6 ms·

It's this. I would also like to point out that it's perfectly okay to simultaneously take pleasure in an industry being culled of precisely what you described,

It's this. I would also like to point out that it's perfectly okay to simultaneously take pleasure in an industry being culled of precisely what you described, while also feeling bad for some of those who may lose their jobs as a result. Ain't nuance neat?

idopmstuff 4y ago
> I would also like to point out that it's perfectly okay to simultaneously take pleasure in an industry being culled of precisely what you described, while also feeling bad for some of those who may lose their jobs as a result. Ain't nuance neat? Absolutely. What's surprising to me is the absolute lack of that nuance on HN. It's all just BURN IT ALL TO THE GROUND over the last few days.
- urbanhole 4y ago
  Internet people are garbage, and HN is not special in this regard. This is because people are garbage. People love tearing others down. This is the rule.
  - layer8 4y ago
    This comment is amusingly self-referential. (As is this one, I guess.)
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Yes. We're absolutely not interested in seeing the US government bail out banks yet again, especially not banks that just happened to get fucked by their "safe investment strategy". I really have no idea why you are surprised.
  - idopmstuff 4y ago
    But what you're saying here is unrelated to the reality of the situation. Yellen has already said there will be no bailout of the bank. A bailout would be something that rescues equity holders. What people are talking about here is making sure depositors don't lose their money.
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      I don't see "depositors" as a special class of people at all. They're equivalent to shareholders to me. They all poured money in and expected dividends. The true reality of the situation is that these people lent their money to the bank. To bail them out is equivalent to bailing out shareholders.
      - wrs 4y ago
        You’re expecting dividends from your checking account?
        matheusmoreira 4y ago
        I do expect interest payments from any money of mine that's not in my physical posession. Checking accounts don't pay interest so I don't use them. They're just a temporary register for my "pay bills" and "invest" operations.
        wrs 4y ago
        I don’t know where you’ve been banking for the last ten years or so, but I wish I did — interest payments on liquid deposits weren’t a thing for a long time. And startups don’t “invest”, they only “pay bills”.
        matheusmoreira 4y ago
        I'm brazilian so I use brazilian banks. Some of my banks pay me interest on liquid accounts. I don't allow money to accumulate in the accounts of those that don't. I also spread my investments over as many banks as possible: my accounts are independently insured for up to some amount. I also move money off of the banks as soon as humanly possible by buying real property instead. I don't trust them.
        wrs 4y ago
        You do this for your business accounts?
  - bart_spoon 4y ago
    Did you read the title of this thread? No one is arguing about bailing out a bank. There is a difference between bailing out a bank, and ensuring customers of said bank who did nothing wrong gain access to their money. Yellen is saying this exact thing. For some reason people like yourself are unable to differentiate between the two.
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      "People like myself" are tired of watching banks wreaking havoc and suffering zero consequences for it. Their "safe investment strategies" failed, they're not solvent/liquid enough to pay back their customers, they're getting literally liquidated in a desperate attempt to raise enough money to make everyone whole again. And yet people keep depositing money into these things as if it's not a systemic problem. I make it a point not to differentiate between the two. Bailing out a bank's customers is bailing out the bank. By all means, liquidate the bank and distribute that cash. People are already commenting down below that it might not be enough. If it's not enough, tough. They made a bet and they lost. Consider not using a bank next time.
- startupsfail 4y ago
  This is the community that claims that it will save the world. While it behaves with such shortsightedness that it can’t even save their piggy bank. Should it be trusted with more money and power (that the bailout gives)?
- stuckinhell 4y ago
  Alot of people are rightfully upset because the banking industry cannot seem to get its shit together. Why do so many banking/financial crisis's keep occurring ? Why are executives not being put in prison for ruining so many lives ? People are reaching their limits.
  - endtime 4y ago
    > Why do so many banking/financial crisis's keep occurring ? This one, AFAICT, happened because the government greatly restricted what banks could do with their funds. One of the only options available in large volumes is a government instrument subject to risk from the Fed raising rates rapidly. > Why are executives not being put in prison for ruining so many lives ? I hope people only get put in prison for breaking actual laws. And if the SVB execs broke laws then yes, they should go to prison. But I haven't heard it alleged by anyone that they have.
    - mp2 4y ago
      > This one, AFAICT, happened because the government greatly restricted what banks could do with their funds. One of the only options available in large volumes is a government instrument subject to risk from the Fed raising rates rapidly. So the solution to just let banks do whatever they want? A bank that is prevented from taking excessively risky action becomes insolvent, and your answer is to allow them to take even more risk? The Fed has been signaling for a year that rates are going to keep rising, it is eminently predicable what that means to professionals in the industry. Hubris at its best. Have you even heard of Glass–Steagall, or have a basic understanding of the last 100 years of economic theory? > I hope people only get put in prison for breaking actual laws. And if the SVB execs broke laws then yes, they should go to prison. But I haven't heard it alleged by anyone that they have. A laughably naïve thing to say in more than a few ways.
flappyeagle 4y ago
This isn’t nuanced. It’s confused. If startups were going under because it turns out that they were pointless and there was no market, and they ran out of runway… then sure. But this is their house catching on fire and all of their money just vanishing through no fault of their own. It doesn’t distinguish between good startups and dumb ones, real businesses and nonsense — how could you root for this beyond pettiness?
- mlyle 4y ago
  > But this is their house catching on fire and all of their money just vanishing through no fault of their own. You can choose to hold money in multiple banks. There are services that will happily set up laddered CDs across many institutions for you to diversify exposure and maximize insurance. To use your tortured analogy: if my neighbor's house burned down, and he didn't buy fire insurance... I would be sad, but I don't exactly think it's my problem (or the government's) to pay to make him whole. > If startups were going under because it turns out that they were pointless and there was no market, and they ran out of runway… then sure. I know we all like to believe we control our own destiny. Tiny little inconsequential-seeming choices wobble startups between success and failure every single day. Having a good product is such a tiny piece of it all.
  - jagraff 4y ago
    But if your neighbor’s house is currently burning down, you probably want the fire department to put it out before it spreads to your house…
    - Jtsummers 4y ago
      Which is what's being done. Insured amount going out on Monday, dividends based on liquidation of assets going out over time. The fire is being managed, it's not like nothing is happening here. People are just pissed that the government and FDIC are doing what they've said they would do instead of something more, which was never promised.
      - 4y ago

