Hacker News Reader

They're neither good nor bad. They're just assets. Investors who bought them should bear the consequences of their decision. Depositors knew that their deposits were not insured in excess of 250K. Why do we allow certain groups of people to just rewrite the rules whenever they fail? It's ridiculous. Not to mention totally antithetical to their supposed philosophy.

View on HN

The answer to your question is pretty simple, actually; the "we" would would let SVB depositors fail are also the same "we" that compose the voters and participants in the US economy who would be harmed by letting SVB depositors lose out on their money.

Allowing people to starve and die isn't really in the best interest of the very people who would starve and die, so... "we" won't let that happen.

I'm not saying we allow them to starve and die. They can apply for SNAP, EBT, and Medicaid, just like everybody else if they become truly penniless. Get a job delivering Jimmy Johns. Or just sell their vacation homes.

And again, we as a society do not find destitution/poverty to be an acceptable outcome for the "crime" of simply banking.

You seem to not understand who would be effected by this the most. It's not the people with vacation homes, it's their employees.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com