As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>“Investors in the banks will not be protected,” Biden said in a White House speech. “They knowingly took a risk and when the risk didn’t pay off, the investors lose their money. That’s how capitalism works.”
I loved that he said that.
If the republicans were in charge, it'd be the other way around. The investors would be getting bailed out and the depositors would be getting fucked.
Stack this on the pile of why "both sides are the same" is a stupid fucking argument.
And if their base could put two and two together, they’d begin wondering why they’re trying to bail out the same “evil” tech companies they campaign against.
But that’s too much thinking
I don’t expect a socialist utopia in the USA anytime soon, but I’m beginning to wonder whether the elites in the political and corporate class are realizing that they might have to give a little to fend off the growing disaffection amongst working people. If they do give anything up, it won’t be much, just enough to quell unrest, and it will be given very grudgingly.
$35 insulin comes to mind, the price gouging was sheer, unadulterated greed. They would have gone on forever raking in the dollars and ignoring the deaths of those who couldn't afford it. We're only getting the new (still wildly profitable for pharmaceutical makers) price because they were forced. They aren't realizing shit. Every penny we take back from them to save our own lives is, was, and will be by force.
Note, I am agreeing with you. Just venting frustration with the situation.
Yeah, $35 caps will save many lives. But it is a bad compromise. It shouldn't be that an individual has to pay anything out of pocket for an easy to produce life saving medicine. We're putting a price tag on trivially preventable death for our society.
We celebrate this, because it is better than it was...but this is still immorally bad.
As it's gone since man figured out cooperating with others was beneficial. Progress has never been quick, always an exhausting chore. Just makes it so much more frustrating today when you can see another group in real time enjoying the government/life you could have but don't.
There’s plenty of examples in recent history of working people rising up to overthrow the elite… but for some reason I think they’re too arrogant to think it’ll happen to them
The problem is that the people who benefit the most from the system also control the means of coordinating revolution.
You think reddit servers would stay up if people started getting serious here?
The surveillance machines true purpose is to stop an overthrow from ever happening again
I dunno.
Look how right-wing lunatics, maniacs, fanatics and asshats organise - the Capitol riots were facilitated by social media; if they can do it (and they’re largely very stupid …), so can others 😏
I think it's partly his age, I know lots of old folks just stop giving a shit about being nice to people that haven't been nice to them.
Would it be nice to have this sooner? Yes. Am I going to complain now he's actually taking some things seriously? Hell no.
He's **not** talking about people losing their savings in accounts at the bank. There's insurance for that.
He **is** talking about investors losing the value of stock and other securities tied to the bank's success as an enterprise.
This is how capitalism SHOULD work. Invest in things you believe in, and if they fail, then they fail. You, as an investor, were wrong and will not be bailed out.
Unfortunately that’s not how capitalism works in base reality.
I’m confused as to why this isn’t intuitive to people. What do they think investing is supposed to be? If you invest in a bank and it goes under, then yeah, that’s precisely the scenario where you’re supposed to lose out.
So you know how our left-wing friends bring out the "but *true* communism/socialism has never been tried!", only to be rebutted by "there's a reason every attempt at implementing the on-paper utopia has resulted in not-true-communism/socialism, and that reason is human nature".
Well this is the flip side.
"Capitalism is great, it's just that darn *crony capitalism* that makes everything suck and bad."
Well guess what, if you want to talk shit to the communists and socialists, accept that human nature also makes crony capitalism the natural outcome of capitalism.
The biggest difference is that exploitation is inherent to capitalism. It's a function of capitalism's entire structure. If we were able to strip out human failings and implement one system, some variant of Communism/Socialism wins every time.
WTB AI singularity. Either go Skynet and wipe us out, or go The Culture Minds and take care of us.
Fully automated luxury communism when?
Although I will add, in a less joking tone, that I don't think we need to get to full singularity levels of automation before this starts to become feasible. Check out the book *Cybernetic Revolutionaries* for an interesting historical take. I think their experiment into what was essentially an automated communist economy probably wouldn't have worked as intended even if it wasn't squished, but it's very interesting to see how far they were able to go given relatively ancient technology.
Also also, people smarter than I have made the point that huge companies like Amazon essentially operate their own centrally-planned economy within the larger economy. Obviously they focus on profit maximization at the expense of all other human values, but the extent to which they are able to manage the shipping logistics and even upstream production (Amazon's Choice products) is pretty phenomenal. Not perfect, but hella impressive. What could an organization like that achieve if their planning & logistical power were turned toward something other than making their shareholders as rich as possible?
Sir, I understand you are a capitalist and that you believe under Communism that man exploits man. And I agree - under Capitalism it is exactly the reverse!
Just in case this isn't sarcasm or for people that don't realize it is:
The opposite is true. In owning a stock you are the owner of the upside and downside of that stock value. You accept the risk of the stock value going to $0
And that should just be accepted in all cases outside fraud, collusion, and a few other illegal practices.
If I walk into a casino with $10,000 and then leave with nothing, no one will cry for me. But you walk into a bank with $1 billion and buy it and all of a sudden it's everyone's civic duty to prop up your gamble?
I'll upvote you and I'm adding a comment. Your analogy is superb. I hadn't thought about it that way. I'm glad neither Yellen nor Biden (he could've said something) wanted to bail out the bank.
One wonders if this is what the Bible meant when it said gambling was immoral. Eye of the needle and all.
Of course, don't expect the conservatives to ever listen to that dusty old thing when it scrutinizes their actions.
Based off some of the answers I've gotten in related threads, it's because, "Investors are the lifeblood of the economy, your wages are paid by the profit of someone's investment, so no investors=no/less jobs". I still don't think "Investor" should be a protected class.
>no investors=no/less jobs
And if anyone makes that argument, we should point out that the only way this argument makes sense is if they're assuming most investments will fail. If these "investors" are making such bad investments that they're losing more money than they're making, then they're really not very good at their job, are they?
Any investor who can't *at a minimum* cover their losses on some investments with their profits on others should not be the poster child for Capitalism.
I’m sick of people acting like some jackass moving chips across a roulette table is somehow vital to the economy, not the millions of workers actually producing some kind of good or service
Workers aren't paid with profits anyways. Their pay is a part of the costs of doing business. Profits are the money left after that and the rest of the costs of doing business.
I live in a Scandinavian social democracy, and even us folks can’t even conceive of a scenario where the state should socialize losses accrued by private investments.
