A Brief History of the National Debt

From Mole Hills to Mountains

By Tyler Grimm


with sidebars by Burton Folsom

The U.S. Treasury Department updates our national debt on a daily basis. The current debt—to the penny—is $13,203,473,753,967.10 (that's $13 trillion). With our country on the hook for such an incomprehensible sum, it's worth asking: How the heck did we get here?

WORDS OF WISDOM:

Andrew Jackson once said, when speaking of the large budget surplus, "It appears to me that the most safe, just, and federal disposition which could be made of the surplus revenue, would be its apportionment among the several states according to their ratio of representation."

Is our current level of debt a result of under-taxing? Over-spending?

Was it the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and security buildup after 9/11? The Bush tax cuts? The bailouts? Obama's "stimulus"?

Before we get to that, let's start with a quick look at the history of U.S. debt. (All figures below refer to debt per person, adjusted for inflation to be comparable to the worth of a dollar today.)

For the Founding Fathers, the nation's debt obligations were a grave matter. In George Washington's farewell address, he was thankful the United States secured financing for the Revolutionary War but warned against excessive debt. He admonished the country's liabilities should be paid down quickly. "Cherish public credit," Washington implored, "... avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the bur[d]en which we ourselves ought to bear."

For the first 50 years of our nation's existence, the federal debt was reasonably low—on average, less than $130 per person. In fact, Andrew Jackson paid off the national debt (which he called a "national curse") entirely in 1835— the only time this has occurred in our country's history. The national debt remained low, averaging less than $35 per person, until the Civil War.

FOUNDING FACTS:

The Founders faced great financial problems in establishing the American


nation. The war for independence lasted more than six years and was expensive to


wage. Because the patriots had almost no cash, General George Washington (and others) signed notes to borrow food, clothes, ammunition, and weapons. By


the time Washington was elected president, those debts totaled $40 million—and to that we had to add another $11 million we had borrowed from the French, and about $24 million in debts the states had


accumulated in defeating the British. Thus President Washington, with a nation of


about 4 million people, faced a large war debt of about $75 million when he became


president. And that doesn’t count startup costs for the new United States.

That War – the deadliest in our nation's history – and the Reconstruction era that followed were costly but not extremely burdensome; debt peaked at around $1,100 per person and, for the most part, declined until World War I, when debt made its way up to around $3,000 per person. Not great, but still manageable. Then came the New Deal and World War II.

Franklin Roosevelt's vast expansion of the federal government under the New Deal drove up the debt to $4,000 per person (the amount would have been much higher but was offset with punitive tax increases).

Nevertheless, things weren't really grim until World War II, which plunged our country deep into the red. In per person terms, debt rose to $22,000 – a staggering 526 percent increase over 10 years prior. Total debt was well over 100 percent the size of the economy.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and other deficit-spending champions often claim, "we did it during World War II so we can do it now." But you should be aware of two very important distinctions between national debt during World War II and now.

First, we did not have a choice:

The nation was fighting an existential war against fascist foes that sought world domination. Second, the government was able to use the fervor of patriotism to sell War Bonds (think of the iconic Rosie the Riveter posters). While they helped finance the war effort, the bonds were actually an awful investment that would not pass muster today.

As Harvard historian Niall Ferguson has explained, "War bonds were among the worst investments of the 20th century, and it was just unfortunate that nobody had explained to my grandmother what her real interest rate was. If they had, she might have realized that she was earning negative real returns on her patriotic investment."

Besides, it's not as if there's an appetite for Cash for Clunkers bonds.

In the 1950s, the Korean War took a small toll on our nation's finances, but the next debt milestone worth mentioning is the "Great Society." Launched in 1965, this was President Lyndon Johnson's attempt to build upon the Big Government foundation laid by the New Deal. The effort included vastly expanding America's safety net with a series of new social welfare initiatives: Medicare, Medicaid, and Head Start were just a few of the programs created.

Initially, these did not have a huge impact on the country's debt burden. In fact, real debt mostly declined for the decade after 1965 (which Ted Kennedy called "the breakout year" for modern liberalism). However, the limited debt impact was an illusion based on artificially rosy economic assumptions. According to economist Herbert Stein, the Great Society "reflected a misconception of the long-run budget situation, if not a total neglect of the long run." These programs have since become a tumor in U.S. fiscal policy – by 2014, Medicare and Medicaid will be larger components of the budget than defense spending.

