from Hacker News

Silicon Valley Learns to Love Socialism for the Rich

by muzz on 3/13/23, 9:24 PM with 69 comments

  • by feross on 3/13/23, 9:40 PM

    > One SVB depositor, the streaming service Roku, has $487 billion housed in the bank—only a small fraction of which seems to be insured.

    Not impressed by the basic factual errors in this article. $487 billion ≠ $487 million. https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/roku-svb-failed-silico...

    EDIT: I just noticed another disappointing factual error, bordering on disinformation. They say:

    > On October 14, 2022, Sacks tweeted, “The idea that the American government, the American taxpayer, or any American company is obligated to provide support is pre entitlement.” That was before the SVB collapse. On March 10, 2023, Sacks sang a different tune: “Where is Powell? Where is Yellen? Stop the crisis NOW. Announce that all depositors will be safe.”

    I'm no Sacks apologist, but they took his first quote completely out-of-context, making it sound like he was saying the US government shouldn't support failing companies, when he was in fact talking about the US supporting Ukraine. See: https://twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/1634357137873969152

  • by pc_edwin on 3/13/23, 10:21 PM

    It's ironic how Silicon Valley played a significant role in the current administration's rise to power.

    I'm not even referring to the peculiar moderation strategies employed by Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook. What's truly fascinating to me is the extent of donations from billionaires and high-earning employees to get these politicians elected. The sheer amount of money involved is mind-boggling.

    To be honest, a part of me was against the idea of backstopping (bailouts). I wanted these people (you guys) to see the consequences of the monster they have created.

    And just to be clear, this is your making and its just the beginning. It's a result of a chain of events that can be traced back to the lockdowns and MMT economics. While it's easy to blame individual actors for the collapse of SVB, the truth is that all of this could have been predicted. It's not sustainable to continuously pump money into the system, creating an extreme level of fragility, only to drain it out later without any consequences.

  • by Prbeek on 3/13/23, 9:50 PM

    It would be unconscionable to let those start ups collapse. The bank though can go to hell

  • by shrewduser on 3/13/23, 9:39 PM

    In a just world these people would be stripped of everything they own.

  • by CoBE10 on 3/14/23, 1:18 AM

    The only class that always has class solidarity...

  • by easton on 3/13/23, 9:43 PM

    The effects would trickle down, no? If your payroll money was in SVB and you lost it, your workers won’t get paid?

  • by reso on 3/13/23, 10:08 PM

    I think its overplaying your hand to call this "socialism for the rich". It's just regulation.

    That being said, I do think its hilarious how many people who were promoting crypto as a way to destroy the regulatory state have now had their asses saved by the regulatory state.

  • by telaelit on 3/13/23, 9:53 PM

    I'm so confused because if I understand correctly the employees of the company were not given board positions or any sort of ownership over the means of production, which would be socialism. We live in a capitalist economic system, and using the tools that capitalism provides the government stepped in using capitalist tools to fix the problem. This isn't socialism, this is capitalism protecting itself from failing.

  • by erulabs on 3/13/23, 9:44 PM

    Frustrating. Depositor insurance is not socialism, and it's a somewhat shockingly stupid thing to suggest that it is. And even the suggestion that depositor insurance is what's at play here is a stretch; the word from the fed is "No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer".