless robot

People with ASPD can and do feel emotion. People with psychopathic traits can and do feel emotion. They get sad, disappointed, disgusted, happy, excited, jealous, hurt, angry. There is nothing in the ASPD criteria that states anything about emotional presentation or experience.

In psychopathy, it is mentioned that there may be a shallow emotional expression. This may also be present in ASPD. This means that while a person will feel emotions, it is either beat down or brushed off, or completely repressed. The emotional repression may come from childhood abuse where they were punished for expressing emotions, or expressing emotions had caused them harm.

Lacking emotions/emotional expression is instead highly linked to Schizoid Personality Disorder, and is apart of the criteria for said disorder.

Media protraying people with ASPD/psychopathy as cold, emotionless, calculating robots is another trope used to dehumanize people with mental health issues. It's used to make people with ASPD seem evil or not having feelings that could be hurt. In reality, nearly everything a person with ASPD does, is their dysfunctional way of protecting themselves from being hurt.

People with ASPD may lack the emotional capacity for things such as empathy and remorse, though. Its common that they are unable to care for, or feel upset for others suffering. They may also be unable to feel guilt. This criteria is seen in about 51% of people with ASPD and is associated with more extreme presentations.

Do you headcanon anyone to have ASPD?

Yes, but I don't like to use the label on them. I do write a lot of antisocial mindsets into my headcanons for Ticci Toby, and I heavily write ASPD into my OC, Tobin.

For Toby, his presentation of ASPD comes in the form of rebellion, not understanding/following social norms, recklessness, and a strong desire for power, dominance, and control. I write this as his subconscious response to the trauma he faced in childhood. As a child Toby was constantly put down and made to feel small and powerless at the hands of his father. In order to make sure his father abused only him and not his mother and sister, Toby would act out and be a troublemaker. I think that he would have a lot of ASPD behaviours and views on the world.

For my OC Tobin, he's pretty similar in presentation in regards to power/control, and not following social norms. He is very prone to justifying and rationalizing his behaviours to the point he doesn't feel remorse for the harm he causes. Tobin grew up in a very unstable and abusive environment where, like Toby, he did what he needed to do to get by. He never learned proper morals, norms, regulation, etc. But Tobin does care about others. He takes care of his little sister, and loves his girlfriend, and is very protective. Tobin is still a complex human being with more to him than just being an antisocial insensitive prick.

How can I write a character with ASPD?

Do proper research. Not on Reddit, or Quora, or WebMD. I mean go find trusted, scholarly articles and read real scientific papers and studies on ASPD. Do research into how/why it forms, the mindsets, the symptoms and their presentation, the neuroscience even.

Humanize your characters. While it's fun to throw around a bunch of negative and toxic traits to a character you want people to see as 'bad', it's lazy character development. Give them good, positive traits as well. People are very complex, and nobody will fit in to the mold of good or bad. Make them human enough where someone wont look at your character with ASPD and assume everyone with ASPD are monsters.

But also, don't water down the disorder. ASPD does cause harm to the patient and the people in their life. I've seen it a lot where people will try to fight against stigmatization by completely glamorizing the disorder. "People with ASPD aren't inherently bad! They don't actually hurt others or act hostile or say insensitive things"... Yes we do. And it causes many problems. And that is why its a disorder.

Personally I don't like to throw the ASPD label onto my characters even if I do write them to have ASPD because I feel like it just boxes them in. If you write a character with ASPD, try doing it in a way where a professional would be able to tell they have ASPD without you even mentioning the label.

Remember that ASPD is COMPLEX. It varies vastly in its presentation, its a disorder that is life-consuming and the dysfunctional beliefs and behavioural patterns are deeply ingrained and consistent throughout many different areas in someones life. It's a label to describe preexisting issues. It's something that is highly associated with childhood trauma, and drug addiction, and general suffering for the person dealing with their own chaotic mind.

The biggest problem I see that frustrates me is the way people throw around the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath", especially when someone just wants to add a layer of edginess onto their character. Remember that you are dealing with a condition that real people suffer from every day. If you can't handle it respectfully, and if you would demonize someone with ASPD in real life for acting as your character does, just don't write it in. Keep the label separate. We don't need any more stigmatization and misinformation.

I know this was very long, but it's such a multifaceted and complex issue and I've seen it enough times in the fandom to be frustrated enough to write this. If you have any questions, want more advice or information, please feel free to ask away in my ask box 🔥

[sexymemecoin]

The Rise of DeFi: Revolutionizing the Financial Landscape

Decentralized Finance (DeFi) has emerged as one of the most transformative sectors within the cryptocurrency industry. By leveraging blockchain technology, DeFi aims to recreate and improve upon traditional financial systems, offering a more inclusive, transparent, and efficient financial ecosystem. This article explores the fundamental aspects of DeFi, its key components, benefits, challenges, and notable projects, including a brief mention of Sexy Meme Coin.

What is DeFi?

DeFi stands for Decentralized Finance, a movement that utilizes blockchain technology to build an open and permissionless financial system. Unlike traditional financial systems that rely on centralized intermediaries like banks and brokerages, DeFi operates on decentralized networks, allowing users to interact directly with financial services. This decentralization is achieved through smart contracts, which are self-executing contracts with the terms of the agreement directly written into code.

Key Components of DeFi

Decentralized Exchanges (DEXs): DEXs allow users to trade cryptocurrencies directly with one another without the need for a central authority. Platforms like Uniswap, SushiSwap, and PancakeSwap have gained popularity for their ability to provide liquidity and facilitate peer-to-peer trading.