WORDS OF WISDOM:

Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Secretary of Treasury, once said “[we] have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!”

The Vietnam War, while perceived to be very costly, was not that expensive in historical terms. At roughly $700 billion in today's dollars, it cost less in total than the price of Social Security this year alone. It was the Cold War military buildup that cost us big.

While Ronald Reagan was the most fiscally conservative president in modern history, he did not shy away from a serious ramp up in defense spending. He wanted to keep government small, but Reagan knew that stopping the spread of Communism was paramount. As you can see in the nearby chart, debt soared in the 1980s. The debt per person in 1981 was about $10,000. By the time the Berlin Wall fell, that figure doubled to $20,000.

The 1990s saw a modest increase in the national debt. Per person, debt increased less than 15 percent under Bill Clinton. Things would have been a lot worse, but our balance sheet was aided by the gridlock resulting from Bill Clinton having to work with a Republican congress.

Now, let's fast-forward to the year 2000, where things really start to get interesting.

By the new millennium's start, debt reached roughly $25,000 per person. This, however, didn't stop George W. Bush from going on a spending binge that would make shopaholics wince. He increased spending on income security programs by 44%; education by 63%; community development by 134%. Bush increased spending more than Bill Clinton in nearly every category of the budget. In just eight years, Bush managed to raise debt per person to over $38,000.

Believe it or not, there is an actual "limit" on our debt. The limit is more of a political tool than a real barometer of our debt. Nevertheless, it does provide some context for how bad our current situation is. Congress first established the debt ceiling at the onset of WWII in 1940; it was set at $49 billion (adjusted for inflation, that's equal to about $5,700 per person). It has since been raised 99 times and is now set at $14.3 trillion ($47,000 per person).

If you ask a liberal how our debt exploded in recent years, they will likely say Bush's expensive wars and tax cuts. The truth is that defense spending accounted for only 40 percent of all new spending under Bush.

 

Washington now hopes to cut the deficit in half by 2013.

But consider this: according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data, had Obama done nothing, the deficit would have declined by more than 75%. This is not fuzzy math coming from a right-wing think tank; that statistic is based on cold hard facts from the CBO's budget calculations.

Before a president proposes the annual budget, there is an established "baseline" – that is, what spending would have been had the previous budget trajectory continued. In March of 2009, the baseline (this included the "stimulus") projected that the deficit would decrease to $300 billion by 2013. In the same document, the CBO estimates that President Obama's proposed spending would mean that the deficit would be $672 billion that year.

In the year and a half since then, the situation has only gotten worse. The White House said in late July that, based on the latest spending assumptions, debt in 2013 would be $736 billion. Sure, that is still half of this year's $1.47 trillion deficit, but that's like applauding a smoker for cutting down from eight to four packs a day.

As of this writing, total debt stands at roughly $43,000 per person. To service this obligation, we are paying interest of about $188 billion (more than 10 times what Wal-Mart will make in profits this year). Unlike other areas of the budget, with interest payments we get absolutely nothing in return – the money simply goes to finance past overspending.

By 2020, debt per person is slated to reach more than $75,000 and interest payments will more than quadruple to $900 billion. That means we will be paying more in interest than the current size of Switzerland and Sweden's economies combined. And that's a best-case scenario – it assumes we continue to enjoy relatively low interest rates.

FOUNDING FACTS:

Not scared enough? Let’s break it down another way. In 2008, our national debt was 40 percent of GDP. Currently, it has risen to 62 percent of GDP and the Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that by 2020 it would be 90 percent of GDP.

But it gets much worse. Over the next 75 years, Medicare and Social Security are slated to spend $46 trillion more than they will take in. Former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett has estimated the total amount by which future spending is unfunded to be over $100 trillion. To put that in perspective, that's equivalent to taking this year's income from all Americans… nine times.

We are in the midst of a fiscal crisis that threatens to undo the financial fabric that makes America the land of plenty. We are doomed unless our elected officials can find the courage to make the politically unpopular spending cuts that are needed to put the country back on a sustainable path.

