Hacker News Reader

Comment by worrycue | Hacker News Reader

To be frank, letting depositors get wiped out will not stop those executives from doing the same thing. Most depositors won’t look too closely at what their banks do - heck most don’t understand how banks work. Simpler to just create laws and ban executives who break them from ever working for a bank again.

View on HN

> heck most don’t understand how banks work

Even before this week I already knew I didn't understand how banks worked, or finance in general. Which is why I keep what little cash I have in an insured account.

Why do we keep speaking of SVB depositors with over 250k in deposits as if they are part of the hapless hoi polloi? These are founders who practice and preach capitalism with a capital C. They are part of a class of individuals with immense power and wealth in our society; or looking to soon enter that class. They deserve none of the type of sympathy you're extending towards them when it comes to matters of business and finance.

Just because they have a lot of money doesn’t mean they have the expertise to evaluate a bank’s inner workings. Although I guess they could have hired people at considerable expense to do that … and I think some of them did which was what exasperated the run when they mass redrew their deposits. That or I think they can buy insurance … that said I wonder how many people/corporations actually buy insurance for their deposits above $250k.

Still my point stands, having depositors drown won’t stop others from pulling another SVB.

I love these metaphors that equate losing money with death. The whole point of capitalism is that people who make good decisions get to become rich and people who make bad ones don't. SV founders believe this at their core; at least they pretend to. No wonder people think it's a total scam the way it's currently implemented.

Regardless whether you think it's "fair" or not. Letting depositors lose their money won't prevent another SVB.

Classic deontology vs utilitarianism. I doubt we'll ever convince each other. I appreciate the discussion though.

You seem like you want to ‘stick it’ to these people because they are capitalists lol. You’re saying we should let everyone lost deposits over 250k because they are capitalists? A knowledgable capitalist knows that decreasing trust in banks hurts the economy and lead to less growth, just because you dislike them them and make wild assumptions about what they believe doesn’t mean the US ‘should’ do what you are prescribing.

You shouldn't know how an internal combustion engine works, right? So you bought a shitty truck for you business, it broke (let's say the warranty has expired), now you are broke. A knowledgeable capitalist knows that decreasing trust in vehicles hurts economy, so let's government intervene and compensate you for your broken truck. Right? Or maybe take over Ford/GM so they can build reliable trucks and they don't break, it will be good for economy, right? Banking and choice of banking tools is as important as choosing your truck and it's on you if you call yourself a capitalist, and if you failed, well, blame yourself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com