Re:How deep is the rot in America’s banking industry?
by creato on Thursday March 16, 2023 @02:22PM
(#35186080)
> If all the depositors were merely semi-wealthy commoners with only $300k in their accounts, they would have only gotten $250k back.
No, they would have gotten $250k + ~90% of the balance. Maybe even 100%. Annoying but I wouldn’t care enough to take to twitter about it.
To explain why: it’s an overall loss of a few percent. The same as the daily fluctuation if I had kept the money in the stock market or whatever.
Re:How deep is the rot in America’s banking industry?
by stametseater on Friday March 17, 2023 @12:24PM
(#35199192)
Quibble. The point is that the rules would not be changed for such a person. Neither you nor I would expect the rules to change mid-game for a common sort of person.
Exactly this. I even read a comment from such a founder saying essentially: "Why are people so angry, don't they know I oppose brogrammer culture?" As if brogrammer culture were the meat of of the reason why people are sick of the hypocrisy of the capital class, or even American startup culture specifically. Totally out of touch, completely clueless. Utterly tone deaf.
Particularly, the decision to change the rules in the middle of the game and make depositors over the FDIC limit completely whole again is clearly an unfair favor to the rich. Normal people don't get to have the rules changed mid-game in their favor. If all the depositors were merely semi-wealthy commoners with only $300k in their accounts, they would have only gotten $250k back. Nobody would expect the rules to be changed in that scenario. But if you're much richer than that, then the rules are apparently just guidelines. It isn't fair and that's why people are mad. Anybody confused by people being mad is completely out of touch, and voicing that confusion is only going to make people even madder.