4 ms·
> You're the one claiming there will be contagion here. In the sense that I never said that, sure. The only thing I claimed, even implicitly, is firing a bunc
by x0x0 4y ago
> You're the one claiming there will be contagion here.
In the sense that I never said that, sure.
The only thing I claimed, even implicitly, is firing a bunch of people because their employer's cash disappeared would be bad.
- wpietri 4y agoNo, you explicitly used the word contagion: "If people get whatever short term vengeance they're looking for, the contagion will cause a whole lot of collateral damage to people who aren't in tech." That has a technical meaning in finance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_contagion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_contagion
- x0x0 4y agoidopmstuff != x0x0 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35122581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35122581 I repeat: "In the sense that I never said that, sure."
- wpietri 4y agoMy apologies; I did confuse the two. In which case, since you're not claiming contagion risk, I return to my previous point that there is no reason for taxpayers to bail out rich people who took a gamble and lost.