 



<< Return to the September 2010

On Monday, Biden exercised his veto powers for the first time to strike down a bill that would ban states from taking ESG into consideration when investing state pension funds. In his veto message, Biden said:

Retirement plan fiduciaries should be able to consider any factor that maximizes financial returns for retirees across the country. That's not controversial — that's common sense.

At the risk of using the loaded word "gaslit," it continues to be the operative word in describing the policies coming out of the Biden White House. It is painfully obvious that ESG itself inhibits investors from "maximizing financial returns." That was never ESG's goal in the first place. Yet Biden said the opposite.

ESG aims to incentivize investors to make "socially conscious" (a.k.a woke) investments, even if they are at odds with the greatest return on investment. It has enabled state governments and investment firms to use their monopoly over the investment space to force companies to choose between adopting their woke ESG standards and losing critical investment. Isn't there a word for that? Extortion? Or modern-day politics?

ESG enables state governments to force companies to choose between adopting their woke ESG standards and losing critical investment.

That is the sole reason why Republicans brought the bill to his desk in the first place: As Glenn said, "ESG poses a clear and present danger to the American way of life, the soul of our nation and every sector of our economy. ESG was never about ROI. It was always about pushing a leftist agenda.

And Biden knows this.

Why would he want to give up something that enables his political party and corporate elites to control and manipulate the political affiliations of their people? Who would want to give up that power? Biden certainly doesn't.

And he didn't.

Instead, he boldly asserts the exact opposite: that ESG itself "maximizes financial returns," relying on the divided American people to debate the policy into oblivion, while he gets exactly what he wants: the retention of power over the American consumer. Dare I say again that "gaslit" is the operative word here?

If one thing is clear, it is that we cannot rely on the federal government to act in the best interests of the American people. However, in this critical moment, the state governments are stepping up to do what the federal government refuses to: protecting the rights of the American consumer.

In a joint resolution led by Florida Governor Ron Desantis, 19 states have pledged “to protect individuals from the ESG movement" at the state level. This is critical.

We cannot rely on the federal government to act in the best interests of the American people.

Florida leads Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming in signing the historic policy agreement among all 19 states, pledging to ban ESG practices within their jurisdictions.

The anti-ESG alliance calls ESG what it is:

A direct threat to the American economy, individual economic freedom, and our way of life, putting investment decisions in the hands of the woke mob to bypass the ballot box and inject political ideology into investment decisions, corporate governance, and the everyday economy.

This alliance takes aim at two specific practices used by left-leaning states to force companies to adopt ESG-approved practices.

First, the alliance promises to protect "taxpayers from ESG influences across state systems."

While other states are using YOUR taxpayer dollars to fund pro-ESG corporations, these states pledge to BAN this practice to ensure "that only financial factors are considered to maximize the return on investment."

The chief factor behind any investment should be determining whether that investment yields the maximum return on their investment. However, many states are using YOUR taxpayer-funded pension and retirement funds to invest in ESG-approved businesses. This not only forces businesses to consider adopting ESG standards in hopes of obtaining investment. Moreover, states are using YOUR taxpayer dollars to fund them! Would you want your government to invest your hard-earned money for partisan purposes?

The anti-ESG alliance is taking the politics out of investment and putting consumer power back in the hands of the American people. These state governments pledged to make investment decisions based solely on maximizing the return on investment, not in using your taxpayer dollars to fund their political agendas.

Second, the alliance promises to protect "citizens from ESG influences in the financial sector."

ESG standards force businesses to consider the political leanings of their customer base. For example, Discover announced they will begin tracking its customers' gun-related purchases. One of the leaders behind this push is Amalgamated Bank, which boasts on their website that their institution "supports sustainable organizations, progressive causes, and social justice." Amalgamated Bank CEO Priscilla Sims Brown said:

We all have to do our part to stop gun violence and it sometimes starts with illegal purchases of guns and ammunition The new code will allow us to fully comply with our duty to report suspicious activity and illegal gun sales to authorities without blocking or impeding legal gun sales.

This virtue signaling at the cost of your privacy is earning both Discover and Amalgamated ESG brownie points.

