|
|
|
|
|
|
by lp0_on_fire
1192 days ago
|
|
|
> Over time, everyone will probably get most of their deposits from SVB back from SVB assets. > What people (the ones who know what they're talking about, anyway) are asking for is closer to taxpayers covering the costs of getting that money back sooner. There's a definite cost, but it's not taxpayers writing checks to cover deposit values. Except it's literally asking the taxpayer to cover the costs to cover these funds for some indeterminate period of time in the HOPES that SVB will "probably" be able to make their depositors whole, someday. |
|
|
There's a cost, we don't know what it is. It's not as high as it sounds when you say "we should only let people get $250k liquid and everyone else should pound sand".
The cost to letting these companies keep their money tied up is a lot of people not getting paychecks. Which suddenly means no tax witholdings. And more unemployed people. And companies that can't pay vendors.
Doing nothing is not free. It might be cheaper, it might not. I get the instinct to hold the man accountable but it's not as simple as most people are suggesting.