Okay, but the $250k cap doesn't do that, it just encourages them to do the exact same thing, shuffled across multiple banks.
At any rate, yes. But you can only split billions across so many 250k banks (I haven't checked the numbers, but I'd assume this is limited by number of banks). And presumably, that means that many more locally focused places managing more funds. That is, the spread is part of the point.
But! This is just like lines of code. No "true" value answer. And pathological is pathological.
So, did I propose a solution? I specifically think 100% covered it bad. Not clear what number we want.
>There is a reason we don't want billionaires to feel safe with their assets sitting places. We want them actively using said assets to make the world better.
That is, you advocated the cap as a means to make billionaires use their assets to make the world better. I replied[1] that the cap doesn't make billionaires do that (that= "make the world better"), but simply makes them do the same thing they were doing before, but shuffled across many banks. (i.e. "feel safe with their assets sitting many places, rather than one").
Then, you forgot what argument you were making, including this core point, and are now asking me to re-explain it to you, having since drifted off to a completely different point about whether there are other benefits, unrelated to this point, to storing a billionaire's stash in many places vs one.
Normally, I accept that people might miss key points from earlier in the thread, but here, this is your own argument, and you seem to have forgotten you made it. Come on, show some respect to the people who try to engage with you.
You could be arguing that having the money spread out is not its own good? But, I have specifically posited that having the money spread out among many banks is a good, in itself. What is the number? No clue. Is it guaranteed that having it in several places is better than having it in one? Not really, but the odds of any one bank doing great things with the money seems lower than the odds of any of several banks doing good things with it.
So, yeah, what part are you not following?
So, my assertion a little longer spelled out it that I don't think we want giant caches of wealth in small numbers of places. I would prefer active use, I think. But diverse use by many actors is a good means to that. So, if it gets 250k in 100+ banks, that has better odds that someone finds a use that isn't just "credit cards."
That said, I confess I also see little value conversing with you. I hope others have a better experience with you. Good luck.
Great! This is the first time you've actually said anything that connected "rich people making the world a better place" with "stashing money in multiple banks rather than one". It's still a dubious argument, because in both cases the money would be getting invested, as opposed to gathering dust, and the bank would just invest any excess money it had with other banks, creating the same investment.
It's also really frustrating to have to keep reminding you of what your argument was, in order to get to that point. It would have been much more productive if you had said from the outset "okay, whether rich people's money gets invested at all is a dubious benefit to the insurance cap. But there might still be other benefits, like reduced systemic risk...".
But you didn't do that: instead you acted shocked that I was asserting there were no benefits at all to spreading money across multiple banks, and spoke as if you didn't remember the original benefit you were asserting.
>That said, I confess I also see little value conversing with you
Correct: people that force you to be rigorous in your comments, and don't let you change the topic to hide previous dubious arguments, are going make you look bad. I understand not wanting to get called out on these unproductive tactics, especially if you prefer looking smart rather than learning something.