That and everyone else in the bank was just like the government, doing what they wanted to make themselves look good at the expense of the institution they were supposedly representing. Woke turns to shit.
Wasn't there also a ssl certificate company where their security officer who's only qualification was having a music degree and said company caused one of the biggest security breaches in the history of the internet due to them being hacked?
Offtopic, but I'd like to point out that this on-topic response actually got overwhelmingly upvoted even though it's your usual whining about women.
Apparently your stormcuck and conpro stalkers don't bother you on constructive comments. Weird! Apparently they coordinate to only downvote offtopic and/or histrionic comments. Those guys are sneaky like that.
The community is very fair to him. He gets a small number of downvotes beyond what an average user saying the same thing would get, but those can usually be counted on one hand. What often gets left out of this conversation is that everyone here gets a downvote or two on completely uncontroversial posts sometimes. I've seen entire comment threads full of civilized discussion where everyone agrees with each and every single comment has exactly one downvote. I guarantee that it's some troon who followed us over from Spez's CP exchange.
Even if perhaps tighter regulations might have meant that the bank wouldn't have failed, it also might have meant the bank wouldn't have succeeded as a bank. There's a tradeoff between too much regulations stifling competition and risk of bank failure. If there's not enough competition you have monopolies which causes higher costs to people despite no bank failures. It isn't necessarily the best result.
I work for a credit union that has been forced to increase its regulatory burden and this might actually destroy the credit union because the credit union is simply too small to properly meet the standards. A lot of customers are going to the big banks now. Arguably, this is why big banks like high regulations because they can more easily meet them and put smaller banks/CUs out of business.
This is the case with all regulations. When they raise minimum wage, small and local businesses are always the first to go. Companies like Amazon and Walmart love costly new regs because they put competitors out of business first. Then, when the reaper comes for the big fish, the regulations are magically relaxed because everyone sees the pile of dead bodies and comes to free market Jesus.
I kind of defy the original supposition that the government failed here, on second thought. Aren't they supposed to let banks fail? They insure some depositor accounts. Nothing else. The rest of the bank going bye bye is not the government's problem.
And that's exactly what appears to be happening. We'll have to wait for the dust to settle to see if they went beyond this. But yes, if you believe in Free Enterprise then failure must be as possible as success. Only communists believe failure is not an option.
The executive complaining that a bank was not well-regulated because they didn't meet some arbitrary threshold for automatically-increased scrutiny is ridiculous. That's YOUR JOB, assholes. To regulate.
SVB failed because their risk management chair was touring Europe pushing feminist propaganda under the SVB name rather than doing her actual job.
That and everyone else in the bank was just like the government, doing what they wanted to make themselves look good at the expense of the institution they were supposedly representing. Woke turns to shit.
Reminds me of Celsius, who hired a literal porn star as risk manager and sued everyone who pointed out her old "career".
Wasn't there also a ssl certificate company where their security officer who's only qualification was having a music degree and said company caused one of the biggest security breaches in the history of the internet due to them being hacked?
this. she was a busy pushing ESG and woke bullshit for a solid 9+ months instead of doing her actual job in managing risk.
Offtopic, but I'd like to point out that this on-topic response actually got overwhelmingly upvoted even though it's your usual whining about women.
Apparently your stormcuck and conpro stalkers don't bother you on constructive comments. Weird! Apparently they coordinate to only downvote offtopic and/or histrionic comments. Those guys are sneaky like that.
The community is very fair to him. He gets a small number of downvotes beyond what an average user saying the same thing would get, but those can usually be counted on one hand. What often gets left out of this conversation is that everyone here gets a downvote or two on completely uncontroversial posts sometimes. I've seen entire comment threads full of civilized discussion where everyone agrees with each and every single comment has exactly one downvote. I guarantee that it's some troon who followed us over from Spez's CP exchange.
They usually act around 1-2am UTC and just downvote literally everything at once.
So, it's too early to say.
Nope. You’re a pathological delusional autistic who is sometimes accidentally correct.
Wow! They found this one but not the others in this thread that remain highly upvoted.
Such a weird occurrence. One that might almost make someone have to question their assumptions about who and/or why downvotes were happening.
Even if perhaps tighter regulations might have meant that the bank wouldn't have failed, it also might have meant the bank wouldn't have succeeded as a bank. There's a tradeoff between too much regulations stifling competition and risk of bank failure. If there's not enough competition you have monopolies which causes higher costs to people despite no bank failures. It isn't necessarily the best result.
I work for a credit union that has been forced to increase its regulatory burden and this might actually destroy the credit union because the credit union is simply too small to properly meet the standards. A lot of customers are going to the big banks now. Arguably, this is why big banks like high regulations because they can more easily meet them and put smaller banks/CUs out of business.
This is the case with all regulations. When they raise minimum wage, small and local businesses are always the first to go. Companies like Amazon and Walmart love costly new regs because they put competitors out of business first. Then, when the reaper comes for the big fish, the regulations are magically relaxed because everyone sees the pile of dead bodies and comes to free market Jesus.
For now. ;)
glass steagall
I kind of defy the original supposition that the government failed here, on second thought. Aren't they supposed to let banks fail? They insure some depositor accounts. Nothing else. The rest of the bank going bye bye is not the government's problem.
And that's exactly what appears to be happening. We'll have to wait for the dust to settle to see if they went beyond this. But yes, if you believe in Free Enterprise then failure must be as possible as success. Only communists believe failure is not an option.
The executive complaining that a bank was not well-regulated because they didn't meet some arbitrary threshold for automatically-increased scrutiny is ridiculous. That's YOUR JOB, assholes. To regulate.