111–120 of 201 posts
Lol somehow always blaming “deregulation” and politicians I’ll tell you what, it’s not regulators that caused this. IMO Banks need less regulation (and more smaller banks) and need to fail more (and have more jail time). It’s the banking executives and business analysis team at fault here. Just like it’s the startups error for failing to have multiple bank accounts. Some advice, be robust and self reliant. Assume eve…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Libertarians would prefer not to be subjected to the current banking system
You're right they would want to get rid of the FDIC and the insurance it provides
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is is that the amount of debt is percentage of GDP, and therefore the interest rates that we need to pay are significantly higher now. This kind of analysis is hopelessly naïve without taking into account overall macro situation.
I always see people say the national debt doesn’t matter because it isn’t like household debt. However, I just fail to see how that is true. At some point the can won’t be able to be kicked down the road anymore. I guess everyone is hoping that it won’t be during their lifetime.
You can't print money to pay off your household debt.
It's a different beast altogether subject to entirely different rules and incentives than household debt.
Ahh, the schadenfreude. I'm rubbing my hands together in glee at the thought of these parasites getting what's coming to them.
As I remember it, the reason for weakening these regulations was that Dodd-Frank is/was extremely expensive to comply with, and that created a banking sector where only the biggest banks could survive and it made no sense to start any new banks.
I seriously hope that the people asking the government for a bailout revisit their past policy positions and offer the same empathy to others going forward that they are asking for themselves right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Biden could reinstate them by EO, just like how Trump cut them. He hasn't though. There is a bipartisan consensus that the safety of the rail system is less important than rail company profits.
He probably just hadn't noticed. It couldn't be that he allowed to rules changes to continue because some money flows towards him, his friends, or his party and his party's friends depended on maintaining those changes. Biden put a famously competent and experienced person in charge of Transportation and he didn't notice the change, so how could you expect Biden to?
I seriously hope that the people asking the government for a bailout revisit their past policy positions and offer the same empathy to others going forward that they are asking for themselves right now.
The tech sector has made themselves one of the most hated groups in the country, behind Congress, telecom providers, and the media. Doubt they're going to find much sympathy from the folks in "flyover country" that the tech sector has gleefully been shitting all over for a decade. Perhaps the tech sector will have enough political capital to ensure they get to dump their losses on the public they loath, but it's goin…
I'm a founder of an Indiana based tech startup. What people in flyover states don't like is seeing stuff like Theranos. They also don't understand operating businesses for 10 years that lose billions. People here do not see the "tech sector" as evil: every flyover state has programs to attract and create tech sector companies. If anything there is a bit of envy combined with a simmering rage when we get bus-rolled for not having a great high-tech workforce, when Purdue, Notre Dame, IU, and other Midwest universities are cranking out fantastic engineering and business management talent that gets pulled to the coasts for big starting salaries.
> Perhaps the tech sector will have enough political capital to ensure they get to dump their losses on the public they loath,
I don't think that is what is being asked for at all. It's more of a "fix this before it hurts everyone". The Fed raising interest rates too quickly is the root cause of SVBs problems, and those rate changes may be doing the same thing with the small, community banks that flyover country agriculture and manufacturing relies on heavily. Hopefully SVB is the end of it... but this situation is not a "tech sector" issue. It's a banking problem caused by the Fed changing the rules to quickly.
> it's going to come at a great political cost for those who go along with it.
Not doing everything that can be done to fix this quickly will be politically un-affordable.
There are hard tradeoffs here, and one failed bank doesn't mean the wrong choice was made. As I remember it, the reason for weakening these regulations was that Dodd-Frank is/was extremely expensive to comply with, and that created a banking sector where only the biggest banks could survive and it made no sense to start any new banks.
The entire system is a house of cards. The collateral of the system itself is debt (USTs). There is no firm ground to stand on after decades of low interest rates. Marginal tweaks to banking regulations neither caused nor can fix this. The Fed is raising rates and we are taking our medicine.
The Fed is owned by its member banks which are for-profit corporations. Imagine paying interest to a third party to access your own wealth! That's the USA. There is no technical need for the Fed. We were fine without it till 1913. It just makes a lot of insiders rich.