Depositors knowingly took a risk by keeping more than $250K in an individual bank account. Rather than allow depositors to face the consequences of that decision, the government will now be making an exception to their own rule and covering depositors' losses. That's a bailout.
If a company would have been unable to make payroll because of this, it would have been a direct result of their failure to adequately assess and mitigate risk.
This isn't a shareholder bailout and they say the bill ultimately won't sit on tax payers,but it's a bailout none the less.
edit: to clarify I don't mean it's being redefined by the parent post here, bailout is being redefined for the whole SVB situation to avoid using a term that people respond poorly to.
And with a global economy, and global Internet, and social media giving everyone around the world an opportunity to escalate internal dissension, those risks are escalating.
I have no idea what the right answer is.
You mean the same economic system that has been in place since the industrial revolution?
Sure, the US tried softening it a bit during the aftermath of the great depression, but in the end, this is just a free market economic behaving as expected?
The one thing that keeps surprising me is the belief that the US seems to have in self regulation, which has failed time and time again?