3 ms·

Respectfully, I think you are the one playing with definitions. “Bailout” refers to shareholders. It refers to bailing out the institution, not it’s depositors.

Respectfully, I think you are the one playing with definitions. “Bailout” refers to shareholders. It refers to bailing out the institution, not it’s depositors. We can talk about a depositor bailout if you want, but let’s not pretend it’s the same thing, not pretend it’s what the term “bailout” commonly refers to.

mixdup 4y ago
We’re changing the (very well) known rules in the middle of a crisis and acting like we didn’t know what happened could happen, when we did. This is a bailout
- lbrandy 4y ago
  The only reason you and others seem so desperate to redefine bailout so you can call it a bailout is because you want to attach the negative connotations to that word to “hurt” the people you want to be hurt. It’s embarrassing, shortsighted, and destructive.
- omginternets 4y ago
  Yeah, that's (still) not what "bailout" means.
lisasays 4y ago
Multiple sources attest to the contrary - very consistently a "bailout" is taken to refer to any kind of financial assistance provided to a failing institution (not just to the shareholders). For example, Investopedia: What Is A Bailout? A bailout is when a business, an individual, or a government provides money and/or resources (also known as a capital injection) to a failing company. These actions help to prevent the consequences of that business's potential downfall which may include bankruptcy and default on its financial obligations. All the major English dictionaries, and Wikipedia will tell you same thing. To call this action anything other than "bailout" is to mince words, plain and simple.
- omginternets 4y ago
  Except that’s still not really what happened. The depositors are being made whole with a mix of SVB’s capital and funds previously paid to the FDIC by the banks, and pooled for related purposes. Taxpayers aren’t footing the bill. It’s not meaningfully a bailout. Certainly, it’s different from 2008 in an important way. Again, we can talk about “bailing out” depositors, if you really want to use that word, but let’s not be misleading.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - lisasays 4y ago
    Taxpayers aren’t footing the bill. Even if the transaction turns out to be cash-neutral for the government - or even provides a small profit, as with TARP - it is still providing very considerable resources in the form of liquidity, coercive muscle - and sheer gravitas. It’s not meaningfully a bailout. Tomato, Tomah-to. In the same ways as if you go driving cross country with inadequate money in the bank (and inadequate insurance), and then have a major breakdown -- forcing you to ask your parents or your friends to wire you money -- they are unambiguously bailing your sorry ass out, even you promise to sell your precious vinyl collection that pay them back, once you get home.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

mixdup 4y ago

We’re changing the (very well) known rules in the middle of a crisis and acting like we didn’t know what happened could happen, when we did. This is a bailout

lbrandy 4y ago
The only reason you and others seem so desperate to redefine bailout so you can call it a bailout is because you want to attach the negative connotations to that word to “hurt” the people you want to be hurt. It’s embarrassing, shortsighted, and destructive.
omginternets 4y ago
Yeah, that's (still) not what "bailout" means.

lisasays 4y ago

Multiple sources attest to the contrary - very consistently a "bailout" is taken to refer to any kind of financial assistance provided to a failing institution (not just to the shareholders). For example, Investopedia: What Is A Bailout? A bailout is when a business, an individual, or a government provides money and/or resources (also known as a capital injection) to a failing company. These actions help to prevent the consequences of that business's potential downfall which may include bankruptcy and default on its financial obligations. All the major English dictionaries, and Wikipedia will tell you same thing. To call this action anything other than "bailout" is to mince words, plain and simple.

omginternets 4y ago
Except that’s still not really what happened. The depositors are being made whole with a mix of SVB’s capital and funds previously paid to the FDIC by the banks, and pooled for related purposes. Taxpayers aren’t footing the bill. It’s not meaningfully a bailout. Certainly, it’s different from 2008 in an important way. Again, we can talk about “bailing out” depositors, if you really want to use that word, but let’s not be misleading.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lisasays 4y ago
  Taxpayers aren’t footing the bill. Even if the transaction turns out to be cash-neutral for the government - or even provides a small profit, as with TARP - it is still providing very considerable resources in the form of liquidity, coercive muscle - and sheer gravitas. It’s not meaningfully a bailout. Tomato, Tomah-to. In the same ways as if you go driving cross country with inadequate money in the bank (and inadequate insurance), and then have a major breakdown -- forcing you to ask your parents or your friends to wire you money -- they are unambiguously bailing your sorry ass out, even you promise to sell your precious vinyl collection that pay them back, once you get home.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]