3 ms·

Yeah but the problem is that nobody wrote that down beforehand. It's not good to make it up as we go during emergencies. It's good to have clear rules written d

Yeah but the problem is that nobody wrote that down beforehand. It's not good to make it up as we go during emergencies. It's good to have clear rules written down ahead of time.

jasd 4y ago
Yes, people make mistakes and then learn from them. Sometimes not every scenario can be anticipated. In this instance a bunch of startups got caught in this mess and 250k won't be enough for them to survive/meet their employees' payroll. I appreciate the govt stepping in and hopefully rewriting the rules based on the learnings.
surfpel 4y ago
> It's not good to make it up as we go during emergencies Complicated, fragile emergencies are precisely the time to consider exceptions to hard rules. After all, if all our rules were perfect, we wouldn’t have an emergency to begin with.
- sanderjd 4y ago
  No, because those exceptions become the new rule, and fragile emergencies are a bad time to think through what the new rule should be. "Hard cases make bad law." I feel the need to say this in every comment because I don't expect people to read my other comments, but I do support what was done here, assuming the private buyer solution was tried and it failed, I just also think it's bad that things are run this way.
  - surfpel 4y ago
    > No, because those exceptions become the new rule I disagree that this necessarily sets the new rule. Sure, sometimes it creates new precedents, but the necessity for an exception should go on to inform new hard set rules to prevent the necessity for exceptions in the first place. In this case, a return to a more regulated banking sector, hopefully. This is not dissimilar from highly agile work environments that require frequent process changes to achieve the ultimate goal.
    - sanderjd 4y ago
      It is entirely dissimilar from highly agile work environments, because neither the federal government nor the financial system are highly agile. And even in far more agile systems, path dependency and status quo bias are very powerful. I would make a very large wager with you that in a decade it will be unquestioned that last night was the night US bank deposits of any size became fully government backed. Maybe that's even a good thing! I dunno, I have no idea what all the downstream effects will be. But the banking system now works a different way than it did on Thursday morning, and I think it's reasonable to question the wisdom of a change this huge being made over one random weekend.
dev_tty01 4y ago
Why do you think the Fed was making things up as they went along? The rules were written down years ago and they were followed in this case. https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/crisis/chap2.pdf https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/crisis/chap2.pdf
- sanderjd 4y ago
  I think you may have missed the news last night. They just invented three brand new facilities within 72 hours of SVB collapsing. That is making it up as you go.

Yeah but the problem is that nobody wrote that down beforehand. It's not good to make it up as we go during emergencies. It's good to have clear rules written down ahead of time.

jasd 4y ago

Yes, people make mistakes and then learn from them. Sometimes not every scenario can be anticipated. In this instance a bunch of startups got caught in this mess and 250k won't be enough for them to survive/meet their employees' payroll. I appreciate the govt stepping in and hopefully rewriting the rules based on the learnings.

surfpel 4y ago

> It's not good to make it up as we go during emergencies Complicated, fragile emergencies are precisely the time to consider exceptions to hard rules. After all, if all our rules were perfect, we wouldn’t have an emergency to begin with.

sanderjd 4y ago
No, because those exceptions become the new rule, and fragile emergencies are a bad time to think through what the new rule should be. "Hard cases make bad law." I feel the need to say this in every comment because I don't expect people to read my other comments, but I do support what was done here, assuming the private buyer solution was tried and it failed, I just also think it's bad that things are run this way.
- surfpel 4y ago
  > No, because those exceptions become the new rule I disagree that this necessarily sets the new rule. Sure, sometimes it creates new precedents, but the necessity for an exception should go on to inform new hard set rules to prevent the necessity for exceptions in the first place. In this case, a return to a more regulated banking sector, hopefully. This is not dissimilar from highly agile work environments that require frequent process changes to achieve the ultimate goal.
  - sanderjd 4y ago
    It is entirely dissimilar from highly agile work environments, because neither the federal government nor the financial system are highly agile. And even in far more agile systems, path dependency and status quo bias are very powerful. I would make a very large wager with you that in a decade it will be unquestioned that last night was the night US bank deposits of any size became fully government backed. Maybe that's even a good thing! I dunno, I have no idea what all the downstream effects will be. But the banking system now works a different way than it did on Thursday morning, and I think it's reasonable to question the wisdom of a change this huge being made over one random weekend.

dev_tty01 4y ago

Why do you think the Fed was making things up as they went along? The rules were written down years ago and they were followed in this case. https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/crisis/chap2.pdf https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/crisis/chap2.pdf

sanderjd 4y ago
I think you may have missed the news last night. They just invented three brand new facilities within 72 hours of SVB collapsing. That is making it up as you go.