> If they believe they are helping, why does the response always emerge suddenly on the day of the crisis with no debate or well explained contingency plan being activated?
I'm not sure what you mean. The FDIC is the contingency plan to bank failure. The response involves the FDIC taking banks in receivership and then paying back depositors.
The debate was hashed out in 1933 when the FDIC was created and has continued since. See here,
It's like other emergency government responses: there is autonomy built into the agencies because it's understood that being able to act swiftly is required, and that democracy can happen after the fact. FEMA doesn't hold votes on whether relief somewhere is required, the president can command military force without acts of congress in some cases etc.
I personally think it's debatable whether the gigantic nation states with representative democracies that we have now are the best possible system. But in this particular case the FDIC is pretty much acting as it was chartered to.
I'm not sure what you mean. The FDIC is the contingency plan to bank failure. The response involves the FDIC taking banks in receivership and then paying back depositors.
The debate was hashed out in 1933 when the FDIC was created and has continued since. See here,
https://www.fdic.gov/about/history/
It's like other emergency government responses: there is autonomy built into the agencies because it's understood that being able to act swiftly is required, and that democracy can happen after the fact. FEMA doesn't hold votes on whether relief somewhere is required, the president can command military force without acts of congress in some cases etc.
I personally think it's debatable whether the gigantic nation states with representative democracies that we have now are the best possible system. But in this particular case the FDIC is pretty much acting as it was chartered to.