This is certainly a better idea than letting tax payers pick up the tab.
Un-insured creditors means anyone who holds bank debt, so investors in the banks, whether shareholders or bond holders would be the ones who suffered
if the bank crashed - which is certainly a lot fairer than letting people pay who had nothing to do with the bank.
EDIT: I thought I would add some emphasis, because in the OP you expressed some concern regarding the idea.
The plan would mean: Only those INVESTORS who INTENTIONALLY put their money into that bank (not as a deposit, but either by buying bonds or
shares), with the expectation of returns, and therefore with the knowledge that they were making an INVESTMENT, and therefore accepting a RISK would
suffer if the bank failed. So - if you make a bad investment, you lose - a very fair idea.
Compare that to the US case for example. The PEOPLES money, who had NOTHING to do with the bank, was used to repair the banks. In other words the
banks STOLE the peoples money - because they ran a crappy business and failed. NOT FAIR - in fact it is THEFT of YOUR MONEY!
Also, the plan does not refer to deposits at all - which are normally insured by governments anyway - so they should be safe, which is fine.
The system sounds fine - except for one thing - insurance and levies.
What this means is that the banks costs go up - that means that lending rates would have to increase, or interest on deposits decrease or both.
Most people use banks - so the additional costs would be passed on anyway.
The upside though is - if you are not using the banking system, you do not have to pay at all - which is great, because I think everyone needs to find
a way to remove themselves from the banking system.
One other risk is, the pool of money created would need to be managed, meaning more possibilities for corruption and speculation. The fund should be
invested in hard assets like gold and diversified real estate, then it would be ok.
[edit on 20-3-2010 by Amagnon]