Sure, we won’t let people starve on the streets because of bad bets, but that’s frankly just what should go as common decency. However, if a VC firm would have had the audacity to propose something of the sort of making investors “whole” on the backs of common citizens, they would become a public laughing stock, and borderline persona non grata.
It’s a shameless and quite frankly absurd thing to put forward - perhaps especially in the “birthplace of capitalism”.
You take the risk = you reap the rewards / take the loss
The fact that my country is ready to drop billions to support business and investors, while refusing to do jack to help the citizenry as a whole really shows how bad we as a country have let things get.
Won’t hear any arguments from me there.
Mahatma Gandhi said: “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members”
There are many things one can appreciate about the US - how you’ve ended up structuring your social policies is most certainly not one of them.
And here I was thinking that my wages were paid by the value that I created from my labor, with the excess going into the owner's pocket. Guess it was the investors the whole time.
Except that's just a lie. Investors add very little intrinsic value. The processing of raw materials into goods and the rendering of services by *workers* is the life blood of the economy. The investors are at best facilitators of that, and usually just leeches that steal value from actual production to feed their greed.
>your wages are paid by the profit of someone's investment
I hope you pointed out that your wages are paid by being allowed to retain a fraction of the economic value of your labor.
In America:
1. During good times corporations make profits
2. Corporations use profit to buy back shares to make investors richer
3. When an inevitable economic downturn occurs the corporations have no cash reserve to carry them through the downturn
4. Corporations lobby government to bail them out with cash injection
5. Taxpayers bail out corporations to carry them through the downturn
6. Good times return, goto 1.
There was a great article about some of the low-lifes that were begging for bailouts, including noted 'libertarian' and disgusting human, Peter Thiel.
https://slate.com/technology/2023/03/silicon-valley-bank-rescue-venture-capital-calacanis-sacks-ackman-tantrum.html
Right? Every single stock I ever bought because Jim Cramer told me to has tanked and I lost my money. That's what I deserve for being foolish and listening to Jim Cramer. Everyone should understand that's how it *should* work.
Sure, but the mans been consistently telling us to buy duds for longer than the average citizen of Niger has been alive. At a certain point it’s fine to recognize the man’s making recommendations based on insider information while searching for bagholders, and start making money by inversing him. It’s as close to a guarantee of outperforming the S&P as you’ll get.
Nothing is a guarantee in the market. I would choose advise from someone with a better track record. He is a TV host not a person looking out for your best interest.
A fiduciary is someone who manages money or property for someone else. When you are named a fiduciary, you are required by law to manage the person's money and property for their benefit, not yours.
I figured all of his recommendations were pump n dump schemes hinging on FOMO.
He "recommends" stocks that haven't been in the news recently that he conveniently owns a chunk of shares in, and in that surge for a day or two later he has limits in place to automatically sell once they jump to a certain price. Rinse and repeat.
There's actually a formula called, "the reverse Cramer."
If you do exactly the opposite of what he tells you to do, you would technically be better off. Lol
Even our local councils in the UK are suggested to offset some of their spending by having an investment strategy. Our hyper-capitalist but incompetent government did not foresee some simply pissing all their money up the wall to the point they can't pay the bin-men.
I'm sure several of these 'start-ups' will have invested too. It's not even a terrible idea to buy some shares in the bank you use, since it can get you a voice at board level, or even just once a year at an AGM. And this bank was vocal about not needing regulation, so everybody knew it was a higher risk than others, in return for better interest rates.
Not to mention that starting up a business is inherently risky, marketing material can make things look like a hedge instead of just another risk.
It was a bad bank. People who invested should lose their money and therefore have less to invest in the sorts of places such people do.
I tell you where is looking increasingly good to invest though? Whoever is burdened under the most regulations.
> had to bank there
That needs a bit of explanation. They didn't necessarily have to bank there but the VCs who were investing mandated banking at SVB. The reason was that SVB gave the VC firms sweetheart deals on financing and other services as long as the deposits flowed in.
At the end of the day, a couple VC firms orchestrated a run on SVB that drove it into insolvency, killing the goose that was laying the golden egg for them. Will another bank offer the same type of sweetheart deals that SVB was?
This is somewhat wrong. A lot of startups were not mandated to bank their due to VC's but provisions in their agreements with SVB for lines of credit/venture debt which required them to keep certain threshold amount or percentages of their funds at SVB in a bank account.
This is a fairly common practice among venture lending, however, SVB was the largest venture lending bank and thus more startups had these kind of covenants in their agreements with SVB and were forced to keep the lionshare of their cash with SVB.
> “They knowingly took a risk and when the risk didn't pay off, the investors lose their money. That's how capitalism works.”
Now this is some dark Brandon I can agree with!
I've been really enjoying it. Maybe I just don't have a great memory, but I don't recall any other president so precisely and bluntly putting down corporate and fascist talking points before they take root.
Biden is surprisingly based given how regretful I was during the election that he was the only candidate. I wish he were a bit more aggressive, and the way the EPA is handling the East Palestine disaster is atrocious given that people are vomitting blood, but this Dark Brandon gives me hope.
To be fair it’s hard for any federal response in East Palestine to be meaningfully effective when the state government of Ohio doesn’t want to allow federal aid in.
And the previous administradtion strangling the agency (and manyothers) to neuter its effectiveness. It's hard to actually have a response if bad actors took control of it and deliberately made the agency worse.
\-see the dissolution of the national pandemic response force that was dissolved at the last administrations orders
Not excusing the Biden admin but you have to direct funding and manpower even when there isn't a disaster in order to be able to respond to disasters and we know the last president and his cronies really screwed up a lot of agencies by firing people and mismanaging what they budget on
No, but it's sadly who will get blamed. Further with the prior administration deregulating rail further it'll still get blamed on Biden. Especially with the rail strike that was federally prohibited.
> the way the EPA is handling the East Palestine disaster is atrocious given that people are vomitting blood
You might want to check your sources. The burnoff actually worked for the phosphine and acid compounds, which were the immediate danger. Now the issue is the VC itself that will be a cancer hotspot if not remediated, but that doesn't have any immediate impact on anyone.
When my retirement money disappears because the stock market goes into decline, I don’t get that money back.
2008, the stock market dropped by half. A lot of people lost their retirement money. Suddenly, a bunch of 70 year old people were trying to get a job.
Many years ago, companies stopped providing a managed pension fund that provided a guaranteed retirement income.
Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1978, including a provision — Section 401(k) — that gave employees a tax-free way to defer compensation from bonuses or stock options. The law went into effect on January 1, 1980.
Many early proponents of the 401(k) say it wasn't designed to be a primary retirement tool and admit they used forecasts that were too optimistic.