idopmstuff 4y ago

> I would also like to point out that it's perfectly okay to simultaneously take pleasure in an industry being culled of precisely what you described, while also feeling bad for some of those who may lose their jobs as a result. Ain't nuance neat? Absolutely. What's surprising to me is the absolute lack of that nuance on HN. It's all just BURN IT ALL TO THE GROUND over the last few days.

urbanhole 4y ago
Internet people are garbage, and HN is not special in this regard. This is because people are garbage. People love tearing others down. This is the rule.
- layer8 4y ago
  This comment is amusingly self-referential. (As is this one, I guess.)
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Yes. We're absolutely not interested in seeing the US government bail out banks yet again, especially not banks that just happened to get fucked by their "safe investment strategy". I really have no idea why you are surprised.
- idopmstuff 4y ago
  But what you're saying here is unrelated to the reality of the situation. Yellen has already said there will be no bailout of the bank. A bailout would be something that rescues equity holders. What people are talking about here is making sure depositors don't lose their money.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    I don't see "depositors" as a special class of people at all. They're equivalent to shareholders to me. They all poured money in and expected dividends. The true reality of the situation is that these people lent their money to the bank. To bail them out is equivalent to bailing out shareholders.
    - wrs 4y ago
      You’re expecting dividends from your checking account?
      - matheusmoreira 4y ago
        I do expect interest payments from any money of mine that's not in my physical posession. Checking accounts don't pay interest so I don't use them. They're just a temporary register for my "pay bills" and "invest" operations.
        wrs 4y ago
        I don’t know where you’ve been banking for the last ten years or so, but I wish I did — interest payments on liquid deposits weren’t a thing for a long time. And startups don’t “invest”, they only “pay bills”.
        matheusmoreira 4y ago
        I'm brazilian so I use brazilian banks. Some of my banks pay me interest on liquid accounts. I don't allow money to accumulate in the accounts of those that don't. I also spread my investments over as many banks as possible: my accounts are independently insured for up to some amount. I also move money off of the banks as soon as humanly possible by buying real property instead. I don't trust them.
        wrs 4y ago
        You do this for your business accounts?
- bart_spoon 4y ago
  Did you read the title of this thread? No one is arguing about bailing out a bank. There is a difference between bailing out a bank, and ensuring customers of said bank who did nothing wrong gain access to their money. Yellen is saying this exact thing. For some reason people like yourself are unable to differentiate between the two.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    "People like myself" are tired of watching banks wreaking havoc and suffering zero consequences for it. Their "safe investment strategies" failed, they're not solvent/liquid enough to pay back their customers, they're getting literally liquidated in a desperate attempt to raise enough money to make everyone whole again. And yet people keep depositing money into these things as if it's not a systemic problem. I make it a point not to differentiate between the two. Bailing out a bank's customers is bailing out the bank. By all means, liquidate the bank and distribute that cash. People are already commenting down below that it might not be enough. If it's not enough, tough. They made a bet and they lost. Consider not using a bank next time.
startupsfail 4y ago
This is the community that claims that it will save the world. While it behaves with such shortsightedness that it can’t even save their piggy bank. Should it be trusted with more money and power (that the bailout gives)?
stuckinhell 4y ago
Alot of people are rightfully upset because the banking industry cannot seem to get its shit together. Why do so many banking/financial crisis's keep occurring ? Why are executives not being put in prison for ruining so many lives ? People are reaching their limits.
- endtime 4y ago
  > Why do so many banking/financial crisis's keep occurring ? This one, AFAICT, happened because the government greatly restricted what banks could do with their funds. One of the only options available in large volumes is a government instrument subject to risk from the Fed raising rates rapidly. > Why are executives not being put in prison for ruining so many lives ? I hope people only get put in prison for breaking actual laws. And if the SVB execs broke laws then yes, they should go to prison. But I haven't heard it alleged by anyone that they have.
  - mp2 4y ago
    > This one, AFAICT, happened because the government greatly restricted what banks could do with their funds. One of the only options available in large volumes is a government instrument subject to risk from the Fed raising rates rapidly. So the solution to just let banks do whatever they want? A bank that is prevented from taking excessively risky action becomes insolvent, and your answer is to allow them to take even more risk? The Fed has been signaling for a year that rates are going to keep rising, it is eminently predicable what that means to professionals in the industry. Hubris at its best. Have you even heard of Glass–Steagall, or have a basic understanding of the last 100 years of economic theory? > I hope people only get put in prison for breaking actual laws. And if the SVB execs broke laws then yes, they should go to prison. But I haven't heard it alleged by anyone that they have. A laughably naïve thing to say in more than a few ways.

flappyeagle 4y ago

This isn’t nuanced. It’s confused. If startups were going under because it turns out that they were pointless and there was no market, and they ran out of runway… then sure. But this is their house catching on fire and all of their money just vanishing through no fault of their own. It doesn’t distinguish between good startups and dumb ones, real businesses and nonsense — how could you root for this beyond pettiness?

mlyle 4y ago
> But this is their house catching on fire and all of their money just vanishing through no fault of their own. You can choose to hold money in multiple banks. There are services that will happily set up laddered CDs across many institutions for you to diversify exposure and maximize insurance. To use your tortured analogy: if my neighbor's house burned down, and he didn't buy fire insurance... I would be sad, but I don't exactly think it's my problem (or the government's) to pay to make him whole. > If startups were going under because it turns out that they were pointless and there was no market, and they ran out of runway… then sure. I know we all like to believe we control our own destiny. Tiny little inconsequential-seeming choices wobble startups between success and failure every single day. Having a good product is such a tiny piece of it all.
- jagraff 4y ago
  But if your neighbor’s house is currently burning down, you probably want the fire department to put it out before it spreads to your house…
  - Jtsummers 4y ago
    Which is what's being done. Insured amount going out on Monday, dividends based on liquidation of assets going out over time. The fire is being managed, it's not like nothing is happening here. People are just pissed that the government and FDIC are doing what they've said they would do instead of something more, which was never promised.
    - 4y ago