Yeah, during the panic over SVB, I saw lots of argument that people with millions of dollars in cash shouldn't have to worry their pretty heads over managing th

Yeah, during the panic over SVB, I saw lots of argument that people with millions of dollars in cash shouldn't have to worry their pretty heads over managing that money. Lots. And I think that's true in the same sort of abstract way I shouldn't have to worry about how what I'm eating affects my health. All desserts, no vegetables, right? But back here in the real world, arguing for eternal and unlimited taxpayer bailouts implies eternal and unlimited interference from the people paying for the bailouts. Capitalism is about risk and reward. It's about a cycle of gambles and consequences, good and bad, that helps society discover what works and what doesn't. If you take away the consequences, it's not capitalism anymore. Maybe you end up with socialism for the rich, maybe you end up with gray, bureaucrat-run playpens. But either way you lose the engine-for-progress part of capitalism, which I see as the heart of it. I was talking with my retired aunt yesterday and she asked about the reaction here in tech-land to the SVB bank run. When I explained to her that there were people with millions or tens of millions in cash in one bank, she was gobsmacked. She is just getting by, and even she keeps accounts with two separate companies. In her words, "You never know!" The question she had that I couldn't answer: "How do people think history doesn't apply to them?"