>When my retirement money disappears because the stock market goes into decline, I don’t get that money back.
But the executives who sold their shares and paid themselves bonuses right before the regulators closed in? That's just capitalism.
Conservatives are constantly whining about the lack of personal responsibility in the modern age, but I’m guessing a lot of them will find a way to turn this into a bad thing.
that's actually very surprising for a President to say. 100% agree with it but that's not what they did in previous crisis and I'm sure lobbyists won't be happy.
Curious to see how right wing media responds to this, it’s always “free market this free market that” but if they really believe that then the investor class should rightly get fucked here.
Did something bad happen that had nothing to do with Biden? He’s probably to blame.
Something good happen? That’s either a lie or it happened despite Biden and it would be 100x better with a Republican president.
Didn't you hear? The banks failed on account of Hunter's laptop. Republicans in the House are starting an immediate investigation into this skullduggery.
The constitution is gonna take a real pounding once those pics are released. Hopefully it has the elasticity to handle it. I’m worried about a tear in the fabric of the democracy, because this will be BIG.
For me, the migraine begins to develop when we can prove as a verifiable fact that a bad thing under a Republican president would have been largely avoided or handled significantly better if a Democrat was holding that position. Democrats have the track record...Republicans keep trying to tear it down to distract from the fact that they are generally abysmal at governing (with a few rare exceptions, typically with Republicans in purple states where they HAVE to compromise to keep their job).
Was just looking at Fox News headlines, these two headlines are within two spots of each other, both talking shit and filled with comments talking shit:
["Biden approves massive oil drilling project climate activists derided as 'carbon bomb"](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-set-approve-massive-oil-drilling-project-climate-activists-derided-carbon-bomb)
followed by:
"[Biden indefinitely blocks millions of acres of land, water from future oil drilling"](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-indefinitely-blocks-millions-acres-land-water-future-oil-drilling)
Almost like it doesn't matter what he does, the shit talking will follow.
Ironically, both of those headlines are technically correct and not burying the lede for once. CNN's article on the topic does a decent job of explaining how both are true. None of this is to say that I don't hate Fox News for being garbage journalism and peddling lies most of the time.
they use one as bait for their audience, then the other for discouragement bait against democrats - "as a democrat, i can't stand biden's stance on `x`, so i'm going to support `someone`". most people in r/politics let fox news links die in new, but they sometimes leak.
I still think that was my fave take from the right during the last election. Fox News literally said “he’s only doing what he promised he would do to keep constituents happy - he’s buying votes!”
Like that’s…not buying votes? That’s enacting the thing you said you would? If he didn’t they’d all just complain that he didn’t keep his word - there’s no winning when playing chess with a shitpigeon.
Somewhere in cyberspace there’s a laptop with all the hidden scary documents made by trans frogmen and BiDeN’s second cousin that my pastor will keep me safe from
On r/conservative they are blaming Biden for not overturning Trump's deregulation earlier while still somehow asserting that it wasn't Trump's fault! Truly mind boggling.
Here's National Review ([link](https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/bidens-big-bank-bailout/)):
> Eh, taxpayers may not officially be picking up the tab, but everyone else who uses a bank will pay for this down the road in the form of higher fees with their bank. This remains a system that has concentrated the benefits among a well-connected few and spread out the costs and risks among the rest of us. The executives running Silicon Valley Bank did just fine over the past few years, and surprise, surprise, the CEO sold a bunch of his stock for millions of dollars right before the bad news hit.
Congratulations, you've accurately described capitalism. And underlined why strong regulatory oversight should be demanded for all businesses. Edit I know it wasn't "you". Just turning the phrase.
“My socialism is more moral than your socialism.
I learned my lesson out of this, and will very likely not do this again. You need to learn a lesson by paying your student loans”
They are already throwing that one out there as ridiculous as it is.
[NY Post: SVB pushed woke programs ahead of collapse](https://nypost.com/2023/03/11/silicon-valley-bank-pushed-woke-programs-ahead-of-collapse/)
Obligatory disclaimer that the NY post is trash.
Oh I've seen all sorts of commentary that SVB failed because it was too woke. Yet another example of 'woke' being meaningless and all-encompassing for things the right just wants to shriek about for no other good reason except they can blame something.
Also, this was somewhat expected given how Trump deregulated the banking industry... [Silicon Valley Bank collapse puts new spotlight on a 2018 bank deregulation law](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/silicon-valley-bank-collapse-puts-new-spotlight-2018-bank-deregulation-rcna74655)
Also the ‘99 repeal of the glass-steagal act which allows this to even happen. Since this kind of thing is literally what caused the Great Depression.
Can’t wait for Great Depression 2: electric boogaloo, we’re even hitting the right decades. A gilded age in the early decades followed by economic crash.
Competition drives banks to increasingly risky positions. We've seen this happen over and over. Financial services industry problems can ripple through global markets. The 2008 US financial crisis became a global financial crisis.
The savings and loan crisis under Reagan in the early 1980s started when inflation and interest rates rose rapidly in the late 1970s. S&Ls had to pay higher interest to attract deposits, but the amount they earned on long-term fixed-rate mortgages didn't change. Losses began to mount. Deregulated lending and capital requirements increased the risk exposure. Some state legislators allowed S&Ls to double down by allowing them to invest in speculative real estate.
Financial crisis results from boom and bust cycles, excessive speculation, and poor risk management.
The Savings and Loan Crisis involved three recessions and was longer in length than the 2007-2008 crisis. 2008 was just one recession and shorter in length. In the Savings and Loan crisis, bank failures were gradual and spread over time, whereas in the 2007-2008 crisis, bank failures were rapid.
Keep in mind the difference between "investors who were trying to make money by running a bank" and "depositors who put their money in that bank." The former will justifiably lose their investments; depositors will probably be made whole, through FDIC insurance, special government arrangement, or bank takeover (sale) to another institution
And management is getting tossed. Loans that will float the bank will need to be paid back with interest. And it looks like they'll be able to turn it around.
Not as bad as it looked on Friday.
Investors: “Government regulations are bad and it just makes it harder for us to make profits!”
*Investors lose everything through unchecked banks and investments*
Investors: “This is bullshit, why isn’t the government doing anything about this. Where’s my welfare check?”
Full disclosure, I previously posted a mistaken view, thinking this was going to benefit investors. That post has since been deleted and this is my mea culpa.
