4 ms·

I think our perspectives on this are just really different. To me, this is much closer to a natural disaster -- which honestly prompts a question that has been

I think our perspectives on this are just really different. To me, this is much closer to a natural disaster -- which honestly prompts a question that has been troubling me: we in the Bay Area are in a seismically active region, with fault lines running through much of our urban areas. In a seismic event, am I going to have to first apologize for "the mistake" for where I live? Is FEMA aid going to be couched as a "bailout"? Is this going to be dubbed a "broquake" whereby innocents are made to pay a price because some unsavory people are as affected as they are? If this seems far-fetched to you, it doesn't to me, which may highlight how divergent our perspectives are...

mustache_kimono 4y ago
> I think our perspectives on this are just really different. Appreciate the opportunity to converse, and I hear your perspective. I was trying let you understand why others feel very differently, if you're going to ask yourself why some may not love your industry. > To me, this is much closer to a natural disaster It's interesting to analyze it in this way, but this analogy runs into its some difficulties. Natural disasters are one reason why we have insurance, and subsidizing/bolstering insurance in the wrong ways often leads to moral hazard (insurance is where I believe we get the phrase). It's plainly fair to ask whether we should subsidize flood insurance in a flood plain. The benefits of FEMA disaster relief are widely shared, and are not unlimited. Private insurance pays for plenty of the costs associated with hurricanes, etc. So, this analogy is imperfect for lots of reasons, but the most salient of which is, this bank failure was in no way natural. Bank failures are simply a fact of financial life. This isn't to say your bailout/backstop is not now a fine policy. I bet you and your employees have been through what seems like hell the last few days. And you've done amazing things at your new company over a few short years. I can fully understand how you feel this way because I might feel this way too. But IMHO what people are desirous for in public life is less entitlement, less division, and more fellowship and public spiritedness. Values which I am almost certain you share.

mustache_kimono 4y ago

> I think our perspectives on this are just really different. Appreciate the opportunity to converse, and I hear your perspective. I was trying let you understand why others feel very differently, if you're going to ask yourself why some may not love your industry. > To me, this is much closer to a natural disaster It's interesting to analyze it in this way, but this analogy runs into its some difficulties. Natural disasters are one reason why we have insurance, and subsidizing/bolstering insurance in the wrong ways often leads to moral hazard (insurance is where I believe we get the phrase). It's plainly fair to ask whether we should subsidize flood insurance in a flood plain. The benefits of FEMA disaster relief are widely shared, and are not unlimited. Private insurance pays for plenty of the costs associated with hurricanes, etc. So, this analogy is imperfect for lots of reasons, but the most salient of which is, this bank failure was in no way natural. Bank failures are simply a fact of financial life. This isn't to say your bailout/backstop is not now a fine policy. I bet you and your employees have been through what seems like hell the last few days. And you've done amazing things at your new company over a few short years. I can fully understand how you feel this way because I might feel this way too. But IMHO what people are desirous for in public life is less entitlement, less division, and more fellowship and public spiritedness. Values which I am almost certain you share.