SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial foxhole • Hacker News Board

Re: SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial foxhole

#281

Post by wstuartcl » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 9:52 PM UTC

yunwal wrote: post #270

wstuartcl wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's good then that the funds to support the deposits are coming from the bank funded fdic fund not taxes then.

The whole argument is whether uninsured deposits should be provided by the FDIC. I have no problems with the insured amount being returned to customers. The FDIC is a government owned business and shouldn’t be acting outside of it’s financial interests and obligations.

The other good news is that it will probably net out to costing little to nothing in the long term as they had enough assets to cover liabilities -- it was a liquidity crunch. Seems very much relevant to what the FDIC was created for -- to make depositors whole and stop contagion. It would be different if the bank was not properly asset backed.

Re: SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial foxhole

#282

Post by Apocryphon » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 9:55 PM UTC

_ktx2 wrote: post #185

yunwal wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t care about what political party they belong to. Do they regularly argue to slash regulations on the basis of government=bad? Do they routinely try to convince people that technology companies should be in charge of social organization rather than the government? This is the type of shit that gets talked about at VC conferences all the time: https://youtu.be/K8JIzP8HmjQ

Great, so sounds like we've found the actual culprit then. Technology companies and investors, despite their political affiliations, actually like a hands off environment. Do you understand how that's a little different from your Libertarian strawman?

Wanting a hands off business environment automatically puts one and the same tendency as libertarianism, as a fellow traveller. Neoliberals, deregulator Reaganites/Thatcherites, Grover Norquist "starve the beast" types, etc. they're all adjacent to libertarians. Even Bill Clinton and the New Democrats are not that far from libertarianism, as they were comparatively fiscally conservative than earlier versions of the Democratic Party and pushed for financial deregulation and championed market-based solutions!

And even a cursory glance at the OpenSecrets list shows that the two party dichotomy is a false one. For instance, Marc Andreessen at least nominally supported Romney in 2012, then Carly Fiorina in 2016. Does that sound like a far leftist who is against libertarian ideals?

Re: SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial foxhole

#283

Post by zac23or » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 9:55 PM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #279

zac23or wrote: post #192

I read a lot of hackernews, for the technical part. But I never liked or believed in the VC/Startup bullshit. If HN had a filter just for technical stories, that would be great. I never believed in the talk of “let the market decide”, “we invested in that startup to change the world”, “disruption”, “good product will win” and other nonsense. Everything revolves around money, money and money. And there's nothing wrong…

> I read a lot of hackernews, for the technical part. But I never liked or believed in the VC/Startup bullshit. VC/Startup bullshit is literally hn's business daddy though, that's what the domain it lives on does.

True. In launch batches of YC startups, this becomes unusable.

Re: SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial foxhole

#284

Post by worksonmine » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 9:55 PM UTC

fosk wrote: post #218

worksonmine wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of all these complicated hoops, wouldn't a true libertarian expect his money in the deposits to be no-go for gambling. And a separate account for stocks. If the bank want's to gamble they would need the customers approval for that, IE lock your money with us for 10 years and get this interest. Insurance is socialist, even if it packaged as capitalism. The bank has to cover it, but not today. And it's an agree…

Our deposits are liabilities for the bank (the bank needs the infra to secure the money, make it available everywhere at every ATM, bank tellers and so on). Banks invest the money (and give loans) to both pay for these costs and also make a small return on top. It is possible to have a bank that just stores the money without touching it, but this bank would charge us for the costs of doing so, and it won’t be free, a…

Yes and I'm happy to pay, I'm actually paying 50$ a year as it is for my personal account only. They call it online-banking fee.And still they gamble with my money. I also have 2 company accounts where they charge even higher fees, just for deposits. It's not that I'm not willing to pay, but I was never asked to put my savings as collateral.

Meanwhile they're closing offices to save money, and making billions every year. They can make it work, we just have to demand it.

Re: SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial foxhole

#285

Post by tracker1 » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 9:56 PM UTC

fidgewidge wrote: post #236

braingenious wrote: post #15

This reminds me of one of my favorite books from the past couple years, A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear. It’s a fascinating deep dive into an attempt to create a sort of libertarian utopia in a small town called Grafton, New Hampshire. The speed at which they arrive at “we need government services” after they eviscerate government services is… unsurprising. 10/10 I highly recommend it for anyone that’s interested in…

This book isn't about libertarians. It's about anarchists. "Once upon a time, a group of libertarians got together and hatched the Free Town Project, a plan to take over an American town and completely eliminate its government ... They built a tent city in an effort to get off the grid. The bears smelled food and opportunity." Nobody who knows anything about libertarians and is trying to accurately represent it would…

I think that government should exist to implicitly ensure essential infrastructure. What is essential is up for debate, but generally can include, common defense, upholding contract law and enabling transportation, trade and commerce. In this day and age, I think internet, telephone and radio communications would be included as well.