There are countless stories of Americans, like YOU, getting locked out of their bank accounts, dropped as clients, tracked and targeted, all because their personal political beliefs don't align with big corporations' ESG goals. Their individual privacy and dignity as a consumer aren't worth the risk of lowering the company's ESG score.

That's why the anti-ESG alliance is pledging to protect the residents in their states from this corrupt ESG exploitation. The alliance promised to ban "so-called social Credit Scores' in banking and lending practices aimed to prevent citizens from obtaining financial services like loans, lines of credit, and bank accounts."

They also promised to stop "financial institutions from discriminating against customers for their religious, political, or social beliefs, such as owning a firearm, securing the border, or increasing our energy independence."

In short, they have targeted the political extortion hidden behind the virtuous ESG veil to protect citizens from being discriminated against based on political affiliation.

It's time to step up.

Biden may have struck down the effort to restore the freedom of the American consumer at the federal level. However, these states are taking it upon themselves to do what they ought: to ban practices that threaten the freedoms and privacy of their citizens.

If your state did not joining the anti-ESG alliance, it's time to demand that they step up and do their job to protect you and the rest of your fellow citizens from corrupt ESG practices. As Glenn said, "The conservative movement is best when it moves in unison." We must act and unison and push our states to protect our economic freedom and our way of life.

How prepared are YOU to weather a future crisis? We recently published a brand new quiz so you can find out exactly how prepared you are. Whether you're a "prepper" with a bunker fit for the apocolypse or just want to feel more secure for the future, there is always something more to learn. That's why Glenn wants to give his newsletter subscribers his "Ultimate Preparation Guide," filled with practical tips for building a solid foundation to weather future crises. And let's face it—in our crazy world right now, who couldn't use a bit more peace of mind?

Enter your email below to get "Glenn's Ultimate Preparation Guide" sent straight to your inbox!

Editor's Note: Arizona House Bill HB2770 has since been shut down! AZ Rep. Rachel Jones tweeted that the AZ Freedom Caucus shut down the bill before it could reach the board. It is encouraging to see states stepping to protect the American people from getting one step closer to a Central Bank Digital Currency. Hopefully, Arizona will be a precedent for the other states!

On today's radio broadcast, Glenn warned about dangerous Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) language being smuggled into routine legislation in REPUBLICAN-led states. This is unacceptable, and as Glenn said, we can't let this legislation pass as it now stands.

The legislation being used to smuggle in this CBDC language is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a routine piece of legislation passed on the state level that helps standardize commercial and business transactions. However, a new round of UCCs being deliberated RIGHT NOW amongst a swath of Republican-led states anticipate the use of "electronic money." In a public letter sent to the Republican states currently deliberating this legislation, the Pro-Family Legislative Network said this can only refer to the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) under consideration and testing by the Federal Reserve. Biden's Executive Order 14067 issued in March of 2022 started the push for CBDC, and now these states, knowingly or unknowingly, are laying the legislative groundwork for making CBDC a reality.

There is absolutely no reason why Republican-led states should aid in laying the foundation for CBDC, yet 12 of them are deliberating it RIGHT NOW, with one UCC bill already on one GOP governor's desk! We have to act NOW to stop these UCCs in their tracks and demand our lawmakers amend the bills without the "electronic money" language.

If your state is listed below, contact your representative NOW to put an end to CBDC language.

1. North Dakota

North Dakota House Bill HB1082 passed BOTH chambers and is now sitting on Governor Burgum's desk. Burgun has 3 DAYS to veto this bill once it's placed on his desk—if not, it will pass automatically. If you are a North Dakota resident, it is absolutely CRUCIAL that you contact Governor Burgum's office NOW and demand that he veto this bill and re-introduce it without the "electronic money" language.

2. Arizona

Arizona House Bill HB2770 has been SHUT DOWN! See the above editor's note for more details.

Arizona House Bill HB2770 passed the House majority and minority caucuses. Arizona residents, contact your representative's office NOW so that they amend this bill without the "electronic money" language.

3. Arkansas

Arkansas House Bill HB1588 is in committee, and if passed, will head to the House floor. Though the bill is only in its beginning stages, it's important for Arkansas residents to stop this bill in its tracks and amend it without the "electronic money" language.

4. Missouri

Missouri House Bill HB1165 is also in its beginning stages in committee. That means it's important to contact your representative as soon as possible to amend it without the "electronic money" language.

