Hacker News Reader

Comment by kneebonian | Hacker News Reader

Many people feel the opposite of you that the Silicon Valley first republic fiasco ended up with those who chose to risk more than the rules said they would (FDIC insured amount) got bailed out for their poor decisions and risk taking, while many ordinary people are increasingly feeling that the system is stacked against them and because of the huge inflation (that they don't see matching the government figures because the government is playing funny with the numbers) is putting them financially back.

I'm not saying your wrong, but there are a lot of people who see it differently, and I also don't think that "the smooth running of the financial system" is the most important responsibility of the government.

View on HN

I also don't think that "the smooth running of the financial system" is the most important responsibility

Anyone old enough to live through the financial institutions collapsing, one after another, like dominoes would probably at least concede that it is an important responsibility. No one likes to see those responsible get rewarded for their actions, but it sure is important to not let the patient bleed out on the table.

The way many people remember it is millions lost their homes and livelihood while the bankers who had made billions in bad loans got golden parachutes and bailed out, at the same time most people were wondering how they were going to eat.

Honestly, things would've been rough, but I think they would've been better if we would've let the economy and the extra waste it has bleed like a stuck pig.

Honestly, I was thinking older than that, like the S&L crisis in the 80s. What I remember most from the crash you referenced is that the Dodd–Frank regulations getting rolled back not long after. An ounce of prevention, ya know.

Some people wouldn’t mind if the economy is plunged into recession if it means some rich people get theirs. These misanthropes pop up during every financial or possible financial crisis.

I mean, yeah, but they only serve as a response to the “let them eat cake” class, who always ends up getting their way in the end. The real misanthropes are the ones who keep the status quo primed for the next financial catastrophe by not fixing anything when things are good, because financial catastrophes are profitable for them.

> The real misanthropes are the ones who keep the status quo primed for the next financial catastrophe by not fixing anything when things are good, because financial catastrophes are profitable for them.

Who are these people? This describes a small number of people and they are not in power.

Strawmen who do very important work in propping up world-views.

The individuals in the role of Speaker of the house, senate majority leader, and POTUS over the last 30 years. I wasn’t expecting to provide a list, as you didn’t list the individuals you were referencing, but if you want specific names I can get those.

The only person among those who conceivably see any upside from recession are congressional leaders who are not in the President’s party. Fortunately, they do not control the FDIC and Fed in exigent circumstances.

Upper echelons of government definitely benefit from maintaining the status quo order. Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi being in power for years and years and years doesn't happen on accident. That's what happens when entrenched power structures do whatever they can to stay entrenched. If that means letting the economy blow up every few years, fine. No skin off their backs, they're at the top of the pyramid. Why should any of them fix anything when things are good?

If the economy is bad, the people in power in democracies lose their jobs.

It's demoralizing when the government can move with lightning reflexes to protect corporations or rich individuals that are "at risk", meanwhile many things which would directly benefit working class people get kicked down the road.

Because everyone with a voice (those not at the bottom) are interested in maintaining the social ordering. That is why businesses get saved, but workers do not. You want the people dependent on their wages to not have too many options, otherwise you end up with costs for goods and services increasing (quicker than anticipated), since the lowest wage workers have more options.

The volatility can cause political blowback as people’s expectations are not met.

> they don't see matching the government figures because the government is playing funny with the numbers

This isn't seeing things differently, it's seeing them incorrectly. Yes, there are zip codes and metropolitan areas with higher than median inflation, but that's also true for the reverse. Someone missing the forest for the trees isn't seeing things differently, they're misattributing their problems.

It’s not about particular zip codes. It’s about funny numbers and bailing out the rich.

> It’s about funny numbers and bailing out the rich

The first is ambiguous; I assume this is the usual inflation definition misunderstanding. TL; DR There are a number of measures of inflation because there are an infinite number of possible baskets of goods and services; they're adversarially generated by a number of agencies and private organizations.

The second is just sour grapes. Did SVB's depositors deserve a bailout? No. Was its bailout infinitely better than the '08 bailouts, which bailed out the banks themselves? Yes. Was not bailing out SVB's depositors worth a recession? No. As another comment mentioned [1], misanthropy and catastrophism isn't a productive policy preference.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36695197

Reply on news.ycombinator.com