> "The FDIC is not supported by public funds; member banks' insurance dues are its primary source of funding. When dues and the proceeds of bank liquidations are insufficient, it can borrow from the federal government, or issue debt through the Federal Financing Bank on terms that the bank decides."
If you're trying to say "look, 'taxpayer' isn't mentioned, all good", you're either in self-delusion or you're playing dumb.
It doesn't matter how you dress it - "taxpayer money", QE, Sammy's piggybank - the inflationary repercussions will affect everyone.
> On top of that, SVB has the money to pay back almost all of the depositors. They just don't have it liquid right now because it's in bonds that won't mature for a while and would need to be sold for a loss.
This is a self-contradiction, yet it's written as an explanation.
Bravo.
> You can vote for people who are dumb enough to let the entire banking system collapse because they want to hurt rich people. But of course that would probably put "peasants" out of work while the rich get slightly less rich.
This isn't about "hurting rich people", you can throw away that straw man (along with the twitter favorite "it's not a bailout, the bank equity goes to zero!").
It's about the response to a complex system's failure.
Most would agree injecting liquidity ASAP is mandatory in the short-term, but that does not mandate insuring 100% of deposits.
Any sort of response has negative repercussions, but it isn't a matter of fact that the banking system would collapse otherwise.
Nobody has "the answers", it's a complex system.
The VC tech bro take draws a line in the sand and cries wolf for any approach that doesn't cover them 100%, and it's done under the guise of looking out for others; "the workers", "the banking system", "the economy", "a generation of technological progress evaporated".
Is it possible that the best thing to do for the long-term is to allow a worse short-term outcome (affecting a small part of the economy more drastically), so that the system is altered in a way that actually fixes/improves it?
Even if we grant that hypothetical, should it be done? It's a complex question with no right answer.
The VC tech bro take on technological advancements that have negative short-term side effects, wiping industries and causing people to lose jobs usually falls in the range of "learn to code" to "that sucks, but we must march forward".
There is a poignant sense of hypocrisy when grandstanding holier-than-thou "technologists" who claim in abstract that progress and efficiency trump all, find themselves on the other side and act oh so predictably.
The cynical responders aren't partaking in the question of "what is the correct response", but just because they don't gobble up the predictable VC tech bro take as gospel doesn't make them dumb.
If you're trying to say "look, 'taxpayer' isn't mentioned, all good", you're either in self-delusion or you're playing dumb. It doesn't matter how you dress it - "taxpayer money", QE, Sammy's piggybank - the inflationary repercussions will affect everyone.
> On top of that, SVB has the money to pay back almost all of the depositors. They just don't have it liquid right now because it's in bonds that won't mature for a while and would need to be sold for a loss.
This is a self-contradiction, yet it's written as an explanation. Bravo.
> You can vote for people who are dumb enough to let the entire banking system collapse because they want to hurt rich people. But of course that would probably put "peasants" out of work while the rich get slightly less rich.
This isn't about "hurting rich people", you can throw away that straw man (along with the twitter favorite "it's not a bailout, the bank equity goes to zero!"). It's about the response to a complex system's failure. Most would agree injecting liquidity ASAP is mandatory in the short-term, but that does not mandate insuring 100% of deposits. Any sort of response has negative repercussions, but it isn't a matter of fact that the banking system would collapse otherwise.
Nobody has "the answers", it's a complex system. The VC tech bro take draws a line in the sand and cries wolf for any approach that doesn't cover them 100%, and it's done under the guise of looking out for others; "the workers", "the banking system", "the economy", "a generation of technological progress evaporated".
Is it possible that the best thing to do for the long-term is to allow a worse short-term outcome (affecting a small part of the economy more drastically), so that the system is altered in a way that actually fixes/improves it? Even if we grant that hypothetical, should it be done? It's a complex question with no right answer.
The VC tech bro take on technological advancements that have negative short-term side effects, wiping industries and causing people to lose jobs usually falls in the range of "learn to code" to "that sucks, but we must march forward". There is a poignant sense of hypocrisy when grandstanding holier-than-thou "technologists" who claim in abstract that progress and efficiency trump all, find themselves on the other side and act oh so predictably.
The cynical responders aren't partaking in the question of "what is the correct response", but just because they don't gobble up the predictable VC tech bro take as gospel doesn't make them dumb.