Anarchists will often identify as Libertarians, as there are also left-leaning Libertarians that I don't really get as well. I'm a bit more pragmatic in terms of a from where we are standpoint in that I think there are less intrusive solutions to many problems than full regulation or more government. I think the crux is starting by holding those that are responsible for these things (corporate or banking execs and boards) liable for their decisions and actions, which doesn't happen currently, and most Libertarians I know would celebrate.

Re: SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial foxhole

#286

Post by JabavuAdams » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 9:59 PM UTC

mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #190

bigtex88 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because it is illogical. “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." Libertarians are stuck in a pubescen…

Who's that quote from? It's funny you should use that one, I happen to be an avid Tolkien nerd, starting around that age :D Bit of a tangent, but it continues to amaze how relevant Tolkien continues to be to this day considering he started developing his legendarium almost a century ago now. Gender issues, sexism, addiction, free will, the allure of power and wealth, all explored in an amazingly prescient way that st…

It hasn't aged well in some other ways. I was a die-hard Tolkien fan from an early age -- I think I read LotR at around age 10 or so. But ... it's kind of hard to read to your beautiful brown daughter when you constantly have to stop and do teaching moments because Tolkien goes on and on about how fair and beautiful all the good guys are, and how swarthy etc. the nasty Southrons are.

Re: SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial foxhole

#287

Post by tracker1 » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 10:00 PM UTC

doodlesdev wrote: post #134

sdfghswe wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suggest that the FDIC does what it should do and cover all losses that were insured, and let the uninsured losses be realized, as they should be normally To which someone like would you say "but who's paying for that? the other banks? and guess where their money comes from?

That is ok as long everyone plays by the same rules. The problem I have specifically is the fact they are making a "special exception" for Silicon Valley bank, but haven't done for other bank collapses. This case of course had the potential to generate contagion, but if that's a thing that happens too often, then there is a systemic issue with how banks are regulated in the United States. I should note this is my poi…

I'm inside the US and generally agree. Those that had deposits over 250k should be prepared to lose the estimated ~10% or so... as for the shareholders, they should be prepared to lose all... and the executives and board members who drew fat bonuses or sold stock in the past few months should see it clawed back and be held personally liable for the losses, and if that bankrupts them, so be it.

That also doesn't count possible insider trading for recent stock sales.

Re: SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial foxhole

#288

Post by Apocryphon » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 10:00 PM UTC

over_bridge wrote: post #256

wnevets wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a neoliberal?

Yes, this is the definition of neoliberals. In their view the government should only ever operate and enforce market rules (which includes protecting the market from external threats via military). The government should have no opinion on anything and just let the world unfold as the market dictates. Of course there are no pure neoliberal politicians as such a being would have no policies except cutting popular thing…

A good video that examines neoliberalism's tendency to be hypocritical on arguing against government action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1nqvDH-oag

Re: SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial foxhole

#289

Post by worksonmine » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 10:01 PM UTC

wins32767 wrote: post #197

worksonmine wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of all these complicated hoops, wouldn't a true libertarian expect his money in the deposits to be no-go for gambling. And a separate account for stocks. If the bank want's to gamble they would need the customers approval for that, IE lock your money with us for 10 years and get this interest. Insurance is socialist, even if it packaged as capitalism. The bank has to cover it, but not today. And it's an agree…

You think there is complaining now, what do you think would happen if you lost 1-3% of your principal each year forever. And what do you think would happen to society of all that capital was sitting around doing literally nothing instead of being available for others to borrow and use on productive activities?

I think interest rates would increase and I would be incentivized to put it up for lending and create a healthy economy with our savings being safe while still being able to gamble. Money would get value again. If the banks themselves won't act as the middle-man the gig economy will fill that space in no time.

Would the execs get million dollar bonuses and fly jets? No, and I'm fine with that, I don't have to count on a financial crash once every decade or two.

What do you think would happen?

Re: SVB shows that there are few libertarians in a financial foxhole

#290

Post by Apocryphon » Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 10:02 PM UTC

seanw444 wrote: post #205

EdwardDiego wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider myself to be economically liberal in the "laissez faire, laissez passe" sense to a large extent. No government should pick winners or losers, no government should protect uncompetitive businesses. But I believe that the government must protect the free market against capitalism's inherent tendency towards monopoly, and that likewise, it must protect consumers against exploitative business practices (which…

I'm pretty sure this is the standard belief of most libertarians. People just keep conflating libertarian with ancap.

In theory libertarians might be into that, but I don't exactly see prominent libertarians calling for antitrust action. An actual political group that is ostensibly pro-market but also big on making sure rules are followed to keep the market in optimal condition are German ordoliberals.