4 ms·

I am by no means an expert. The bailing out was needed due to risky behavior. The risky behavior was enabled by de-regulation starting from Clinton. (Most de-

I am by no means an expert. The bailing out was needed due to risky behavior. The risky behavior was enabled by de-regulation starting from Clinton. (Most de-regulation related systemic flaws today can be traced back to his admin) "Tech bros" support this de-regulation. Any regulation is govt. overreach. "We know how to handle our shit" attitude all over the place. Yet when the downside of the risk comes, it is govt. money that bails them out. Regarding your last line. How much of your stuff (something that is fungible, like money) needs to be actually be in the unit while the storage company can loan out the rest is the question. There can be more of the stuff in circulation than there are resources. As long as not everyone is asking for their stuff back, the storage company can keep juggling balls in the air.

gruez 4y ago
>The risky behavior was enabled by de-regulation starting from Clinton. (Most de-regulation related systemic flaws today can be traced back to his admin) >"Tech bros" support this de-regulation. Any regulation is govt. overreach. "We know how to handle our shit" attitude all over the place. Surely this doesn't apply to all SVB depositors? Or do you think the entire SVB deposit base was card carrying "tech bro" members? Or suppose 80% are, what of the remaining 20%? Should they get ruined because they dared to associate with "tech bros" and/or didn't do financial risk modeling properly? Or maybe the government should make the bailout conditional on whether you were a "tech bro" or advocated for deregulation?
- yathaid 4y ago
  Sorry, to be clear, this is only talking about the people running the banks, (not all bankers blah blah ...), not the depositors.
LatteLazy 4y ago
It is something of an aside but, I find it very amusing that the risky behaviour people are up in arms about in this case is "buying long dated US treasuries". I think no one really disagrees about whether people who knowingly take risks should be bailed out - they shouldn't. To me, the deeper question is who actually knowingly took the risks and should people/businesses have an opportunity NOT to take such risks but to still access basic banking services? I have zero objection to shareholders, bond holders and even senior management getting nothing in these cases. They absolutely should not. And the second government has to step in, that should be the case. I am just not convinced that depositors count as having knowingly taken risk. It does not seem to me that the average depositor (including businesses or individuals with more than 250k in cash) ARE or SHOULD BE knowingly taking risks just by depositing their cash. Perhaps I am wrong, maybe that should be the case and bank accounts should continue to be a "risky" product? But if so, then I think we should offer (either via private banks or direct from the FED etc) a risk free product that lets you do the things we rely on from bank accounts (store, send and receive cash). It is an accident of history otherwise that the only way to access those services is to invest in a private firm. If I proposed that we should ban cash transfers and if people wanted to move money electrically, they should buy shares, send the shares, then have the recipient sell the shares, people would think I was crazy. But this is the same system really if depositors are really to be treated as "investors". I should not have to invest in a bank to transfer money anymore than I have to invest in a moving company to transfer a package. It's another aside but... The system in Scotland a few hundred years back was that each bank would issue it's own currency. Then the value of a "pound" from one bank would fluctuate compared to others depending on how stable that bank was considered to be. So even the bundle of bank notes under your bed could become worthless overnight. Personally I think that sounds crazy, and a sound, transferable deposit system sounds like the same sort of boring obvious infrastructure we should really have... Thanks for reading! :)

gruez 4y ago

>The risky behavior was enabled by de-regulation starting from Clinton. (Most de-regulation related systemic flaws today can be traced back to his admin) >"Tech bros" support this de-regulation. Any regulation is govt. overreach. "We know how to handle our shit" attitude all over the place. Surely this doesn't apply to all SVB depositors? Or do you think the entire SVB deposit base was card carrying "tech bro" members? Or suppose 80% are, what of the remaining 20%? Should they get ruined because they dared to associate with "tech bros" and/or didn't do financial risk modeling properly? Or maybe the government should make the bailout conditional on whether you were a "tech bro" or advocated for deregulation?

yathaid 4y ago
Sorry, to be clear, this is only talking about the people running the banks, (not all bankers blah blah ...), not the depositors.

LatteLazy 4y ago

It is something of an aside but, I find it very amusing that the risky behaviour people are up in arms about in this case is "buying long dated US treasuries". I think no one really disagrees about whether people who knowingly take risks should be bailed out - they shouldn't. To me, the deeper question is who actually knowingly took the risks and should people/businesses have an opportunity NOT to take such risks but to still access basic banking services? I have zero objection to shareholders, bond holders and even senior management getting nothing in these cases. They absolutely should not. And the second government has to step in, that should be the case. I am just not convinced that depositors count as having knowingly taken risk. It does not seem to me that the average depositor (including businesses or individuals with more than 250k in cash) ARE or SHOULD BE knowingly taking risks just by depositing their cash. Perhaps I am wrong, maybe that should be the case and bank accounts should continue to be a "risky" product? But if so, then I think we should offer (either via private banks or direct from the FED etc) a risk free product that lets you do the things we rely on from bank accounts (store, send and receive cash). It is an accident of history otherwise that the only way to access those services is to invest in a private firm. If I proposed that we should ban cash transfers and if people wanted to move money electrically, they should buy shares, send the shares, then have the recipient sell the shares, people would think I was crazy. But this is the same system really if depositors are really to be treated as "investors". I should not have to invest in a bank to transfer money anymore than I have to invest in a moving company to transfer a package. It's another aside but... The system in Scotland a few hundred years back was that each bank would issue it's own currency. Then the value of a "pound" from one bank would fluctuate compared to others depending on how stable that bank was considered to be. So even the bundle of bank notes under your bed could become worthless overnight. Personally I think that sounds crazy, and a sound, transferable deposit system sounds like the same sort of boring obvious infrastructure we should really have... Thanks for reading! :)