5. Oklahoma

Oklahoma House Bill HB 2776 passed the House Committee and will go to a chamber vote soon. If passed, it will go to the Senate, then the governor's desk. If you are an Indiana resident, contact your representative's office NOW to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

6. Indiana

Indiana Senate Bill SB0486 passed the Senate and is headed to the House. Republicans control Indiana's executive office and BOTH chambers of the legislature. There is no excuse for this bill to pass. If you are an Indiana resident, it's vital you contact your representative NOW and demand they amend this bill without the "electronic money" language.

7. Kentucky

Kentucky Senate Bill SB64 passed the Senate and is now being deliberated in the House. If you live in Kentucky, contact your representative's office to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

8. Montana

Montana Senate Bill SB370 passed the Senate and was sent to the House on March 3rd. If you are a Montana resident, contact your representative's office NOW so that the bill doesn't without changing the "electronic money" language.

9. Nebraska

Nebraska's Legislative Bill LB94 passed committee and the first floor vote. As Nebraska only has one legislative chamber, this bill is dangerously close to passing the legislature and being sent to the governor's desk. If you are a Nebraska resident, contact your representative's office NOW and demand they amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

10. New Hampshire

New Hampshire House Bill HB584 is currently in House committee deliberations and has not yet reached the House floor. If you are a New Hampshire resident, contact your representative's office NOW to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

11. Tennessee

Tennessee House Bill HB0640 didn't successfully pass the House. However, it was deferred to a Senate committee and has now taken the form of Senate Bill SB0479, which is now in committee. This bill is still alive, and it's important for you, Tennessee residents, to stop it before it reaches the floor! Contact your representative to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

12. Texas

Texas House Bill HB5011 was filed and is ready to be taken up by committee. Fellow Texans, let's not let this bill progress any further! Contact your representative and demand they amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

6 things you NEED to know about the Silicon Valley Bank collapse

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Silicon Valley Bank's collapse is sparking traumatic memories of the 2008 financial crash. Should we be worried SVB is signaling a similar economic catastrophe, or is everyone overreacting to the media's hype? Glenn told his listeners to be "healthily terrified." This event is sure to have ripple effects throughout the economy, but the more you are informed about it, the more you can prepare. Here are 6 things you need to know about Silicon Valley Bank's crash—explained in simple words.

1. The short answer to what happened: SVB didn't have enough money to pay its depositors.

Remember the scene from It's a Wonderful Life when all of the residents make a run on George Bailey's bank demanding their money? Fortunately for them, their money was in the altruistic hands of George Bailey, who used his honeymoon savings to give the depositors the money they demanded.

Silicon Valley Bank's depositors weren't so lucky.

In short, the depositors made a run on Silicon Valley Bank, demanding the withdrawal of their money. But SVB simply didn't have the liquid money available to give their depositors, causing regulators to shut down the bank shortly afterward.

2. It all started with COVID...

Why didn't SVB have enough money for its depositors? To explain this, we have to go back to the pandemic era.

The pandemic saw a rapid decrease in spending and a massive increase in bank deposits. Due to the uncertainty of the future and lockdowns limiting ways to spend money on recreational activities, like restaurants, bars, and other outlets, many Americans stocked up money in their accounts. In fact, SVB's deposits doubled in 2021 alone, bringing in more money than they could lend out to their clients.

To make a return on their available cash, SVB wanted to invest it, as many banks do. Since they had reached their lending limit, they decided to invest it in U.S. Treasury Securities, which are the government's means of funding itself without using taxation (in a nutshell). These are considered "ultra-safe" investments because they are backed by the "full faith and credit of the federal government."

Unlike other forms of investments, investing in Treasuries means the government will do everything within its legal power to pay back the money used to fund itself. In other words, it is typically very safe... so what happened?

3. Then came the magic cocktail—record-high inflation and rising interest rates...

Interest rates ruined the typically "ultra-safe" investment. Due to 40-year record-high inflation, the Fed lifted rates eight times by a total of 4.25 percentage points in 2022, raising interest rates from 0.25 percent to 4.375 percent. This means the value of U.S. Treasuries investments plummeted rapidly. SVB reported that it lost $1.8 billion due to the decreased value of its Treasuries investments after a year of rising interest rates.

