You're the one that posted to me first you dimwit. Now I see you are clearly a real jerk too.
“Uninsured deposits” are presumably at risk from common theft — not govts. and policies supposedly in place to ENFORCE these very agreements (rule of law).
The banks failed you idiot. Do you get that? FAILED. That's why deposit insurance exists, to protect people in the event of bank failure. People were either going to lose some of their money or ALL of their money. The other option was for another taxpayer funded bailout of banks - which was thankfully rejected.
There was no good solution here. The government and the banks were negligent and have been for years. The voters are ultimately responsible for the corruption they allowed to take root through the politicians they've been voting for over and over again.
You seem like a ‘Rat visitor, from your “comments.”
You obviously have zero idea what you are talking about. Maybe you should take the time to learn something, which you clearly need to do, instead of just hurling insults. The reason this bailout is better than what we've seen in the past is because it held bank shareholders responsible, rather than immediately ask taxpayers to bail them out. Uninsured deposits are just that, uninsured. Everyone in the entire world knew Cyprus' banks were in deep trouble. There is no good outcome here, but this is better than what we've seen in Greece and elsewhere. For once "bad" banks will be allowed to fail, shareholders will get wiped out and uninsured depositors (over 100k Euro) will only lose some of their money instead of all of it.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Thanks for siding with govt seizures of wealth to “solve” public-sector deficits. Why are you defending this overt state interventionism?
“Whether in Cyprus or in other countries, politicians tend to think in short run terms, if only because elections are held in the short run. Therefore, there is always a temptation to do reckless and short-sighted things to get over some current problem, even if that creates far worse problems in the long run.
Seizing money that people put in the bank would be a classic example of such short-sighted policies.
“After going back and forth, the government of Cyprus ultimately decided, under international pressure, to go ahead with its plan to raid people’s bank accounts.
“But could similar policies be imposed in other countries, including the United States? One of the big differences between the United States and Cyprus is that the U.S. government can simply print more money to get out of a financial crisis. But Cyprus cannot print more euros, which are controlled by international institutions.”
- Tom Sowell, “Can It happen Here?”
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032613.php3#.UVYkOlfIflY
FYI, the depositors are “Taxpayers” too. Why are you siding with taxpayers on the supply (filers) side, yet not siding with asset holders who are now “defacto” taxpayers preyed upon BY THE STATE?
Why not have the politicians do the perp walk, plus, cut down on all the state spending to unions, corporate welfare seekers, rent seekers, etc. to solve this problem?
Are we really arguing about this????????