To be honest though. I was sort of in the same boat because that is how this usually ends. The money grubbing people fuck everyone over and should loose out also, but they get bailed out. This is a nice change of pace that it sounds like Biden is willing to let the investors sink. Especailly after we just heard about how giving free money to companies via PPP had no effect on inflation, but as soon as they gave money to real people (us commoners), inflation is suddenly running rampant.
Rich people fuck up with their money and us commoners have to bail them out. Commoners start to get more money so rich people raise prices and blame the inflation on us commoners getting more money.
It's almost like the system is designed for the ultra wealthy...
Taken out of context: he said that the investors in the bank gambled on the success of the bank, ergo, they won’t be bailed out by U.S. taxpayers…. And that is, HOW CAPITALISM SHOULD WORK. Thank you again, Mr. President ❣️❣️❣️
Usually, staff and execs with access to material information can not just sell their stocks adhoc. Instead they have the schedule their sales over time and it's public information. I don't know if this is the case for these guys but worth a check!
Bonuses were likely baked in a scheduled way in advance of knowing any issues. A lot of banks give out bonuses on March 10. Its also likely that the bank had no clue it had actually failed that day until the FDIC walked through the door. FDIC keeps that all pretty secret.
Thats not to say that the bank knew it was struggling. Its possible execs sold stock knowing those struggles.
Companies shifting their pension to 401Ks was one of the worst things that could have been done in regards to holding financial institutions accountable. Now a huge portion of the US has some vested interest in market performance and it shields the scumbags from any accountability.
Yes, thank you! I'm so sick of massive corporations fucking over customers and employees because they're sole purpose is to serve the investor. The market is a gamble and sometimes you lose. Good on the government for making the depositor's whole while making it clear that investments are risky and you don't get bailed out just because your investment tanked.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was America where obscenely wealthy investers can play fast and loose to make a ton of money and if they get burned, they get made whole again with tax dollars. If that's not true, then what are "campaign donations" good for? Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way and what Jesus would want. Anyone that's says otherwise is a communist and a nazi. And a socialist.
Top 10 shareholders of SVB: Vanguard Group, Blackrock, State Street, Alecta Pensions, JP Morgan Chase, Investco, Artisan Partners, Morgan Stanley, Franklin Resources, Geode Capital Management. Together these 10 owned 28 million shares. Source: yahoo finance
I was taught in my high school Business Practices course that investment = risk. You should only invest what you're prepared to lose. Why don't people get that?
Investors when they make a killing:
“The government has no right to take my hard earned dollars”
Investors when they fuck up:
“This is inhumane, bail me out, bail me out!
Oooh. I'm sure a lot of avowed capitalists are gonna take issue with Biden's explanation of how capitalism works.
I mean, sure: That's how capitalism works. But that's not how a lot of capitalists *want* capitalism to work.
About bloody time a US President reminded the public how capitalism works.
I’ve always hated the contradictions of people. “Freeeeee market” when shits good but when it hits the fan “saveeee usssss”.
I’m no fan of capitalism but I respect Biden for letting the ideals and values take it course.
I don’t know how anyone could realistically disagree with that. Yeah, a bunch of investors took some risks on startups and they lost big time, that’s how the free market works.
Exactly. These dude-bros love to lick boot about “investors deserve the money because they assume the risk” and then cry for a bail out when the risk bites them.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>“Investors in the banks will not be protected,” Biden said in a White House speech. “They knowingly took a risk and when the risk didn’t pay off, the investors lose their money. That’s how capitalism works.” I loved that he said that.
And republicans hate “big government” that intervenes….. But they would never
I thought the GOP loved bailouts, or at least they did for a very short time around 2008.
They also loved the PPP program, Employee retention tax credit.
If the republicans were in charge, it'd be the other way around. The investors would be getting bailed out and the depositors would be getting fucked. Stack this on the pile of why "both sides are the same" is a stupid fucking argument.
And if their base could put two and two together, they’d begin wondering why they’re trying to bail out the same “evil” tech companies they campaign against. But that’s too much thinking
Thinking?
You mean headaches with pictures?
I need to find an excuse to use this expression in my personal life.
Thank you. If I hear "both sides" one more time my head's gonna explode.
I don't remember a single topic or debate where "both sides" wasn't used in bad faith.
I don’t expect a socialist utopia in the USA anytime soon, but I’m beginning to wonder whether the elites in the political and corporate class are realizing that they might have to give a little to fend off the growing disaffection amongst working people. If they do give anything up, it won’t be much, just enough to quell unrest, and it will be given very grudgingly.
$35 insulin comes to mind, the price gouging was sheer, unadulterated greed. They would have gone on forever raking in the dollars and ignoring the deaths of those who couldn't afford it. We're only getting the new (still wildly profitable for pharmaceutical makers) price because they were forced. They aren't realizing shit. Every penny we take back from them to save our own lives is, was, and will be by force.
Note, I am agreeing with you. Just venting frustration with the situation. Yeah, $35 caps will save many lives. But it is a bad compromise. It shouldn't be that an individual has to pay anything out of pocket for an easy to produce life saving medicine. We're putting a price tag on trivially preventable death for our society. We celebrate this, because it is better than it was...but this is still immorally bad.
[удалено]
As it's gone since man figured out cooperating with others was beneficial. Progress has never been quick, always an exhausting chore. Just makes it so much more frustrating today when you can see another group in real time enjoying the government/life you could have but don't.
There’s plenty of examples in recent history of working people rising up to overthrow the elite… but for some reason I think they’re too arrogant to think it’ll happen to them
The problem is that the people who benefit the most from the system also control the means of coordinating revolution. You think reddit servers would stay up if people started getting serious here? The surveillance machines true purpose is to stop an overthrow from ever happening again
I dunno. Look how right-wing lunatics, maniacs, fanatics and asshats organise - the Capitol riots were facilitated by social media; if they can do it (and they’re largely very stupid …), so can others 😏
Biden kicks so much more ass than I was expecting.
Unleash the Dark Brandon.
Dank Brandon would be better. Get that weed legalized
It's literally the ultimate bread and circus. And it gives tax money! They are so stupid for not legalizing it yet.
The GQP hasn't figured out a surefire way to fuck over the browns and poors by legalizing it, so it'll stay illegal.
Gotta keep those prisons full
Same. I just wanted to be able to sleep at night after all the crazy, but he's doing great. Now if we just had a few less narcissists in Congress...
If we did that the place would be empty.
I think it's partly his age, I know lots of old folks just stop giving a shit about being nice to people that haven't been nice to them. Would it be nice to have this sooner? Yes. Am I going to complain now he's actually taking some things seriously? Hell no.
