Is it though? I think there's a proportion of readers who might feel grifted by regulatory capture (eg: unable to get on the housing ladder due to draconian zoning policy) and reasonably feel that some of the moral hazard has to be addressed to stop what has been unstoppable growth to give them a chance to establish financial security. It's a fallacy to see it as zero sum, but a temporary crisis in confidence might produce the only opportunity in a lifetime to create the conditions needed for affordable housing to be available for purchase for folks who can keep their jobs during the crisis. Many feel economically abandoned.

You can't just snap your figures and have the housing market drop by 60% and keep everything else the same.

Those same people are going to lose their jobs and burn through all their savings and be unable to secure loans to buy houses.

Even if you bank at a supposed safe and secure credit union, a systemic crisis will affect them as well. You won't be able to get a loan. There goes your opportunity.

The whole financial and economic system is intertwined and you're part of it, if it blows up and crashes into the rocks, you're going down with the ship as well. Get over your Main Character Syndrome where you think you're going to be the one immune to the catastrophe.

I know many good, hardworking people who secured their position on the housing ladder in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. In conversation, they were bewildered by how much their homes appreciated even by 2018, well before the pandemic bump in valuations.

Destroying the depositors in SVB is not the way to go about lowering housing prices. Please figure out for yourself why that is true.

Perhaps it's accepting their fate and making sure they take others with them.

Destroying the whole economy just as long as one silicon valley VC goes down with them?

We're fucked if those people win, and I'm seeing that sentiment come from liberals and conservatives alike.

But is anything being done about it? It is both unequality and bananism at its best. You give money to the "rich" (though this time indirectly), you encourage recklessness and you also change the rules when you see fit.

All of these described above are "disrupting" the economy. And none of them is in our interest.

Well I certainly proved my point.

The really rough part about HN is the low level of knowledge about how governments and politics work. It's ok to judge these outcomes harshly but many commenters here intermingle their judgements with their mental models that seem to have not evolved beyond what they were taught in secondary school.

It's really quite concerning because some of these people have tremendous power. I suppose the only positive is that a number of titans of Silicon Valley are not savvy enough to challenge increasingly assertive governments.

Meme economics.