Lending and Borrowing Platforms: DeFi lending platforms like Aave, Compound, and MakerDAO enable users to lend their assets to earn interest or borrow assets by providing collateral. These platforms use smart contracts to automate the lending process, ensuring transparency and efficiency.

Stablecoins: Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies pegged to stable assets like fiat currencies to reduce volatility. They are crucial for DeFi as they provide a stable medium of exchange and store of value. Popular stablecoins include Tether (USDT), USD Coin (USDC), and Dai (DAI).

Yield Farming and Liquidity Mining: Yield farming involves providing liquidity to DeFi protocols in exchange for rewards, often in the form of additional tokens. Liquidity mining is a similar concept where users earn rewards for providing liquidity to specific pools. These practices incentivize participation and enhance liquidity within the DeFi ecosystem.

Insurance Protocols: DeFi insurance protocols like Nexus Mutual and Cover Protocol offer coverage against risks such as smart contract failures and hacks. These platforms aim to provide users with security and peace of mind when engaging with DeFi services.

Benefits of DeFi

Financial Inclusion: DeFi opens up access to financial services for individuals who are unbanked or underbanked, particularly in regions with limited access to traditional banking infrastructure. Anyone with an internet connection can participate in DeFi, democratizing access to financial services.

Transparency and Trust: DeFi operates on public blockchains, providing transparency for all transactions. This transparency reduces the need for trust in intermediaries and allows users to verify and audit transactions independently.

Efficiency and Speed: DeFi eliminates the need for intermediaries, reducing costs and increasing the speed of transactions. Smart contracts automate processes that would typically require manual intervention, enhancing efficiency.

Innovation and Flexibility: The open-source nature of DeFi allows developers to innovate and build new financial products and services. This continuous innovation leads to the creation of diverse and flexible financial instruments.

Challenges Facing DeFi

Security Risks: DeFi platforms are susceptible to hacks, bugs, and vulnerabilities in smart contracts. High-profile incidents, such as the DAO hack and the recent exploits on various DeFi platforms, highlight the need for robust security measures.

Regulatory Uncertainty: The regulatory environment for DeFi is still evolving, with governments and regulators grappling with how to address the unique challenges posed by decentralized financial systems. This uncertainty can impact the growth and adoption of DeFi.

Scalability: DeFi platforms often face scalability issues, particularly on congested blockchain networks like Ethereum. High gas fees and slow transaction times can hinder the user experience and limit the scalability of DeFi applications.

Complexity and Usability: DeFi platforms can be complex and challenging for newcomers to navigate. Improving user interfaces and providing educational resources are crucial for broader adoption.

Notable DeFi Projects

Uniswap (UNI): Uniswap is a leading decentralized exchange that allows users to trade ERC-20 tokens directly from their wallets. Its automated market maker (AMM) model has revolutionized the way liquidity is provided and traded in the DeFi space.

Aave (AAVE): Aave is a decentralized lending and borrowing platform that offers unique features such as flash loans and rate switching. It has become one of the largest and most innovative DeFi protocols.

MakerDAO (MKR): MakerDAO is the protocol behind the Dai stablecoin, a decentralized stablecoin pegged to the US dollar. MakerDAO allows users to create Dai by collateralizing their assets, providing stability and liquidity to the DeFi ecosystem.

Compound (COMP): Compound is another leading DeFi lending platform that enables users to earn interest on their cryptocurrencies or borrow assets against collateral. Its governance token, COMP, allows users to participate in protocol governance.

Sexy Meme Coin (SXYM): While primarily known as a meme coin, Sexy Meme Coin has integrated DeFi features, including a decentralized marketplace for buying, selling, and trading memes as NFTs. This unique blend of humor and finance adds a distinct flavor to the DeFi landscape. Learn more about Sexy Meme Coin at Sexy Meme Coin.

The Future of DeFi

The future of DeFi looks promising, with continuous innovation and growing adoption. As blockchain technology advances and scalability solutions are implemented, DeFi has the potential to disrupt traditional financial systems further. Regulatory clarity and improved security measures will be crucial for the sustainable growth of the DeFi ecosystem.

DeFi is likely to continue attracting attention from both retail and institutional investors, driving further development and integration of decentralized financial services. The flexibility and inclusivity offered by DeFi make it a compelling alternative to traditional finance, paving the way for a more open and accessible financial future.

Conclusion

Decentralized Finance (DeFi) represents a significant shift in the financial landscape, leveraging blockchain technology to create a more inclusive, transparent, and efficient financial system. Despite the challenges, the benefits of DeFi and its continuous innovation make it a transformative force in the world of finance. Notable projects like Uniswap, Aave, and MakerDAO, along with unique contributions from meme coins like Sexy Meme Coin, demonstrate the diverse and dynamic nature of the DeFi ecosystem.

For those interested in exploring the playful and innovative side of DeFi, Sexy Meme Coin offers a unique and entertaining platform. Visit Sexy Meme Coin to learn more and join the community.

[beyondthisdarkhouse]

My mom comes over a couple of times a week to help me keep the apartment tidy and to body-double so I can focus on work.

"Mind if I open this?" she asked me this morning, holding up an envelope I'd tossed onto a pile of clutter the week before. I hadn't opened it because I already knew what it was—the decision of my appeal against being judged "medically ineligible" for permanent disability benefits, which are almost double what I get now and would cover rent and food. Absolutely everyone, from disabled advocacy groups to the legal aid lawyer who helped prep me for the hearing, told me that there was basically no chance I'd get deemed eligible on the first appeal. Normally it takes 2 or 3 application-appeal cycles (9-10 months each) for people to get into the program.

