Bank Failures to date verses 1933

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
investorzzo's picture
investorzzo
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 7 2008
Posts: 1182
Bank Failures to date verses 1933

In 1933 42 banks failed.

2008 25 banks failed.

2009 9 banks so failed so far.

 http://cnnmoney.mobi/money/latest_news/latest_news/detail/124027/full;jsessionid=2CF0AFF654F3CA7727D0F9641E2EDDFD#p1

investorzzo's picture
investorzzo
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 7 2008
Posts: 1182
The Greatest Destabilization Is Yet To Come

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/81585

bearing01's picture
bearing01
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 153
Re: Bank Failures to date verses 1933

Remember though, the depression bottomed in 1933.  And it was the Glass-Steagall act passed in 1933 that gave us the FDIC - for the taxpayer to backstop all bank reserves to prevent further bank runs and resulting bankrupcies.

1930 - 1350 banks failed

1931 - 2293 banks failed

1932 - 1453 banks failed

drb's picture
drb
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 11 2008
Posts: 95
Re: Bank Failures to date verses 1933

Thank bearing01 - you beat me to it, but I'll add a visual representation that shows the drop off in active banks during the Great Depression (see below): (link)

Also - absolute bank failure numbers per year can be misleading - I wanted to find information showing the number of dollars involved (adjusted for inflation) for the failures occurring during the period of 1929 through 1933 but had no luck.

investorzzo's picture
investorzzo
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 7 2008
Posts: 1182
Re: Bank Failures to date verses 1933

Yes, but we didn't have a  hundred trillion in derivatives at the time of the first depression!   Look for bonds to be the next bubble to burst. Once everyone jumps out of bonds, the dollar collapses. How long can the government print money to buy it's own bonds? Not to mention the fact that the fed is now issuing bonds on our debt, as our bonds are at zero payout. Looks like the bankers are in control to me.

Watch California, it will  be the one that starts the domino. FOOD, WATER, GUNS. 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/58356-the-inevitable-derivative-meltdown 

Dr. John's picture
Dr. John
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 26 2008
Posts: 7
Re: Bank Failures to date verses 1933
bearing01 wrote:

Remember though, the depression bottomed in 1933.  And it was the Glass-Steagall act passed in 1933 that gave us the FDIC - for the taxpayer to backstop all bank reserves to prevent further bank runs and resulting bankrupcies.

1930 - 1350 banks failed

1931 - 2293 banks failed

1932 - 1453 banks failed

 

How many of the banks of the 1930's were one location institutions?  When making a comparison to today's situation, for example, does Indymac or WaMu count as one bank?  How many branches does Indymac, Washington Mutual, etc. have?  Should each branch be counted as a "bank" in order to have a realistic comparison to today?

drb's picture
drb
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 11 2008
Posts: 95
Re: Bank Failures to date verses 1933

As I already said earlier..

Quote:

Also - absolute bank failure numbers per year can be misleading - I
wanted to find information showing the number of dollars involved
(adjusted for inflation) for the failures occurring during the period
of 1929 through 1933 but had no luck.

If the response to contrary posts is going to be "Yes But...!" then, to avoid responses that dilute the message you want to leave the reader, it behooves the writer to 'frame' the discussion more clearly.  However, in this case the original posting made no such effort and strove to compare absolute numbers of bank failures in 1933 to the number of bank failures that have occurred to date in 2009 and thereby use these numbers to imply that 2009 will be as bad or worse than 1933.  Bearing01 and I simply pointed out that 1933 was not a representative Depression year for making such a comparison nor would it have mattered if a different year were selected.

My message is not that this will not be as bad as the Great Depression - the message you should take away from my posting is that a better selection of data, coupled with appropriate analysis, will make a far more pursuasive argument then using a few data points and claiming that they represent a picture.

(People connect the points of lights in the sky and claim that they see pictures of Scorpions, Archers, Bears, Twins, Fish, etc.. too.  But there really isn't any of those in the sky, they are just a random (uncorrelated) scattering of points of light, and only a small fraction of the stars out there at that).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments