I am not sure why you are so bitter but it’s important do understand that all you do is create more hate with comments like this. The only thing anyone is asking for is to protect the deposits of the people who bank(ed) with SVB. That is it.
Both you, op and others are being ignorant on this. Insurance payment or bailout is external money, this is making depositors whole using the bank's assets, not FDIC or government money. Tax payers are not making anyone whole as I understand yellen's proposal.
When a person doesn't want himself and every other ordinary person to be robbed by millionaires and billionaires, that is not "hate". That is not what "hate" is.
Founders drained the whole Bay Area of anything culturally interesting, tech companies all just did massive layoffs, years of shouting "learn to code" at every other profession, the world's art output fed into an AI meat grinder with "whoops sorry but also it's legally okay" to enrich a few VCs, but you can't imagine why someone might be bitter about demands to compensate their business mistakes from the public purse?
Define costs, specifically. What are the 'costs' of ensuring that depositors have their money, while taking over long-term SVB investments that the government can wait out? What are the 'costs' of tens of thousands of job losses? What are the specific 'costs' of significant centralization of banking, as any new VC would immediately require a start-up to move it's money to JPM or GS?
Making depositors whole is important and should happen. Confidence in the banking system is important. A company that needs banking should not be subject to the same risk as a shareholder.
chewz|3 years ago
badrabbit|3 years ago
mynameishere|3 years ago
morelisp|3 years ago
UncleEntity|3 years ago
I grew up in the Bay Area in the 70s and 80s and it wasn’t all that culturally interesting back then either.
booleandilemma|3 years ago
kreeben|3 years ago
If it costs more than a dime, though, let's not.
jmye|3 years ago
Eisenstein|3 years ago
matwood|3 years ago