"Go ahead," I told her, and then turned back to other work. I've got a lot to do given how well my Kickstarter is doing, whether it's setting up the behemoth new printer I got off Kijiji for 10% of its original value, to scheduling work meetings with my newly-hired personal assistant. I've always got so much on my plate, and the number of hours in the day I can focus on it is countable on my hand that's missing fingers. And I'd love to get a sewing pattern out for my "just the sleeves, please" costume idea out in enough time for people to use it for Halloween, but I still need to make mock-ups and hire someone who's used to producing digital sewing patterns.

"I think," Mom said quietly, leafing through the letter, "that you won."

The letter ends like this:

Conclusion: The Panel finds that the Appellant meets the definition of "severe handicap" as is set out in the Regulation and therefore reverses the Director's decision.

Yeah. It means I won.

The benefits program will require another eight weeks to double-check my financial eligibility using information they already have, and to process my new program status to reflect an increased benefit rate and a different health insurance program.

Right now I'm really feeling this line from Komarr, by Lois McMaster Bujold: "But do you know--well, of course you could, but… the business with [throwing yourself at] the brick wall. Failure, failure was grown familiar to me. Comfortable, almost, when I stopped struggling against it. I did not know achievement was so devastating."

It felt like my whole life ended in a flaming wreck when I had to give up counselling. I lost part of who I was when I did that, and spent years telling myself I'd pull up my socks at any minute and go right back to it. But the truth is, I am not capable of doing that job as well as it needs to be done, and it's one of those jobs where you half-ass things at the peril of the vulnerable people who trust you.

And what if... the worst had happened, and I lost it all, and then in clawing my way out of the pit, trying to get purchase on absolutely any kind of survival I could, I found my way to something new and solid and real. What if it was okay after all?

I'm still having trouble believing it, but the letter keeps saying what it said.

I'm gonna go sew things, and see if it feels any more real in the morning.

[tinywitchdraws]

Modern AU head-canons for these Dune characters:

Feyd Rautha

Glossu Rabban

Piter de Vries.

ohh okay this is interesting. I am not really that used to headcannons/ AUs, as I'm honestly new to engaging with fanfic in general so my apologies in advance if it doesn't totally fit, but here are my headcannons and ideas for how I'd do a modern AU with these characters.

Feyd Rautha:

Feyd Rautha is the heir apparent to a large spice mining company- in this case, you could substitute an oil or mining company for modern AU. The company culture is highly toxic, but Feyd likes that. He's known to churn through interns and keeps a non-existent sleep schedule.

His overall dynamic is finance bro meets basically any character from succession (think a slightly more financially literate Roman Roy). He buys luxury items just to fit in, however he has just enough taste so that it actually works. He considers most of these purchases a waste of money, but also his right and/or part of the job as heir.

As part of the Baron's inner circle, he has knowledge of most of the company's inner workings and takes great personal pride in digging up as much information as possible on the people he doesn't already control. He will often go to conferences and events just to get a read on competition. He secretly longs for someone to take that kind of an interest in him, but no one has just yet- many still think that he's too young and unpredictable to inherit.

After all- there is that rumor that he tried to kill the Baron.

Glossu Rabban

If Feyd is the more of a Roman Roy, Rabban is Conor. He had ambitions at the company which ended in failure, and has been reassigned to lobbying. Rabban is attempting to trade off of his industry connections to get into politics, if he can. He's aware his current position is tenuous at best and that he might need to make his own career. As the family industry is regulated, everyone basically hates this pipe dream of a career ambition. His moves are too obvious and clumsy, and he often tries to influence someone only to find that Feyd has already discussed the business with them. He's not a total failure, but his family just doesn't appreciate any success outside of financial success.

Piter de Vries

Piter is a math genius that works in data modeling and analytics. The Barron and Feyd love that he makes them money, however he's abrasive personality wise. He's known to use a myriad of drugs recreationally and at work, just because solving the same problems sober is too boring for him. The company has tried to hire assistants that can help him or at least explain his reports palatably, but he insists on doing the work himself and his own data models for fun in C. Not C++, C. The entire department rests on his shoulders and the Baron is weighing if Piter is worth putting up with. He gets the work of a department done on one salary, but also insists on making MILF jokes about lady Jessica basically any time she's within his zip code.

Would love to know your thoughts <3 Thanks for this ask!

[justinspoliticalcorner]