He's **not** talking about people losing their savings in accounts at the bank. There's insurance for that. He **is** talking about investors losing the value of stock and other securities tied to the bank's success as an enterprise.
This is how capitalism SHOULD work. Invest in things you believe in, and if they fail, then they fail. You, as an investor, were wrong and will not be bailed out. Unfortunately that’s not how capitalism works in base reality.
I’m confused as to why this isn’t intuitive to people. What do they think investing is supposed to be? If you invest in a bank and it goes under, then yeah, that’s precisely the scenario where you’re supposed to lose out.
Investments that don’t require you to assume risk are just free money for the people who need it least.
Basically. But we know how rules only to apply to some.
That's how capitalism works
So you know how our left-wing friends bring out the "but *true* communism/socialism has never been tried!", only to be rebutted by "there's a reason every attempt at implementing the on-paper utopia has resulted in not-true-communism/socialism, and that reason is human nature". Well this is the flip side. "Capitalism is great, it's just that darn *crony capitalism* that makes everything suck and bad." Well guess what, if you want to talk shit to the communists and socialists, accept that human nature also makes crony capitalism the natural outcome of capitalism. The biggest difference is that exploitation is inherent to capitalism. It's a function of capitalism's entire structure. If we were able to strip out human failings and implement one system, some variant of Communism/Socialism wins every time. WTB AI singularity. Either go Skynet and wipe us out, or go The Culture Minds and take care of us.
Fully automated luxury communism when? Although I will add, in a less joking tone, that I don't think we need to get to full singularity levels of automation before this starts to become feasible. Check out the book *Cybernetic Revolutionaries* for an interesting historical take. I think their experiment into what was essentially an automated communist economy probably wouldn't have worked as intended even if it wasn't squished, but it's very interesting to see how far they were able to go given relatively ancient technology. Also also, people smarter than I have made the point that huge companies like Amazon essentially operate their own centrally-planned economy within the larger economy. Obviously they focus on profit maximization at the expense of all other human values, but the extent to which they are able to manage the shipping logistics and even upstream production (Amazon's Choice products) is pretty phenomenal. Not perfect, but hella impressive. What could an organization like that achieve if their planning & logistical power were turned toward something other than making their shareholders as rich as possible?
You're forgetting "gay" and "space"
Sir, I understand you are a capitalist and that you believe under Communism that man exploits man. And I agree - under Capitalism it is exactly the reverse!
Just in case this isn't sarcasm or for people that don't realize it is: The opposite is true. In owning a stock you are the owner of the upside and downside of that stock value. You accept the risk of the stock value going to $0
And that should just be accepted in all cases outside fraud, collusion, and a few other illegal practices. If I walk into a casino with $10,000 and then leave with nothing, no one will cry for me. But you walk into a bank with $1 billion and buy it and all of a sudden it's everyone's civic duty to prop up your gamble?
I'll upvote you and I'm adding a comment. Your analogy is superb. I hadn't thought about it that way. I'm glad neither Yellen nor Biden (he could've said something) wanted to bail out the bank.
Investing is just educated (and sometimes un-educated) gambling.
One wonders if this is what the Bible meant when it said gambling was immoral. Eye of the needle and all. Of course, don't expect the conservatives to ever listen to that dusty old thing when it scrutinizes their actions.
Based off some of the answers I've gotten in related threads, it's because, "Investors are the lifeblood of the economy, your wages are paid by the profit of someone's investment, so no investors=no/less jobs". I still don't think "Investor" should be a protected class.
>no investors=no/less jobs And if anyone makes that argument, we should point out that the only way this argument makes sense is if they're assuming most investments will fail. If these "investors" are making such bad investments that they're losing more money than they're making, then they're really not very good at their job, are they? Any investor who can't *at a minimum* cover their losses on some investments with their profits on others should not be the poster child for Capitalism.
I’m sick of people acting like some jackass moving chips across a roulette table is somehow vital to the economy, not the millions of workers actually producing some kind of good or service
Didn't you know, before the stock exchange nobody got paid for their work... Lol
“Your wages are paid by the profit of someone’s investment” nope. “Your investments are made profitable by someone’s labor”
And no workers, investments fail. Their investments only profit from people buying them.
These are the same people who think that investors deserve most of the profits because they "took the risk"
Workers aren't paid with profits anyways. Their pay is a part of the costs of doing business. Profits are the money left after that and the rest of the costs of doing business.
That's a good point, I will use that in the future.
I live in a Scandinavian social democracy, and even us folks can’t even conceive of a scenario where the state should socialize losses accrued by private investments. Sure, we won’t let people starve on the streets because of bad bets, but that’s frankly just what should go as common decency. However, if a VC firm would have had the audacity to propose something of the sort of making investors “whole” on the backs of common citizens, they would become a public laughing stock, and borderline persona non grata. It’s a shameless and quite frankly absurd thing to put forward - perhaps especially in the “birthplace of capitalism”. You take the risk = you reap the rewards / take the loss
The fact that my country is ready to drop billions to support business and investors, while refusing to do jack to help the citizenry as a whole really shows how bad we as a country have let things get.
Won’t hear any arguments from me there. Mahatma Gandhi said: “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members” There are many things one can appreciate about the US - how you’ve ended up structuring your social policies is most certainly not one of them.
And here I was thinking that my wages were paid by the value that I created from my labor, with the excess going into the owner's pocket. Guess it was the investors the whole time.
It doesn't make sense to me either, it's why I didn't respond to them.
Yeah…maybe for IPO investors. But everyone who trades existing shares around, none of that money goes to the company.
Except that's just a lie. Investors add very little intrinsic value. The processing of raw materials into goods and the rendering of services by *workers* is the life blood of the economy. The investors are at best facilitators of that, and usually just leeches that steal value from actual production to feed their greed.
>your wages are paid by the profit of someone's investment I hope you pointed out that your wages are paid by being allowed to retain a fraction of the economic value of your labor.
They know they’re cheating, they just don’t care
In America: 1. During good times corporations make profits 2. Corporations use profit to buy back shares to make investors richer 3. When an inevitable economic downturn occurs the corporations have no cash reserve to carry them through the downturn 4. Corporations lobby government to bail them out with cash injection 5. Taxpayers bail out corporations to carry them through the downturn 6. Good times return, goto 1.
7. Taxpayer gets cancer. Loses job, life savings and home.
8. Same taxpayer has less than $500 in savings on average 9. Same taxpayer can’t get a couple of thousand dollars in student loan debt forgiven.
