What a weird post.

>Lots of people are starving and homeless for as trivial a "decision" as that.

Most homeless are either severely mentally ill, drug addicted, usually both.

>I'd much rather give everybody food and a home, including the Etsy seller, instead of: giving the bankers a ski jolly, people still starving and homeless, less this Etsy seller. Why can't we do that?

You could be running a soup kitchen homeless shelter right now instead of posting on HN. It's always someone elses fault!

>Some of those entitled Etsy sellers voted against everybody having food and a home;

Great analysis and input - if we would all vote x, everybody would have food and home, problem sovled!

Rather than prop up a bank that support x number of businesses that support y number employees, you'd had the government prop up xy employees? For how long? And if another z number of banks fail? Support xyz employees?

Yes. Forever. Yes those too. All of them.

I live in a socialist European country, but I'm originally from the USA, and I wish it was better there.

I was unaware that there were any socialist countries in Europe. Where do you live?

All of Europe is regularly dismissed as socialist whenever the EU enacts regulations that a certain part of the HN population does not like. I would consider the label "socialist" an epitheton ornans here.

This! Exactly this, because the government is also doing a backstop for a second bank, Signature Bank of New York. Silicon Valley Bank is the 2nd largest bank failure in U.S. history, and one day later, Signature Bank was also closed and its uninsured deposits guaranteed by the FDIC.

When does it stop?

First Republic Bank isn't looking too good.

You are correct.

> giving the bankers a ski jolly

What banker got a “ski jolly” here? The bankers in this case are in exactly the same position they would have been in if the bank were allowed to fail without supporting depositors.

> What banker got a “ski jolly” here?

Well, this guy for one:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/03/10/svb-fin...

... and that trade will certainly be investigated. If the trade was not part of an existing trading plan, it's highly likely the CEO will have some very uncomfortable conversations.

How is selling stock tantamount to a government bailout?

Ill be glad to have an uncomfortable conversation for a few million dollars.

The "uncomfortable conversation" can mean a conversation about breaking insider trading regulations, the penalties for which include huge fines and potentially jail time.

> the CEO will have some very uncomfortable conversations.

Oh no! Not uncomfortable conversations! Anything but that! Maybe it will be followed up with a strongly worded letter with an implied threat of a performative vote by Congress. How will they cope?! They might even have to show up at a gasp House committee hearing! shudders

Wake me when someone is convicted.

So edgy. Let’s just bypass investigations and go directly into summary execution. Eat the rich!!!!!

"Wake me when someone is convicted" isn't an "eat the rich" statement. The OPs point is that an "uncomfortable conversation" isn't a punishment for wrongdoing, such as insider trading.

That happened before the fdic got involved. If it turns out he was hiding something, the SEC might get involved but otherwise he was fully allowed to sell his own stock based compensation. That's how stock based compensation works.