By now, every pundit in America has their own 2024 election take, mostly confirming their prior opinions. Every Republican has a take, too, which is that Americans voted resoundingly for — well, for whatever policy that Republican cares about, from opposition to transgender rights to support for prayer in schools. And of course, progressives, especially younger ones, have every right to feel afraid, angry, or alienated. But the data tells a specific story, not a choose-your-own-adventure. And that is that swing voters voted mostly out of economic insecurity and discontent. They actually liked Kamala Harris more than Donald Trump (Harris’ favorability was 48 percent, compared to 44 percent for Trump). But Harris was the incumbent, and incumbents don’t win elections when people think the economy is bad. This is not just an American phenomenon. As the Financial Times reported, in every developed country in the world, the incumbents lost this year. This is unprecedented. If, like me, you’re being kept awake at night thinking about this election, this explanation helps. Yes, people were willing to put up with Trump’s criminality, coup attempts, and extreme xenophobia, and that is still terrible. Many were also on board with scapegoating immigrants for our economic woes, which is as factually preposterous as it is morally offensive.  But they didn’t vote for MAGA. They didn’t vote against women, or wokeness, or coastal elites, or climate regulation, or government regulation in general, or queer people. Not directly, anyway. They voted against the incumbent party, like every other developed country in the world this year. The shock waves from the Covid-19 pandemic — inflation, empty shelves, housing prices — are global, and this is a global trend. Everywhere in the world, voters have chosen to throw the bastards out because of the economy.  In fact, if you look closely at the Financial Times data, Trump actually did worse than most other non-incumbents. Yes, he won a clear victory. But it was not as big a victory as parties in France, Italy, or even New Zealand.  [...] So what happens when the emperor is revealed to have no clothes — or even worse, the garb of the same financial “elites” he claims to be against? Obviously, the MAGA faithful will stay with Trump no matter what — after all, his failure to bring about revolution in 2017 spawned the QAnon conspiracy theory, which said he was really about to do it, any day now. But the economic voters that gave him his victory could abandon Trump if he can’t deliver results. And he cannot. While Trump is busy trying to throw his enemies in jail, he has no plan — not even “concepts of a plan” — for the kitchen-table concerns that actually put him into office. Maybe, just maybe, voters will see they’ve been conned. That is the best we can hope for.

Jay Michaelson for Rolling Stone on Donald Trump and how he'll make America worse off (11.11.2024).

Jay Michaelson wrote in Rolling Stone that some of who voted in Donald Trump due to “muh economy” or “muh grocery costs” could be in for a shock.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Jim Morin, Miami Herald

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

December 17, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Dec 18, 2024

Yesterday, Trump gave his first press conference since the election. It was exactly what Trump’s public performances always are: attention-grabbing threats alongside lies and very little apparent understanding of actual issues. His mix of outrageous and threatening is central to his politics, though: it keeps him central to the media, even though, as Josh Marshall pointed out in Talking Points Memo on December 13, he often claims a right to do something he knows very little about and has no power to accomplish. The uncertainty he creates is key to his power, Marshall notes. It keeps everyone off balance and focused on him in anticipation of trouble to come.

At the same time, it seems increasingly clear that the wealthy leaders who backed Trump’s reelection are not terribly concerned about his threats: they seem to see him as a figurehead rather than a policy leader. They are counting on him to deliver more tax cuts and deregulation but apparently are dismissing his campaign vows to raise tariffs and deport immigrants as mere rhetoric.

As the promised tax cuts are already under discussion, interested parties are turning to deregulation. Susanne Rust and Ian James of the Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday that on December 5, more than a hundred industrial trade groups signed a 21-page letter to Trump complaining that “regulations are strangling our economy.” They urged him to gut Biden-era regulations and instead to “partner” with manufacturers to create “workable regulations that achieve important policy goals without imposing overly burdensome and impractical requirements on our sector.”

They single out reductions in air quality, water quality, chemical, vehicle, and power plant environmental regulations as important for their industries. They also call for ending the “regulatory overreach” of the Biden administration on labor rules, saying those rules “threaten the employer-employee relationship and harm manufacturers’ global competitiveness.” They want an end to “right-to-repair” laws, a loosening of the rules for how and when companies need to report cyber incidents, and the replacement of mandated consumer product safety rules with “voluntary standards.”

They also call for cuts to the Biden administration’s antitrust efforts and for looser corporate finance regulations. On December 12, Gina Heeb reported in the Wall Street Journal that Trump’s advisors are exploring ways “to dramatically shrink, consolidate or even eliminate the top bank watchdogs in Washington,” including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

As Catherine Rampell explained in the Washington Post today, Congress created the FDIC in 1933 to protect bank deposits so that a bank’s customers can trust that mismanaged banks won’t lose their money. The FDIC also oversees those banks so that they are less likely to get into trouble in the first place. Congress created the system after people rushing to get their money out before a collapse actually created the very collapse that they feared, with one bank failure creating another in a domino effect that dug the economy even further into the crisis it was in after the Great Crash.

But the insurance money for those banks comes from fees assessed on the banks themselves, so abolishing the FDIC would save the banks money.

When he learned that Trump’s advisors are eyeing cuts to the FDIC, Princeton history professor Kevin Kruse commented: “When I lecture about New Deal banking reforms, I note that some of the key measures—like Glass Steagall—were repealed by the right with disastrous results like the 2008 financial meltdown, but ha ha, no one will ever be stupid enough to kill FDIC and bring back the old bank runs.”

Ben Guggenheim of Politico was the first to report that twenty-nine Republican members of Congress are also quick off the blocks in getting into the act of promoting private industry, calling for the incoming president to end the program of the Internal Revenue Service that lets people file their taxes directly without using a private tax preparer. Other developed countries use a similar public system, but in the U.S., private tax preparers staunchly opposed the public system. When more than 140,000 people used the IRS pilot program this year, they saved an estimated $6.5 million. Republicans called for its end, warning it is “a threat to taxpayers’ freedom from government overreach.”

But for all their faith that Trump will deregulate the economy, economic leaders seem to think his other promises were just rhetoric.

Brian Schwartz of the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that business executives have been lobbying Trump to change his declared plans on tariffs. The president-elect has vowed to place tariffs of 25% on products from Canada and Mexico, and of an additional 10% on products from China. He claims to believe that other countries will pay these tariffs, but in fact U.S. consumers will pay them. That, plus the fact that other countries will almost certainly respond with their own tariffs against U.S. products, makes economists warn that Trump’s plans will hurt the economy with both inflation and trade wars.

Schwartz reported that some companies and some Republicans are hoping that Trump’s tariff threats are simply a bargaining tactic.

