• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Silicon Valley Bank Collapse

Woke as applied to education:


Teachers at San Francisco’s Lowell High School gave freshman students significantly more D and F grades this past fall, the first semester after the school board eliminated the merit-based admissions it had relied on for decades.

Now apply that philosophy to a bank.
 
Woke as applied to education:


Teachers at San Francisco’s Lowell High School gave freshman students significantly more D and F grades this past fall, the first semester after the school board eliminated the merit-based admissions it had relied on for decades.

Now apply that philosophy to a bank.
Why stop at banks. What about trees, shrubs, the lineage a car gets, a man's virility... your sock size.
 
Woke as applied to education:


Teachers at San Francisco’s Lowell High School gave freshman students significantly more D and F grades this past fall, the first semester after the school board eliminated the merit-based admissions it had relied on for decades.

Now apply that philosophy to a bank.
Why stop at banks. What about trees, shrubs, the lineage a car gets, a man's virility... your sock size.
The lineage a car gets?! Sure, Android, you'll try to fix words that I'm not trying to spell and completely bonk the donkey on the ones I'm trying to say... and enough of thr auto caps!
 
Which should be a dispute that's an absolute slam-dunk for you to win - all you have to do is tell me what the valuable thing it represents is.
Coercive capability.
What do I win?
As much coercive capability as you can carry in both hands.
The quantity of coercive capability varies almost directly with the quantity of money you can access (carry) In most practical cases.
 
Ok I'll bite. Excel skills. If I provide excel skills in exchange for a note that says 1$ , that 1$ note represents excel skills someone received in exchange for it. I can then exchange that 1$ note for a single bottle of cool refreshing whiskey. The whiskey vender then exchanges that 1$ note for two bottles from a whiskey supplier.
What's the fixed rate at which Excel skills are convertible to dollars? Surely it changes with every transaction.

In your own example, a dollar is worth a bottle of whiskey. And simultaneously worth two bottles of whiskey.

That doesn't seem like a dollar represents a value - it apparently represents a wide range of different values depending in who is doing what trades for it. A dollar is only of value because it's worth a dollar.

A dollar bill has the exact same intrinsic value, due to being a piece of paper, as a thousand dollar bill, or a similarly sized piece of toilet paper. But the extrinsic value is determined at each transaction, and the dollar need not be worth the same amount of stuff (whether it's excel skills, or whiskey, or any else), twice.

A dollar's value is entirely dependent on how much people want dollars. And as you can't eat dollars or live in them or drive them or get them to make you a spreadsheet, that amount would be zero, except that people can always find someone else who values dollars.

Ultimately, dollars are the only way to pay taxes, so everyone knows that in the worst case scenario, they can always get Uncle Sam to force other people to need dollars to avoid jail, and thereby get those people to swap the dollars you have, for the stuff you want.
 
Which should be a dispute that's an absolute slam-dunk for you to win - all you have to do is tell me what the valuable thing it represents is.
Coercive capability.
What do I win?
As much coercive capability as you can carry in both hands.
The quantity of coercive capability varies almost directly with the quantity of money you can access (carry) In most practical cases.
That's a very American perspective. In most of the world, people don't allow others to coerce them for money (at least, not explicitly), and indeed find the very idea to be quite offensive.

I recall an American tourist trying to buy a place at the front of the line for an attraction in London. He couldn't grasp that the English people wouldn't sell their place for any price, and were horrified by the very suggestion that they might.

Some things aren't for sale.
 
Apparently not, they just went tits up.
They certainly did go tits up. But not because people read their "about" page and were worried about there being too much wokeness. SVB went tits up because they invested in the wrong tech stocks at the wrong moment, and because interest rates are up as a result of a public outcry over "inflation", and because investors are alarmist morons.

Page after page of woke virtue signaling, donating money to woke causes etc. You said that bullshit was good for business. It's not, it fucked them up big time.
This message brought to you by the folks at Correlation is the same as Causation. :rolleyesa:
 
I think that FDIC insurance should dramatically increased.

I don't think increasing it would improve things. What ought to be done is to restrict banks from investing what is not theirs to invest. They do that and FDIC would be pointless.
The FDIC would be pointless because there would be no banks for it to oversee.

If banks can't invest they have no way to pay the bills and would close immediately.
 
They also earn money by giving out loans from loans they obtain themselves from the feds. They have money that materializes out of thin air at their disposal and they still can't earn enough to not fuck around with money that isn't theirs? The hell is going on round here? :eek:
They pay for that money they get from the feds.
 
Woke as applied to education:


Teachers at San Francisco’s Lowell High School gave freshman students significantly more D and F grades this past fall, the first semester after the school board eliminated the merit-based admissions it had relied on for decades.

Now apply that philosophy to a bank.
How the hell does that have anything to do with investment banking?
 
