4 ms·
Multiple things can be true here. Thiel didn't start the issue, but he did act in a way that would make things worse for the group, but best for him. Perhaps he
by campbel 4y ago
Multiple things can be true here. Thiel didn't start the issue, but he did act in a way that would make things worse for the group, but best for him. Perhaps he felt that if he didn't do it, others would anyways? Probably needless to say, this is perfectly on brand for how he'd act.
- mrguyorama 4y agoBlaming Thiel for the bank run on SVB is the same stupidity as blaming Soros for the collapse of the pound two decades ago. If someone calls out that the emperor has no clothes and that is the reality, they have done nothing wrong.
- oarabbus_ 4y agoThese banks made poor investment decisions and were reckles with customer funds, and are to blame for their own failure. It might be on-brand for him, and surely he acted in his own interest and didn't give a shit about anyone else. But did Thiel also organize runs on Silvergate Bank and Signature Bank NY? Why did those fail along with SVB in a span of days? His involvement seems to be getting exaggerated here.