Trump supporters say something similar about his vow to deport 11 to 20 million undocumented immigrants, hoping he won’t actually go after long-term, hardworking undocumented people. On December 10, Jack Dolan reported in the Los Angeles Times that the resort town of Mammoth Lakes, California, depends on migrant labor, and on December 15, Eli Saslow and Erin Schaff of the New York Times reported the story of an undocumented worker brought to the U.S. as an infant, who is now trying to figure out his future after his beloved father-in-law voted for Trump. Two days ago, CNN reported on Trump-supporting dairy farmers in South Dakota who depend on undocumented workers, insisting that Trump will not round up undocumented immigrants, no matter what he says.

One person who is not discounting Trump’s threats is Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). McConnell will give up his leadership position in January and has told his colleagues he feels “liberated.”

McConnell appears to be taking a stand against Trump’s expected appointee for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy speaks often against vaccines, and after the New York Times reported that the lawyer working with Kennedy to vet potential HHS staff petitioned federal regulators to take the polio vaccine off the market, McConnell—a polio survivor—warned: “Efforts to undermine public confidence in proven cures are not just uninformed—they’re dangerous. Anyone seeking the Senate’s consent to serve in the incoming administration would do well to steer clear of even the appearance of association with such efforts.”

McConnell has also been vocal about his opposition to Trump’s isolationism. He is a champion of sending military support to Ukraine and, after he steps down from the leadership, will chair the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, the subcommittee that controls military spending. “America’s national security interests face the gravest array of threats since the Second World War,” McConnell says. “At this critical moment, a new Senate Republican majority has a responsibility to secure the future of U.S. leadership and primacy.”

McConnell will also chair the Rules Committee, which gives him a chance to stop MAGA senators from trying to abandon the power of the Senate and permit Trump to get his way. McConnell has said that “[d]efending the Senate as an institution and protecting the right to political speech in our elections remain among my longest-standing priorities.”

That last sentence identifies the current struggle in the Republican Party. McConnell is showing his willingness to prevent Trump and MAGA Republicans from bulldozing their way through the Senate in order to undermine the departments of Justice, Defense, and Health and Human Services, among others. But when he talks about “protecting the right to political speech in our elections,” he is talking about protecting the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that permits corporations and wealthy individuals to flood our elections, and thus our political system, with money.

It is those corporations and wealthy individuals who are now lining up for tax cuts and deregulation, but who don’t want the tariffs or mass deportations or isolationism Trump’s “America First” MAGA base wants.

Trump and his team have been talking about their election win as a “mandate” and a “landslide,” but it was actually a razor thin victory with more voters choosing someone other than Trump than voting for him. He will need the support of establishment Republicans in the Senate to put his MAGA policies in place.

At yesterday's press conference, he appeared to be nodding to McConnell when he promised: “You’re not going to lose the polio vaccine. That’s not going to happen.” McConnell’s fierce use of power in the past suggests that the Senate’s giving up its constitutional power to bend to Trump’s will isn’t likely to happen, either.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[warsofasoiaf]

Re-evidence of defense contractors influencing U.S. Foreign Policy, the massive lobbying they do, the connections they have with various top level officials like Dick Cheney, blatant corruption with Raytheon and Qatar. And to clarify they are not starting wars for profit they are taking advantage of the underlying conditions to advance their financial interests. Obviously they are not puppet masters behind the scenes but to deny their influence is really perplexing.

So...lobbying and political connections that amount to...not much? Selling the things that they...already produce? They do...exactly what other industries and sectors do...and yet that somehow makes them this nebulous group of war profiteers? Even though, unlike many other industries, arms exports are strictly controlled requiring high-level government negotiations to set up export contracts under International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Even though unlike other industries, the defense industry typically operates under a monopsony purchasing environment? This to me, sounds like a clear case of double standards.

Heck, I have my problems with the defense industry and the contracting world, and I encourage transparency and anti-corruption efforts in the defense industry (and I wish we had more firms so we didn't have the Big Six - the Cold War ending gutted the defense industry which stifles creativity and innovation), but where are they "set(ting) defense policy, establish(ing) security partnerships, or do(ing) anything that would actually create the conditions for larger wars." That's what I was asking for - proof that a defense contractor contributed to creating a war so they could increase their market share. You've admitted that they're not "puppet masters," so I don't really see your point other than "they happen to manufacture arms and people buy them to later kill other people with."

If your objection is just a moral "I don't think they should make money selling defense equipment," sorry, but that's simply not realistic. Sure, it'd be nice to not ever have a need for defense equipment, but I think the past fifteen years have proven that the absence of robust defense industrial base actually incentivizes further conflict as aggressive actors take advantage of geopolitical weakness. The anemic nature of the European defense market directly contributed to the failure to deter Russia from their expansionist gains. China's industrial capacity has lent it highly aggressive territorial actions out of the belief that other Asian nations simply won't risk opposing them. State manufacturing has proven to not be as effective, either from a cost or a quality perspective. So the arms industry is here to stay.

If the objection is "industry uses lobbying to promote electoral candidates which end up advancing their interests," well, unfortunately that's simply a large bugbear in the US electoral system. Heck, the defense industry isn't even the greatest offender - healthcare is by far the largest lobbying sector in the United States. And as I mentioned before, the defense industrial sector typically operates under constraints that are quite restrictive compared to other sectors.

So if anything is "perplexing," it's this perpetual conspiracy theory that the defense industry, despite actually being quite modest compared to other sectors, is somehow this great big boogeyman. I mean, it's not particularly perplexing to *me* since if there's one thing I understand quite well, it's the contempt that outsiders have toward the profession of arms, but from an objective standpoint, yeah, it'd be pretty baffling.

