15 ms·

De Niro characer in Heat: > "We want to hurt no one. We're here for the bank's money, not your money. Your money is insured by the federal government, you're n

De Niro characer in Heat: > "We want to hurt no one. We're here for the bank's money, not your money. Your money is insured by the federal government, you're not gonna lose a dime. Think of your families, don't risk your life. Don't try and be a hero." Is that tone deaf, or might it work? I bet it would work. When the financial harm is spread out thin, people take it less personally. That's why people regularly fight back against muggers, but we very rarely see anybody take vigilante action against hospitals, the pharma industry or insurance companies when hospitals charge $10+ for a single aspirin pill and insurance companies spread that harm thin.

nerdponx 8y ago
Your money is insured by the federal government And where does the federal government get their money? It's stealing from taxpayers.
- mikeyouse 8y ago
  Nah, FDIC receives $0 in appropriations from the Federal Government - it's funded by premiums that the banks pay and from earnings on US treasury deposits.
  - nerdponx 8y ago
    I did not know that. Thanks.
lisper 8y ago
It's tone deaf. It's based on a false belief about how money works. In fact, it's based on the exact same false belief that /u/toomuchtodo's defense of Shrkeli is based on. Yes, it's true that the federal government insures deposits, and so the loss from the theft from the bank will not be borne by the depositors directly. But the government has to get its money from somewhere too, and there are only two possible places it can get it: through taxation, or by printing it. If it uses tax money to cover the losses then the losses are borne by tax payers, and if it prints the money then the losses are borne by everyone via the resulting inflation. > When the financial harm is spread out thin, people take it less personally. That is certainly true, but that doesn't make it any less harmful. In fact, it is precisely the thin spreading of the harm that causes people to be complacent about the real underlying problems. The result is that by the time people become aware of the problems again, they have become much more serious and concomitantly more difficult to solve (c.f. the 2008 financial crisis).
- darkpuma 8y ago
  > "That is certainly true, but that doesn't make it any less harmful." I didn't say it makes it less harmful. I said it makes the defense tonally aware. The people using the defense are aware of the psychological bias people have when harm is spread thin. Besides inflation, you also have the costs of a city wide manhunt and FBI bank robbery investigation. The taxpayers are paying for those as well, and they'll likely be more expensive than anything in the vault. But the bank robbers are tonally aware; they know they can suppress vigilantism by pointing out that the government will spread the harm thin.
  - lisper 8y ago
    > I said it makes the defense tonally aware. Yeah, I know that's what you said. I'm saying you're wrong. Specifically, this bit: > you're not gonna lose a dime You will lose a dime. You will lose it in extra taxes or in reduced purchasing power of the insurance settlement you receive. And so will your friends and neighbors and strangers you have never heard of. And that's just the loss you will suffer from this one robbery. You will also lose a dime from the next robbery that the robbers get away with because people bought into this argument, and the next one and the next, until your cumulative losses will be large enough for you to feel the pain and decide to do something about it. And by the time we get to that point, it won't be just you feeling the pain, it will be everyone.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      With $12.2 million stolen in the fictional heist, the per-capita loss would be quite a bit less than one dime.
      - lisper 8y ago
        There are 138 million taxpayers in the U.S. [1] so the per-taxpayer loss would almost exactly a dime. Not that this matters. The net loss of allowing someone to steal $12.2 million is exactly $12.2 million. Quibbling over the details of how this loss is distributed is missing the point rather badly. [1] https://www.reference.com/government-politics/many-u-s-taxpayers-d77a9265390f4bdb https://www.reference.com/government-politics/many-u-s-taxpa...

nerdponx 8y ago

Your money is insured by the federal government And where does the federal government get their money? It's stealing from taxpayers.

mikeyouse 8y ago
Nah, FDIC receives $0 in appropriations from the Federal Government - it's funded by premiums that the banks pay and from earnings on US treasury deposits.
- nerdponx 8y ago
  I did not know that. Thanks.

lisper 8y ago

It's tone deaf. It's based on a false belief about how money works. In fact, it's based on the exact same false belief that /u/toomuchtodo's defense of Shrkeli is based on. Yes, it's true that the federal government insures deposits, and so the loss from the theft from the bank will not be borne by the depositors directly. But the government has to get its money from somewhere too, and there are only two possible places it can get it: through taxation, or by printing it. If it uses tax money to cover the losses then the losses are borne by tax payers, and if it prints the money then the losses are borne by everyone via the resulting inflation. > When the financial harm is spread out thin, people take it less personally. That is certainly true, but that doesn't make it any less harmful. In fact, it is precisely the thin spreading of the harm that causes people to be complacent about the real underlying problems. The result is that by the time people become aware of the problems again, they have become much more serious and concomitantly more difficult to solve (c.f. the 2008 financial crisis).

darkpuma 8y ago
> "That is certainly true, but that doesn't make it any less harmful." I didn't say it makes it less harmful. I said it makes the defense tonally aware. The people using the defense are aware of the psychological bias people have when harm is spread thin. Besides inflation, you also have the costs of a city wide manhunt and FBI bank robbery investigation. The taxpayers are paying for those as well, and they'll likely be more expensive than anything in the vault. But the bank robbers are tonally aware; they know they can suppress vigilantism by pointing out that the government will spread the harm thin.
- lisper 8y ago
  > I said it makes the defense tonally aware. Yeah, I know that's what you said. I'm saying you're wrong. Specifically, this bit: > you're not gonna lose a dime You will lose a dime. You will lose it in extra taxes or in reduced purchasing power of the insurance settlement you receive. And so will your friends and neighbors and strangers you have never heard of. And that's just the loss you will suffer from this one robbery. You will also lose a dime from the next robbery that the robbers get away with because people bought into this argument, and the next one and the next, until your cumulative losses will be large enough for you to feel the pain and decide to do something about it. And by the time we get to that point, it won't be just you feeling the pain, it will be everyone.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    With $12.2 million stolen in the fictional heist, the per-capita loss would be quite a bit less than one dime.
    - lisper 8y ago
      There are 138 million taxpayers in the U.S. [1] so the per-taxpayer loss would almost exactly a dime. Not that this matters. The net loss of allowing someone to steal $12.2 million is exactly $12.2 million. Quibbling over the details of how this loss is distributed is missing the point rather badly. [1] https://www.reference.com/government-politics/many-u-s-taxpayers-d77a9265390f4bdb https://www.reference.com/government-politics/many-u-s-taxpa...