The post The Dangerous Contradiction Within Higher Federal Deposit Insurance appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. WASHINGTON, DC – AUGUST 18: The entrance to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is seen on August 18, 2024, in Washington, DC. (Photo by J. David Ake/Getty Images) Getty Images More federal deposit insurance will weaken banks, depositors at banks, and the U.S. economy more broadly. Say what’s true repeatedly. To see the obvious contradiction in legislation meant to increase deposit insurance from $250,000 per account to $10 million per, simply look a little bit deeper into the details. The insurance is for non-interest-bearing accounts. Bank accounts that don’t pay interest speak loudly to the desires of the owners of those accounts. These are generally checking accounts. Owners of checking accounts want little to no risk. Call non-interest-bearing accounts what they are: money storage for everyday spending needs, debit cards, or just paying bills. By extension, banks logically take the desires of non-interest-bearing account holders very seriously. The money isn’t to be put at major or even minor long or short-term risk precisely because it’s expected to be easily accessible in penalty-free fashion as a consequence of no interest being paid on the funds. It speaks to the near total mismatch of proposed federal legislation meant to increase federal deposit insurance. The legislation implies that money placed in a checking account for everyday transactions is money that banks are routinely putting at risk. No, not at all. Which once again explains the lack of interest paid. Please think about this with substantially expanded FDIC insurance top of mind. Suddenly funds stored at banks for daily use, and that aren’t being put at risk for precisely that reason, would be federally insured as though they were. There are costs associated with such insurance. And as has been reported already, banks would be saddled with those costs through the payment of… The post The Dangerous Contradiction Within Higher Federal Deposit Insurance appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. WASHINGTON, DC – AUGUST 18: The entrance to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is seen on August 18, 2024, in Washington, DC. (Photo by J. David Ake/Getty Images) Getty Images More federal deposit insurance will weaken banks, depositors at banks, and the U.S. economy more broadly. Say what’s true repeatedly. To see the obvious contradiction in legislation meant to increase deposit insurance from $250,000 per account to $10 million per, simply look a little bit deeper into the details. The insurance is for non-interest-bearing accounts. Bank accounts that don’t pay interest speak loudly to the desires of the owners of those accounts. These are generally checking accounts. Owners of checking accounts want little to no risk. Call non-interest-bearing accounts what they are: money storage for everyday spending needs, debit cards, or just paying bills. By extension, banks logically take the desires of non-interest-bearing account holders very seriously. The money isn’t to be put at major or even minor long or short-term risk precisely because it’s expected to be easily accessible in penalty-free fashion as a consequence of no interest being paid on the funds. It speaks to the near total mismatch of proposed federal legislation meant to increase federal deposit insurance. The legislation implies that money placed in a checking account for everyday transactions is money that banks are routinely putting at risk. No, not at all. Which once again explains the lack of interest paid. Please think about this with substantially expanded FDIC insurance top of mind. Suddenly funds stored at banks for daily use, and that aren’t being put at risk for precisely that reason, would be federally insured as though they were. There are costs associated with such insurance. And as has been reported already, banks would be saddled with those costs through the payment of…

The Dangerous Contradiction Within Higher Federal Deposit Insurance

WASHINGTON, DC – AUGUST 18: The entrance to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is seen on August 18, 2024, in Washington, DC. (Photo by J. David Ake/Getty Images)

Getty Images

More federal deposit insurance will weaken banks, depositors at banks, and the U.S. economy more broadly. Say what’s true repeatedly.

To see the obvious contradiction in legislation meant to increase deposit insurance from $250,000 per account to $10 million per, simply look a little bit deeper into the details. The insurance is for non-interest-bearing accounts.

Bank accounts that don’t pay interest speak loudly to the desires of the owners of those accounts. These are generally checking accounts. Owners of checking accounts want little to no risk. Call non-interest-bearing accounts what they are: money storage for everyday spending needs, debit cards, or just paying bills.

By extension, banks logically take the desires of non-interest-bearing account holders very seriously. The money isn’t to be put at major or even minor long or short-term risk precisely because it’s expected to be easily accessible in penalty-free fashion as a consequence of no interest being paid on the funds.

It speaks to the near total mismatch of proposed federal legislation meant to increase federal deposit insurance. The legislation implies that money placed in a checking account for everyday transactions is money that banks are routinely putting at risk. No, not at all. Which once again explains the lack of interest paid. Please think about this with substantially expanded FDIC insurance top of mind.