-SLAL

[metamatar]

[...] the bill, as it stands, "criminalises and regulates constitutionally acceptable behaviours" and introduces elements of moral policing. The representatives highlight concerns about autonomy and choice, particularly regarding adult consenting cohabitation, commonly referred to as "live-in relationships". They assert that the bill's provisions would erode the hard-won rights of women and undermine their struggles for equality within both domestic and public spheres.

Critics point out that while the bill claims to offer uniformity across religious lines, it disproportionately targets the Muslim minority community, criminalising aspects of their personal and marital practices without adequately incorporating positive and progressive elements from Muslim family law. The bill's focus on rectifying perceived defects in Muslim law while ignoring similar issues within Hindu family laws has raised concerns about bias and selective application. “Majorly, it seeks to introduce changes in the provisions that are perceived as defective in the Muslim law, such as unequal inheritance, polygamy and the practice of halala ( by which a person can only remarry his divorced spouse after she has married someone else, consummated the marriage and thereafter obtained a divorce). In one sense the Bill has terminated the application of Muslim family law and has further criminalised the Muslim man and woman. Ironically, the Bill has not incorporated positive and progressive aspects of Muslim law such as the compulsory payment of mehr by the husband to the wife which provides financial security of the wife, nikahnama (marriage contract) which allows for the spouses to add legally binding conditions that are mutually acceptable, and a 1/3 limit rule for willing away property. Had the intention of the Bill genuinely been to bring about gender justice, such provisions could have been extended to women of all communities,” an excerpt from the statement reads.

Furthermore, the bill's silence on critical issues such as custody, guardianship, and adoption of children, as well as the rights of queer and transgender persons within families, has been deemed unacceptable by the women's groups. They argue that the bill's failure to address these issues reflects a lack of inclusivity and consideration for marginalised communities. Of particular concern is the retention of archaic provisions, such as the restitution of conjugal rights, which has been challenged for its constitutional validity. Critics argue that such provisions perpetuate gender-based violence and undermine fundamental rights, including the right to live with dignity and freedom of choice. The groups also maintain that this law denies or takes away fundamental rights.

Even the existing provision of women's right to reside in their matrimonial homes has been taken away. “Thus rights to equality, right to live and livelihood and to live with dignity, right to freedom of speech and expression, freedom of conscience and right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, have become casualties under this Bill,” the statement reads.

[beardedmrbean]

TD Bank is the 10th-largest bank in the country – but for a while was the No. 1 choice for criminal organizations laundering drug money, according to federal prosecutors.

The bank's $3 billion plea deal shocked the finance world but prompted a U.S. senator to slam the Justice Department for "absurd legal gymnastics" that she says were too soft on executives.

For years, the bank prioritized growing its profits without investing in mandatory precautions to prevent cartels and other organized crime groups from using its systems to launder money, allowing crooks to shuffle $671 million in secretive transfers that should have been flagged and reported to authorities – sometimes with the help of corrupt bank employees, according to the plea agreement. 

"By making its services convenient for criminals, TD Bank became one," Attorney General Merrick Garland told reporters in October, announcing the bank's guilty plea. 

CHINESE MONEY LAUNDERING CRIMINALS TEAM UP WITH MEXICAN CARTELS TO MENACE US, OFFICIALS WARN CONGRESS

"TD Bank also became the largest bank in U.S. history to plead guilty to Bank Secrecy Act program failures, and the first U.S. bank in history to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering," he added. "TD Bank chose profits over compliance with the law – a decision that is now costing the bank billions of dollars in penalties."

At the time, he said the investigation was ongoing and warned that more charges could be coming.

An admitted international money launderer in another case, Da Ying Sze, a 45-year-old from New York, bribed bank employees with almost $60,000 in gift cards. He pleaded guilty in his own case to a conspiracy that laundered $653 million on behalf of criminals in the U.S., China and Hong Kong.

Some of it was drug money. And $470 million went through TD Bank, according to federal prosecutors. 

For almost a decade – between January 2014 and October 2023 – the bank failed to comply with mandatory anti-money laundering regulations that required it to flag suspicious transactions, according to court documents. Instead of updating their system to keep up with emerging technology, bank officials saved money by leaving an outdated anti-money laundering program in place.

The anti-money laundering program was known to executives and so ineffective that employees joked about it, according to federal prosecutors. 

"These failures enabled, among other things, three money laundering networks to launder over $600 million in criminal proceeds through the Bank between 2019 and 2023," federal prosecutors wrote in court documents. "These failures also created vulnerabilities that allowed five Bank store employees to open and maintain accounts for one of the money laundering networks."

OPINION: CHINESE ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSINGS SPIKE BY 7,000%. ONLY CHINA KNOWS WHY

Those five corrupt employees helped criminal organizations launder $39 million to Colombia through nearly 200,000 ATM withdrawals. 

Even with the massive corporate fine and an "asset cap" that places a tight restriction on the bank, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., blasted the Justice Department for "legal gymnastics" that let top executives off the hook. 

"The way that DOJ structured the plea agreement ensures that TD Bank will not face the full range of penalties that Congress has enacted for banks that engage in criminal money laundering," she wrote in a public letter to Garland.

"These shocking failures enabled three separate money laundering syndicates to launder more than $670 million through the bank between 2019 and 2023," she continued. "The magnitude of the dollar value of these illicit transactions is dwarfed only by the obviousness of the criminal activity."