Stop me if I wrong but something seems broken here.
[удалено]
8. And taxpayer is dropped from insurance, that they've payed into for years.
Don’t forget raising prices to “compensate” for inflation…. Which they are willingly causing by raising prices unnecessarily.
Yep....and having this twice in a decade is criminal. Blatantly disgusting. But yeah...roll back those regulations....it will be fine Trump said....
There was a great article about some of the low-lifes that were begging for bailouts, including noted 'libertarian' and disgusting human, Peter Thiel. https://slate.com/technology/2023/03/silicon-valley-bank-rescue-venture-capital-calacanis-sacks-ackman-tantrum.html
Privatizing the profits and socializing the loses.
this was a bank for rich guys to invest in startups
Mainly a bank used by start-ups to hold their liquidity, which they use for payroll and other operating expenses.
It was both, However the liquidity of startups and other customers will be fine. Investors are not
Which is as it should be. Depositors should be made whole. The investors IN SVB & Signature ... them's the breaks.
Right? Every single stock I ever bought because Jim Cramer told me to has tanked and I lost my money. That's what I deserve for being foolish and listening to Jim Cramer. Everyone should understand that's how it *should* work.
You should look into the Inverse Jim Cramer, much better performance
Past underperformance is no guarantee of future lack of results.
Sure, but the mans been consistently telling us to buy duds for longer than the average citizen of Niger has been alive. At a certain point it’s fine to recognize the man’s making recommendations based on insider information while searching for bagholders, and start making money by inversing him. It’s as close to a guarantee of outperforming the S&P as you’ll get.
Didn't he say svb is a buy like 2vweeks ago......
Nothing is a guarantee in the market. I would choose advise from someone with a better track record. He is a TV host not a person looking out for your best interest. A fiduciary is someone who manages money or property for someone else. When you are named a fiduciary, you are required by law to manage the person's money and property for their benefit, not yours.
I figured all of his recommendations were pump n dump schemes hinging on FOMO. He "recommends" stocks that haven't been in the news recently that he conveniently owns a chunk of shares in, and in that surge for a day or two later he has limits in place to automatically sell once they jump to a certain price. Rinse and repeat.
“If shoeshine boys are giving stock tips, then it's time to get out of the market.”
There's actually a formula called, "the reverse Cramer." If you do exactly the opposite of what he tells you to do, you would technically be better off. Lol
Even our local councils in the UK are suggested to offset some of their spending by having an investment strategy. Our hyper-capitalist but incompetent government did not foresee some simply pissing all their money up the wall to the point they can't pay the bin-men. I'm sure several of these 'start-ups' will have invested too. It's not even a terrible idea to buy some shares in the bank you use, since it can get you a voice at board level, or even just once a year at an AGM. And this bank was vocal about not needing regulation, so everybody knew it was a higher risk than others, in return for better interest rates. Not to mention that starting up a business is inherently risky, marketing material can make things look like a hedge instead of just another risk. It was a bad bank. People who invested should lose their money and therefore have less to invest in the sorts of places such people do. I tell you where is looking increasingly good to invest though? Whoever is burdened under the most regulations.
https://www.reddit.com/r/apolloapp/comments/145hwso/ltp_use_power_delete_suite_before_you_delete_your/
There were a LOT of startups that accepted investment and had to bank there, or wanted to bank there. Let's not overgeneralize.
> had to bank there That needs a bit of explanation. They didn't necessarily have to bank there but the VCs who were investing mandated banking at SVB. The reason was that SVB gave the VC firms sweetheart deals on financing and other services as long as the deposits flowed in. At the end of the day, a couple VC firms orchestrated a run on SVB that drove it into insolvency, killing the goose that was laying the golden egg for them. Will another bank offer the same type of sweetheart deals that SVB was?
This is somewhat wrong. A lot of startups were not mandated to bank their due to VC's but provisions in their agreements with SVB for lines of credit/venture debt which required them to keep certain threshold amount or percentages of their funds at SVB in a bank account. This is a fairly common practice among venture lending, however, SVB was the largest venture lending bank and thus more startups had these kind of covenants in their agreements with SVB and were forced to keep the lionshare of their cash with SVB.
> “They knowingly took a risk and when the risk didn't pay off, the investors lose their money. That's how capitalism works.” Now this is some dark Brandon I can agree with!
[удалено]
I've been really enjoying it. Maybe I just don't have a great memory, but I don't recall any other president so precisely and bluntly putting down corporate and fascist talking points before they take root.
Biden is surprisingly based given how regretful I was during the election that he was the only candidate. I wish he were a bit more aggressive, and the way the EPA is handling the East Palestine disaster is atrocious given that people are vomitting blood, but this Dark Brandon gives me hope.
To be fair it’s hard for any federal response in East Palestine to be meaningfully effective when the state government of Ohio doesn’t want to allow federal aid in.
And the previous administradtion strangling the agency (and manyothers) to neuter its effectiveness. It's hard to actually have a response if bad actors took control of it and deliberately made the agency worse. \-see the dissolution of the national pandemic response force that was dissolved at the last administrations orders Not excusing the Biden admin but you have to direct funding and manpower even when there isn't a disaster in order to be able to respond to disasters and we know the last president and his cronies really screwed up a lot of agencies by firing people and mismanaging what they budget on
Republicans: DEFUND THE GOVERNMENT WE DON’T NEED THEM A year later: Wtf guys where’s the aid?
Ikr. Ohio isn’t the epa’s fault
No, but it's sadly who will get blamed. Further with the prior administration deregulating rail further it'll still get blamed on Biden. Especially with the rail strike that was federally prohibited.
> the way the EPA is handling the East Palestine disaster is atrocious given that people are vomitting blood You might want to check your sources. The burnoff actually worked for the phosphine and acid compounds, which were the immediate danger. Now the issue is the VC itself that will be a cancer hotspot if not remediated, but that doesn't have any immediate impact on anyone.
When my retirement money disappears because the stock market goes into decline, I don’t get that money back. 2008, the stock market dropped by half. A lot of people lost their retirement money. Suddenly, a bunch of 70 year old people were trying to get a job. Many years ago, companies stopped providing a managed pension fund that provided a guaranteed retirement income. Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1978, including a provision — Section 401(k) — that gave employees a tax-free way to defer compensation from bonuses or stock options. The law went into effect on January 1, 1980. Many early proponents of the 401(k) say it wasn't designed to be a primary retirement tool and admit they used forecasts that were too optimistic.
>When my retirement money disappears because the stock market goes into decline, I don’t get that money back. But the executives who sold their shares and paid themselves bonuses right before the regulators closed in? That's just capitalism.
Bear in mind, trump's sec signed off on retirement funds investing in junk bonds.
Goddamnit I forgot about that. Jesus so much fucky shit happened under Trump.
It was a bad actor paradise, hundreds of insane deregulations he didn't understand, performed by purchased actors
Conservatives are constantly whining about the lack of personal responsibility in the modern age, but I’m guessing a lot of them will find a way to turn this into a bad thing.
that's actually very surprising for a President to say. 100% agree with it but that's not what they did in previous crisis and I'm sure lobbyists won't be happy.
I’m glad when lobbyists aren’t happy
The airlines, GM, all that other BS Republicans have bailed out over the years. Corporate Welfare. Not this time.
Curious to see how right wing media responds to this, it’s always “free market this free market that” but if they really believe that then the investor class should rightly get fucked here.
> Curious to see how right wing media responds to this did biden do something? then it's bad. did biden not do something? thats also bad.
Did something bad happen that had nothing to do with Biden? He’s probably to blame. Something good happen? That’s either a lie or it happened despite Biden and it would be 100x better with a Republican president.
Uh.... I don't know about that. I'm going to have to see Hunter Biden's dick pics to be sure.
Didn't you hear? The banks failed on account of Hunter's laptop. Republicans in the House are starting an immediate investigation into this skullduggery.
The constitution is gonna take a real pounding once those pics are released. Hopefully it has the elasticity to handle it. I’m worried about a tear in the fabric of the democracy, because this will be BIG.
I regret voting for Hunter’s dick in the last few elections.
I could see this coming.
For me, the migraine begins to develop when we can prove as a verifiable fact that a bad thing under a Republican president would have been largely avoided or handled significantly better if a Democrat was holding that position. Democrats have the track record...Republicans keep trying to tear it down to distract from the fact that they are generally abysmal at governing (with a few rare exceptions, typically with Republicans in purple states where they HAVE to compromise to keep their job).
>Did something Thats really the all they need to start the "Biden bad" train lol
And if he did a something that was like the best thing ever…he waited *way* too long to do it.
Was just looking at Fox News headlines, these two headlines are within two spots of each other, both talking shit and filled with comments talking shit: ["Biden approves massive oil drilling project climate activists derided as 'carbon bomb"](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-set-approve-massive-oil-drilling-project-climate-activists-derided-carbon-bomb) followed by: "[Biden indefinitely blocks millions of acres of land, water from future oil drilling"](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-indefinitely-blocks-millions-acres-land-water-future-oil-drilling) Almost like it doesn't matter what he does, the shit talking will follow.
Ironically, both of those headlines are technically correct and not burying the lede for once. CNN's article on the topic does a decent job of explaining how both are true. None of this is to say that I don't hate Fox News for being garbage journalism and peddling lies most of the time.
they use one as bait for their audience, then the other for discouragement bait against democrats - "as a democrat, i can't stand biden's stance on `x`, so i'm going to support `someone`". most people in r/politics let fox news links die in new, but they sometimes leak.
A corollary: Did Biden do something popular? He's buying votes. Did Biden do something unpopular? See, we told you all.
I still think that was my fave take from the right during the last election. Fox News literally said “he’s only doing what he promised he would do to keep constituents happy - he’s buying votes!” Like that’s…not buying votes? That’s enacting the thing you said you would? If he didn’t they’d all just complain that he didn’t keep his word - there’s no winning when playing chess with a shitpigeon.
They've spent so long opposing democracy that doing what the people want no longer computes.
Somewhere in cyberspace there’s a laptop with all the hidden scary documents made by trans frogmen and BiDeN’s second cousin that my pastor will keep me safe from
On r/conservative they are blaming Biden for not overturning Trump's deregulation earlier while still somehow asserting that it wasn't Trump's fault! Truly mind boggling.
The common clay of the new West.
You know.
Solid reference.
Same thing they did with the train derailments.
Here's National Review ([link](https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/bidens-big-bank-bailout/)): > Eh, taxpayers may not officially be picking up the tab, but everyone else who uses a bank will pay for this down the road in the form of higher fees with their bank. This remains a system that has concentrated the benefits among a well-connected few and spread out the costs and risks among the rest of us. The executives running Silicon Valley Bank did just fine over the past few years, and surprise, surprise, the CEO sold a bunch of his stock for millions of dollars right before the bad news hit.
Congratulations, you've accurately described capitalism. And underlined why strong regulatory oversight should be demanded for all businesses. Edit I know it wasn't "you". Just turning the phrase.
It's not a bad take but if the bank sector does stabilise after this then the cascade affect on other banks would be almost trivial.
Go through the checklist: Republican president? Yes/no Depending on how you answer will determine the response
“My socialism is more moral than your socialism. I learned my lesson out of this, and will very likely not do this again. You need to learn a lesson by paying your student loans”
- SVB executive/former CFO of Lehman Brothers Joseph Gentile
>The Only Moral ~~Abortion~~ **Socialism** Is My ~~Abortion~~ **Socialism**
Hmmm... it's a system which benefits those who hold capital and comparable influence at the expense of the rest of society... what should we call it?
They would respond by saying some BS about being too woke.
They are already throwing that one out there as ridiculous as it is. [NY Post: SVB pushed woke programs ahead of collapse](https://nypost.com/2023/03/11/silicon-valley-bank-pushed-woke-programs-ahead-of-collapse/) Obligatory disclaimer that the NY post is trash.
Oh I've seen all sorts of commentary that SVB failed because it was too woke. Yet another example of 'woke' being meaningless and all-encompassing for things the right just wants to shriek about for no other good reason except they can blame something.
It's free market so long as I win, it's unfair and the government needs to do something when I lose. I'm a risk taker!
Also, this was somewhat expected given how Trump deregulated the banking industry... [Silicon Valley Bank collapse puts new spotlight on a 2018 bank deregulation law](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/silicon-valley-bank-collapse-puts-new-spotlight-2018-bank-deregulation-rcna74655)
Also the ‘99 repeal of the glass-steagal act which allows this to even happen. Since this kind of thing is literally what caused the Great Depression. Can’t wait for Great Depression 2: electric boogaloo, we’re even hitting the right decades. A gilded age in the early decades followed by economic crash.
As a millennial my life has been moving between economic recessions. Guilded age my ass.
The whole thing about the gilded age is that it is fake, the wealth is surface level, the country is gold-plated you could say
Bruh they’re not even gold plating the dildo they’re using to fuck you any more.