You just made the rookie error of thinking that money is something you own, rather than a mere placeholder for the possibility that one day you might own something.

Nah bruh. I think you've got what I said mistaken because you aren't actually reading it.
The thing is you're giving a standard bank conspiracy theory--we already understand it and know it's wrong.
 
They gambled. Full stop.

Exactly.
It's what banks do.
It's expected. It's how they make money.
This isn't news.

They used to be much more heavily regulated for exactly this reason.
Tom

What SVB did was make a bad move based on a bad guess about future interest rate. Further more, they did not have enough money reserves on hand to weather their storm. Frank - Dodd mandated holding adequate reserves. Over the years lobbying got the Frank - Dodd laws nibbled away and Trump eliminated it all. A perfect storm.

Short sellers caught on and made great sums of easy money, so it is not like this was not obvious to those paying attention. Elizabeth Warren loudly warned us of this years ago when Trump acted foolishly.
Exactly. In good times using a lot of leverage increases your profit. In bad times it can spell doom. When we have a big enough crash we pay attention for a little while and put restrictions on leverage, but these keep getting eroded over time. It's a minefield that people keep pretending they can safely navigate. This time at least it was just one bank that ran into a mine.
 
You don't have to hate a man personally to pick his pocket, or help someone else do the same. Favoring white customers because you'll get better returns for doing so is "objectively" justifiable, if your only concern is the profit incentive. But it also results in the creation of an institution that systematically and persistency widens the gap between "rich" and "poor" neighborhoods, stoking racial animus and quickening the break-down of society generally. Hence why those who know jack shit about racial issues usually have some questions about the merit of unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism.
So we should require businesses to be racist?
 
You don't have to hate a man personally to pick his pocket, or help someone else do the same. Favoring white customers because you'll get better returns for doing so is "objectively" justifiable, if your only concern is the profit incentive. But it also results in the creation of an institution that systematically and persistency widens the gap between "rich" and "poor" neighborhoods, stoking racial animus and quickening the break-down of society generally. Hence why those who know jack shit about racial issues usually have some questions about the merit of unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism.
So we should require businesses to be racist?
I swear its like you're living on another planet entirely...
 
They gambled. Full stop.

Exactly.
It's what banks do.
It's expected. It's how they make money.
This isn't news.

They used to be much more heavily regulated for exactly this reason.
Tom

What SVB did was make a bad move based on a bad guess about future interest rate. Further more, they did not have enough money reserves on hand to weather their storm. Frank - Dodd mandated holding adequate reserves. Over the years lobbying got the Frank - Dodd laws nibbled away and Trump eliminated it all. A perfect storm.

Short sellers caught on and made great sums of easy money, so it is not like this was not obvious to those paying attention. Elizabeth Warren loudly warned us of this years ago when Trump acted foolishly.
Exactly. In good times using a lot of leverage increases your profit. In bad times it can spell doom. When we have a big enough crash we pay attention for a little while and put restrictions on leverage, but these keep getting eroded over time. It's a minefield that people keep pretending they can safely navigate. This time at least it was just one bank that ran into a mine.

At last count, we just had THREE bank failures. Besides Silicon Valley Bank, Silvergate Bank and Signature Bank. Signature was the third biggest bank failure since the 2008 fiasco. I have no idea how many more banks at this moment are in trouble. The Biden administration is acting fast and decisively to head off a general banking meltdown.
 
They gambled. Full stop.

Exactly.
It's what banks do.
It's expected. It's how they make money.
This isn't news.

They used to be much more heavily regulated for exactly this reason.
Tom

What SVB did was make a bad move based on a bad guess about future interest rate. Further more, they did not have enough money reserves on hand to weather their storm. Frank - Dodd mandated holding adequate reserves. Over the years lobbying got the Frank - Dodd laws nibbled away and Trump eliminated it all. A perfect storm.

Short sellers caught on and made great sums of easy money, so it is not like this was not obvious to those paying attention. Elizabeth Warren loudly warned us of this years ago when Trump acted foolishly.
Exactly. In good times using a lot of leverage increases your profit. In bad times it can spell doom. When we have a big enough crash we pay attention for a little while and put restrictions on leverage, but these keep getting eroded over time. It's a minefield that people keep pretending they can safely navigate. This time at least it was just one bank that ran into a mine.

It might actually be good in the long term to have a few more bank failures we can blame on deregulation. To teach America that regulation is not bad or evil, but neccesary.

Bank failures and train wrecks.
 
What's the fixed rate at which Excel skills are convertible to dollars? Surely it changes with every transaction.

There is no fixed rate. 1 is a value, 2 is a value 3 is a value. People value things arbitrarily. That doesn't denote NO VALUE as you seem to be insinuating.

We are talking about currency and whether or not it has a value right? Not whether or not it has a fixed rate.

The rate can be fixed and not fixed (depending on agreements); both would have value.
 
Back
Top Bottom