Suddenly funds stored at banks for daily use, and that aren’t being put at risk for precisely that reason, would be federally insured as though they were. There are costs associated with such insurance. And as has been reported already, banks would be saddled with those costs through the payment of billions more into the FDIC’s insurance fund.

It means banks will suffer twice: first through higher insurance costs, and second through a reduction in profitable lending. From this, readers can hopefully deduce that a needless cost imposed on banks would be paid for via reduced economic activity thanks to lending shrunken by federally mandated increases in insurance costs.

Returning to bank depositors, to presume that they won’t pay for increased deposit insurance is truly naïve. That’s because increased FDIC insurance on non-interest-bearing accounts will logically raise the costs for banks to host those accounts in the first place. Translated, fees associated with non-interest-bearing accounts will almost certainly increase to reflect the cost of insurance for accounts that, by virtue of them not paying interest, don’t require much insurance to begin with. The average household checking balance is $5,300.

Which brings us back to the legislation itself. To say it’s a solution in search of a problem insults understatement. Only it’s much worse. Since increased deposit insurance will raise costs for banks and bank customers alike, it will bring harm to both while sapping economic vitality by reducing the availability of money for an economy reliant on it.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2025/12/02/the-dangerous-contradiction-within-higher-federal-deposit-insurance/

Market Opportunity
Dogechain Logo
Dogechain Price(DC)
$0,000006622
$0,000006622$0,000006622
+%1,03
USD
Dogechain (DC) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Gold Hits $3,700 as Sprott’s Wong Says Dollar’s Store-of-Value Crown May Slip

Gold Hits $3,700 as Sprott’s Wong Says Dollar’s Store-of-Value Crown May Slip

The post Gold Hits $3,700 as Sprott’s Wong Says Dollar’s Store-of-Value Crown May Slip appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Gold is strutting its way into record territory, smashing through $3,700 an ounce Wednesday morning, as Sprott Asset Management strategist Paul Wong says the yellow metal may finally snatch the dollar’s most coveted role: store of value. Wong Warns: Fiscal Dominance Puts U.S. Dollar on Notice, Gold on Top Gold prices eased slightly to $3,678.9 […] Source: https://news.bitcoin.com/gold-hits-3700-as-sprotts-wong-says-dollars-store-of-value-crown-may-slip/
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 00:33
Shocking OpenVPP Partnership Claim Draws Urgent Scrutiny

Shocking OpenVPP Partnership Claim Draws Urgent Scrutiny

The post Shocking OpenVPP Partnership Claim Draws Urgent Scrutiny appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The cryptocurrency world is buzzing with a recent controversy surrounding a bold OpenVPP partnership claim. This week, OpenVPP (OVPP) announced what it presented as a significant collaboration with the U.S. government in the innovative field of energy tokenization. However, this claim quickly drew the sharp eye of on-chain analyst ZachXBT, who highlighted a swift and official rebuttal that has sent ripples through the digital asset community. What Sparked the OpenVPP Partnership Claim Controversy? The core of the issue revolves around OpenVPP’s assertion of a U.S. government partnership. This kind of collaboration would typically be a monumental endorsement for any private cryptocurrency project, especially given the current regulatory climate. Such a partnership could signify a new era of mainstream adoption and legitimacy for energy tokenization initiatives. OpenVPP initially claimed cooperation with the U.S. government. This alleged partnership was said to be in the domain of energy tokenization. The announcement generated considerable interest and discussion online. ZachXBT, known for his diligent on-chain investigations, was quick to flag the development. He brought attention to the fact that U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Hester Peirce had directly addressed the OpenVPP partnership claim. Her response, delivered within hours, was unequivocal and starkly contradicted OpenVPP’s narrative. How Did Regulatory Authorities Respond to the OpenVPP Partnership Claim? Commissioner Hester Peirce’s statement was a crucial turning point in this unfolding story. She clearly stated that the SEC, as an agency, does not engage in partnerships with private cryptocurrency projects. This response effectively dismantled the credibility of OpenVPP’s initial announcement regarding their supposed government collaboration. Peirce’s swift clarification underscores a fundamental principle of regulatory bodies: maintaining impartiality and avoiding endorsements of private entities. Her statement serves as a vital reminder to the crypto community about the official stance of government agencies concerning private ventures. Moreover, ZachXBT’s analysis…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 02:13
Top political stories of 2025: The Villar family’s business and political setbacks

Top political stories of 2025: The Villar family’s business and political setbacks

Rappler's Dwight de Leon recaps the challenges faced in 2025 by one of the Philippines' wealthiest families
Share
Rappler2025/12/25 09:00