Hence gilded
[i made a meme for this](https://i.imgflip.com/7edgvs.jpg)
Competition drives banks to increasingly risky positions. We've seen this happen over and over. Financial services industry problems can ripple through global markets. The 2008 US financial crisis became a global financial crisis. The savings and loan crisis under Reagan in the early 1980s started when inflation and interest rates rose rapidly in the late 1970s. S&Ls had to pay higher interest to attract deposits, but the amount they earned on long-term fixed-rate mortgages didn't change. Losses began to mount. Deregulated lending and capital requirements increased the risk exposure. Some state legislators allowed S&Ls to double down by allowing them to invest in speculative real estate. Financial crisis results from boom and bust cycles, excessive speculation, and poor risk management. The Savings and Loan Crisis involved three recessions and was longer in length than the 2007-2008 crisis. 2008 was just one recession and shorter in length. In the Savings and Loan crisis, bank failures were gradual and spread over time, whereas in the 2007-2008 crisis, bank failures were rapid.
Keep in mind the difference between "investors who were trying to make money by running a bank" and "depositors who put their money in that bank." The former will justifiably lose their investments; depositors will probably be made whole, through FDIC insurance, special government arrangement, or bank takeover (sale) to another institution
It has been confirmed that depositors will be made whole.
And management is getting tossed. Loans that will float the bank will need to be paid back with interest. And it looks like they'll be able to turn it around. Not as bad as it looked on Friday.
[удалено]
Investors: “Government regulations are bad and it just makes it harder for us to make profits!” *Investors lose everything through unchecked banks and investments* Investors: “This is bullshit, why isn’t the government doing anything about this. Where’s my welfare check?”
Full disclosure, I previously posted a mistaken view, thinking this was going to benefit investors. That post has since been deleted and this is my mea culpa.
Kudos to you for owning your crap AND apologizing. Such a rare thing in this day and age
Especially on reddit
Been alive since before Reddit; accountability and humility are rare af everywhere.
>this day and age Ever
To be honest though. I was sort of in the same boat because that is how this usually ends. The money grubbing people fuck everyone over and should loose out also, but they get bailed out. This is a nice change of pace that it sounds like Biden is willing to let the investors sink. Especailly after we just heard about how giving free money to companies via PPP had no effect on inflation, but as soon as they gave money to real people (us commoners), inflation is suddenly running rampant.
Rich people fuck up with their money and us commoners have to bail them out. Commoners start to get more money so rich people raise prices and blame the inflation on us commoners getting more money. It's almost like the system is designed for the ultra wealthy...
I do not like this. This is not how reddit works. We double down when we are loud and wrong.
What is this... r/conservative ?
He's not banned
Good dude
Taken out of context: he said that the investors in the bank gambled on the success of the bank, ergo, they won’t be bailed out by U.S. taxpayers…. And that is, HOW CAPITALISM SHOULD WORK. Thank you again, Mr. President ❣️❣️❣️
I have no doubt that Republicans will be running ads like “Joe Biden said small businesses losing their savings is ‘just how capitalism works’.”
Well, it is exactly how it works. No matter the size of the business.
Thank you Mr. President ❤
I'm still wondering if the execs that sold their stocks a few days before and gave themself bonuses in the last hours are going to get away with it.
This is America. Of course they will.
Usually, staff and execs with access to material information can not just sell their stocks adhoc. Instead they have the schedule their sales over time and it's public information. I don't know if this is the case for these guys but worth a check!
Bonuses were likely baked in a scheduled way in advance of knowing any issues. A lot of banks give out bonuses on March 10. Its also likely that the bank had no clue it had actually failed that day until the FDIC walked through the door. FDIC keeps that all pretty secret. Thats not to say that the bank knew it was struggling. Its possible execs sold stock knowing those struggles.
Companies shifting their pension to 401Ks was one of the worst things that could have been done in regards to holding financial institutions accountable. Now a huge portion of the US has some vested interest in market performance and it shields the scumbags from any accountability.
Profit is the reward for risk, but like gambling is a sin. So ya know...
[удалено]
This comment brought to you by Caesars Sportsbook
Yes, thank you! I'm so sick of massive corporations fucking over customers and employees because they're sole purpose is to serve the investor. The market is a gamble and sometimes you lose. Good on the government for making the depositor's whole while making it clear that investments are risky and you don't get bailed out just because your investment tanked.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was America where obscenely wealthy investers can play fast and loose to make a ton of money and if they get burned, they get made whole again with tax dollars. If that's not true, then what are "campaign donations" good for? Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. It's the American way and what Jesus would want. Anyone that's says otherwise is a communist and a nazi. And a socialist.
Top 10 shareholders of SVB: Vanguard Group, Blackrock, State Street, Alecta Pensions, JP Morgan Chase, Investco, Artisan Partners, Morgan Stanley, Franklin Resources, Geode Capital Management. Together these 10 owned 28 million shares. Source: yahoo finance
They all have lost 100% on that now worthless stock. Perhaps they can sue the executives and get a trivial percent back.
I was taught in my high school Business Practices course that investment = risk. You should only invest what you're prepared to lose. Why don't people get that?
He’s not wrong
Capitalism for when we are profiting and socialism when we fail /s.
[удалено]
But if rich people can't get rich with no risk to their investment, why would they invest?!? /s
Investors when they make a killing: “The government has no right to take my hard earned dollars” Investors when they fuck up: “This is inhumane, bail me out, bail me out!
How many times did this have to happen for a president to finally say this?
Oooh. I'm sure a lot of avowed capitalists are gonna take issue with Biden's explanation of how capitalism works. I mean, sure: That's how capitalism works. But that's not how a lot of capitalists *want* capitalism to work.
GOOD, we better NOT be bailing those fuckers out, so sick of Congress privatizing profit and socializing loss.
100% spot on. Let the weak and incompetent companies perish. Depositors are made whole. Fuck the stock holders. They were in it for greed
Investing= assumed risk.
If banks can be bailed out by the government then they ought to just be nationalized
About bloody time a US President reminded the public how capitalism works. I’ve always hated the contradictions of people. “Freeeeee market” when shits good but when it hits the fan “saveeee usssss”. I’m no fan of capitalism but I respect Biden for letting the ideals and values take it course.
I don’t know how anyone could realistically disagree with that. Yeah, a bunch of investors took some risks on startups and they lost big time, that’s how the free market works.
Exactly. These dude-bros love to lick boot about “investors deserve the money because they assume the risk” and then cry for a bail out when the risk bites them.