This raises the following question: why didn't SVB just weather the storm and wait for interest rates to decrease? There are two issues with this. The first is that, with so many of their assets held up in Treasuries investments, SVB still wouldn't have enough liquid assets to give their depositors during the bank run.

The second issue is that Treasuries investments have a ten-year limit. In 2021 during the Trump administration, interest rates were at an all-time low of 0.125 percent.

The record-fast increase of interest rates in 2022 caused very little chance for rates to go back down to their historic 2021 lows within ten years for banks to make their money back on their investments.

To avoid this, SVB planned to sell their investments at a loss and re-purchase Treasuries investments at the decreased value, giving them an extra ten years to bet on decreased interest rates in the future.

But people caught on to SVB's plan and didn't want to ride with the risk.

4. Account holders withdrew their money... FAST.

As aforementioned, SVP lost $1.8 billion when it sold its depleted Treasuries investments. While they were betting on being able to re-purchase the devalued securities, hoping that they would go up in value in the future with lowered interest rates, investors were worried about the risk.

Once they made the announcement of their $1.8 billion loss, their stocks began to drop, and venture capitalists warned the companies they invest in to pull out of SVB. This had a snowball effect, leading to a "bank run" of depositors demanding to withdraw their money from their SVB accounts.

This led to the perfect storm: SVB's investment losses coupled with the influx of withdrawals were so immense that regulators had to step in and shut the bank down to protect depositors. The government currently "running" SVB, for all practical purposes, is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC closed SVB on Friday and reopened the bank on Monday, March 13th as the Deposit Insurance Bank of Santa Clara.

5. Some people may lose their money. 

Banks insure accounts with $250,000 or less with FDIC insurance. That means, in cases of bank failure, exactly like this one, the FDIC covers all accounts less than $250,000. The FDIC said SVB customers who had less than $250,000 in their accounts will have access to all of their money when the bank reopens. Since it reopened this week, they should have access to their funds.

However, many of SVB's depositors had more than $250,000 in their accounts—it is Silicon Valley after all. Therefore, their accounts were not covered by FDIC insurance. Will they get their money back? There is a chance that they will not.

It is unclear how much SVB currently has to cover uninsured deposits. It is likely not enough. The FDIC has issued a "Receiver's Certificate" to the uninsured account holders with the amount in their account that is not covered by FDIC insurance.

The FDIC said it will pay some of the uninsured deposits by next week by liquidating any additional assets held by SVB. However, if the liquidated assets are not enough, many of SVB's uninsured account holders could lose their money for good.

6. Is this 2008 all over again?

SVB's collapse was the largest bank failure since 2008, when Washington Mutual failed with $307 billion in assets. Its failure, along with the collapse of the Lehman Brother's investment bank, triggered the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Are we in danger of repeating 2008?

Some argue that we are not in danger of another economic catastrophe, simply because SVB holds less than 1 percent of the nation's assets. However, as Glenn warns, there is a danger of banks repeating the same mistakes as SVP.

SVP wasn't the only bank to use its surplus deposits to invest in U.S. Treasuries, which means that other banks are wrestling with the depleted value of their securities investments due to rising interest rates.

Bank of America, for example, lost $109 billion in their securities investments due to rising interest rates, the most among its peers—and Bank of America is no small fish in the ocean of assets.

Other major banks recorded other massive losses in their securities investments due to rising interest rates. JP Morgan Chase lost $36 billion, Wells Fargo lost $41 billion, Citigroup lost $25 billion, and Goldman Sachs lost $1 billion. If the little banks collapse, will they get the same effort and attention from the federal government as the "big guys?"

The critic may argue that these are still small values given the incredibly large amount of assets held in banks nationwide. However, this is missing the point. Major banks have majorly invested in securities since the pandemic-era skyrocketing rate of deposits. Now those investments are depleted in value.

They can either sell those investments at a loss, or they can wait and hope that they will recover over time. However, if those investments are no longer liquid, what happens when their depositors come knocking? Will they have enough liquid assets to cover a massive bank run? These are the lingering questions that our banks need to address.

As Glenn says, this will impact you—it is only a matter of time. What will you do to prepare?