In all, criminal organizations laundered more than $670 million, according to authorities, and the total fines were set at $3 billion.

Without consequences for the executives, she argued, banks can just write off billion-dollar government fines as a business expense in the future.

The bank did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The bank's CEO, Bharat Masrani, told The Associated Press that steps were being taken to fix the deficiency and end the corruption after the bank pleaded guilty last month.

"We know what the issues are, we are fixing them," he said. "As we move forward, we’re ensuring that this never happens again, and I’m 100% confident that we get to the other side and emerge even stronger."

To address the money laundering problem, the bank says it began a multi-year security boost that included hiring dozens of new leaders and hundreds of experts on money laundering prevention and fighting financial crime.

[thorraborinn]

Hi there! I was wondering, would you know where I could find anything on like, social taboos involving marriage? I wanted to know if there's anything in the sagas or maybe in archaeology/anthropology that touches on forbidden unions. I know the goddess Lofn is cited as one who grants permission to such people to be together, but I wanted to know if we have anything on what these forbidden unions could look like? Off the top of my head, I imagine feuding families to be a good start, but I can't find much else on the subject. Thank you!

Marriages in Old Norse society were arranged by families (usually between the prospective husband and the father or other male relative of the prospective bride), and more for political and economic reasons than for personal ones. Some people were married specifically because their families were feuding, to bring the feud to an end (often the people involved wanted out but failure to retaliate could have consequences; uniting the families could end the feud in a way that saved face. In Old English a woman who is married into an enemy family for this reason is called freoðu-webbe, 'frith weaver'). Frands Herschend went as far as proposing to see women in Iron Age Scandinavia generally as hostages (in the sense that Freyr and Njörðr are hostages in Ynglinga saga). If the sagas are relatively accurate there does seem to have been an understanding that the family should be arranging things such that the woman is happy with the result, but they weren't legally obligated to.

In this kind of situation, a marriage that's forbidden would be basically any that either side of the family, especially the woman's closest male relatives, opposes. The reasons were probably diverse and personal, and not generally based on widespread taboos. Most of it probably had to do with money and social hierarchy.

Feuding certainly played a role here, or rather we should say relations based in reciprocity, whether positive or negative, did. As I said, marriages were sometimes arranged specifically to bring hostile families into a single family and end the conflict, but if one side thought they had the upper hand and stood to gain by continuing the hostilities then they would surely not permit such a marriage. Marriages might also be arranged out of obligation to more powerful people.

In fact, it might be possible to frame any actual social or legal prohibitions on marriage that did exist as protections for the woman from being married off to someone she didn't want, rather than restrictions on her freedom, because she hardly had any. We can surely consider divorce in a similar way, which was permitted in certain circumstances.

The main restriction that we do have evidence for is marrying someone who is too close a relation. There were probably situations where the financially or politically advantageous thing to do is to get two close cousins married to each other and it may have actually happened, but it's illegal in the laws we have a record of. This may have been less regulated in heathen times.

Of course, there could have been culturally-assumed restrictions that weren't formally prohibited in the law. There's speculation that, while a Nordic man marrying a non-Norse woman was not uncommon, happening the other way around was not generally permitted. This is supposedly reflected in the mythology, where the male gods marry jötunn women but the goddesses do not marry jötunn men. However, there is archaeological evidence from the Vendel period that contradicts this (the book I'm getting this from is over 20 years old, so by now there could be contradictory evidence from the Viking age too, but I'm not sure), so if there was ever such an ethnic taboo it must have either not been universal, or developed later. I'll also remind that there is a contradiction in the mythology as well; Gefjun isn't described as marrying a jötunn but she does have kids with one, which scholars do typically count as a violation of an ethnic taboo, sometimes as grounds to reject the myth itself as "impossible" (Lindow's description).

A lot of this may have varied by class. We mostly know about the land-owning class. It's hard to say whether poorer people would have even less freedom over whom they married because of their dependence on land-owners, or if they had more freedom because there was less social and financial stake in it. It seems likely that their marriages weren't as regulated, but their ability to actually move from place to place was the major limiting factor.

I'm not aware of any sources for it, but I have no trouble believing that illegal or otherwise unsanctioned marriage happened. The thing that kept people in line was inheritance. So if people were in a position where they could turn down their inheritance (whether because they had another source of resources or because their families were so poor their inheritance was negligible anyway), and could have a place to live, they could probably just do what they wanted.

So I think for the most part, if we were to picture Lofn's intercession as historical events, we might picture the site of those intercessions as kind of distant from the actual marriage, like opening opportunities to get by while forgoing one's inheritance, or unexpected changes elsewhere in the social network. Or a simpler example would be a woman successfully convincing her father, brother, or other male representative to let her do what she wanted.

This is a little out of step with Snorri's etymological explanation of Lofn's name as related to 'permission' but as I explained here I think the actual etymological meaning of her name was 'hope'.

Of course a lot of heathens read Lofn's description in the Edda as affirming of marriages that deviate from gender and sexual norms, which the text does in fact leave room for but probably isn't what Snorri had in mind. There's a lot of room for speculation about how this may have been relevant in pre-Christian times but it would be difficult to move it beyond speculation.

Unfortunately quite a lot of this is already pretty speculative, because of how much later our sources concerning marriage are than the time when Lofn may have actually been recognized. Frankly, the same applies to our sources for Lofn, and the time when she may have been recognized. If I'm right about the etymology of her name then I think it's at least a partial vindication of Snorri but that does not necessarily mean that his description of her is entirely reliable.

[follow-up-news]

When Apple announced it was launching Apple Card in 2019, it promised “a new kind of credit card” that was “designed to help customers lead a healthier financial life.” Now, government regulators say Apple and its partner Goldman Sachs caused harm to hundreds of thousands of cardholders by mishandling disputed transactions and by using deceptive marketing practices. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal agency, has ordered the companies to pay a combined $89 million in penalties and redress to those affected. The CFPB has also banned Goldman Sachs from launching a new credit card unless it provides “a credible plan” that the product will comply with the law. “The companies violated consumer financial protection laws through their practices related to Apple Card,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra in prepared remarks on Wednesday. “This led to wrongful charges, mishandled disputes, and damaged credit reports.”

[milfstalin]

There is much concern that Elon Musk’s Starlink intends to provide satellite internet coverage to the United States following the failure of its Red Sea “Operation Prosperity Guardian” alliance to curb Yemen’s pro-Palestinian front.

This conversation has gained traction since the company’s announcement on 18 September that it would launch services in Yemen after months of informal contracts with the Saudi-backed government in Aden. The timing of this announcement raised eyebrows, especially as it coincided with Israel’s terrorist attacks in Lebanon, involving exploding pagers and walkie-talkies.

[...]

The announcement that Yemen would be the first country in West Asia to have full access to its services surprised many – particularly because the US embassy in Yemen was quick to praise the move as an “achievement” that could unlock new opportunities.

[...]

The rival Sanaa government, under which most of Yemen’s population lives, was quick to warn that the Starlink project may threaten Yemen and its national security. Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a member of Ansarallah’s political bureau, criticized the US embassy’s stance, which he says:

"Confirms the relationship between the launch of Starlink and the war launched by America on Yemen, which threatens to expand the conflict to the orbits of outer space for the first time in history."

[...]

In March, the Financial Times reported that the US and UK faced intelligence shortfalls in their Red Sea campaign, particularly around the capabilities of the Ansarallah-aligned forces’ arsenal. This intelligence gap underlined the west’s need for a reliable spy network, and Starlink’s role in this context raises serious questions.

A Reuters report revealed that SpaceX had signed secret contracts with the US Department of Defense aimed at developing a spy satellite system capable of detecting global threats in real-time.

[...]

Another concerning aspect is the involvement of Israel. Israel’s spy satellites, OFEK-13 and OFEK-14, are reportedly linked to Starlink’s satellite network. SpaceX, as a third party, may provide critical guidance and intelligence to these satellites, further enhancing Tel Aviv’s surveillance capabilities in the region. This connection between Starlink and Israeli intelligence efforts has heightened fears in Yemen that the satellite network will be used to undermine the country’s security and sovereignty.

Currently, Starlink services are available primarily in Yemeni areas controlled by the Saudi and UAE-led coalition, although roaming packages allow temporary access in other regions. This has prompted concerns about data security, privacy, and the spread of misinformation, as unrestricted satellite internet bypasses local government control.

[...]

Moreover, cybersecurity risks are particularly troubling, as the network might be exploited for dangerous purposes, including facilitating terrorist activities like bombings. The presence of a global satellite internet service that bypasses local regulations raises concerns about its potential to disrupt local internet infrastructure.

Starlink could also introduce unfair competition to local provider Yemen Net, further marginalizing the national telecom provider and hindering local development efforts.

[...]

Dr Youssef al-Hadri, a right-wing political affairs researcher, shared his views with The Cradle on the recent events in Lebanon and the ongoing electronic warfare involving the US and its allies. According to Hadri, intelligence agencies operating in areas under the control of the Sanaa government face challenges in detecting the locations of missiles, drones, and military manufacturing sites.

This shortfall became even more apparent after a major intelligence operation exposed a long-running spy cell in Yemen, with activities spanning across multiple sectors.

From the risk of espionage to the undermining of local telecom providers, the implications of Starlink’s operations extend far beyond providing internet access – they could become a vehicle for foreign influence and control.

[...]

3 Oct 2024

[mariacallous]

America returned to limited deposit insurance and the sky didn’t fall; heck, few noticed. First National Bank of Lindsay Oklahoma failed on October 18, 2024, the first bank to fail with uninsured depositors taking losses since the most recent cycle of bailouts began with Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) in March 2023. Here is why we should commend the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) for following the law which prioritizes protecting ordinary Americans and resolving banks in the least costly manner; why we should celebrate the return of true bank failures; and why we should resist the temptation to bail out uninsured depositors the next time a bigger bank fails.

That a small bank can fail, uninsured depositors can lose money, and a financial panic not ensue ought to give pause to those who defend every bailout as necessary to avoid a greater financial panic. At the same time, we need to have a frank discussion about why bank regulators were OK with a handful of people and businesses in small-town Oklahoma losing money in a bank but not the billionaires and venture capitalists who were bailed out under the guise of protecting small businesses trying to meet payroll when the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and Treasury Department opened the spigots for SVB. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Chopra’s commentary is spot on in diagnosing this problem, but in my opinion, calls for the wrong solution of extending greater deposit insurance. Instead, we need to stop bailing out the wealthy and well-connected and instead operate a banking system in which not all deposits at the bank are insured.

Banks failing is the norm. At least one bank failed every calendar year since the FDIC was created in 1933 until 2005. No bank failing in 2005 and 2006 was the signal that the financial system was dangerously unstable. After the great financial crisis, the norm returned. Fifty-four banks have failed since 2014 as shown in the chart below. It is a testament to the American financial system’s strength that banks can and do fail and we do not have a crisis.