[iandanforth]

There's a huge leap taken by this piece with distressing casualness.

"This action effectively means the $250,000 FDIC limit is meaningless: all deposits in any bank are presumably insured by the full faith and credit of the United States."

Exceptional circumstances sometimes call for exceptional measures. A bank with 85% of its accounts over the $250k limit where most of the depositors are contractually locked-in companies is not normal. Moreover the contagion nucleus in this network were a few culpable super-spreaders with exceptional power. Other banks don't face that threat either.

Banking policy must be written to include exceptional circumstances, but the idea that all banking policy needs to be rewritten to burden smaller banks with situational precautions which are impossible for them to encounter is dangerous idiocy. Don't write housing codes that require 9.0 earthquake tolerance in areas primarily hit by hurricanes!

Furthermore it's dispiriting to see generous tit-for-tat given such a cynical portrayal. If two people have knives to each others throats you don't win by just not being the first to cut, you win by putting the knives down.

This situation was exceptional, and the panic was triggered by people with outsized network influence who should have known better. So maybe, just maybe, we deal with the reality of the situation rather than assuming it must be a harbinger of total change.

[javajosh]

>If two people have knives to each others throats you don't win by just not being the first to cut, you win by putting the knives down.

Strictly speaking there are 4 outcomes, according to John Nash. The cooperate outcome is globally the best, but the 2 defect outcomes are much better for the individual winner. The 4th outcome, 'they fought and badly wounded each other, but both lived', is what's going on here, and the FDIC medics are coming in. This helps now but has the perverse effect of increasing the chances of defect behavior in the future, IMHO.

The angle I want to know more about is Peter Thiel. He's already demonstrated the willingness and ability to execute complex plans to destroy enemies (e.g. Gawker). He likes Trump, so not a fan of self-restraint or basic morality. Is it possible that Thiel has a bone to pick with SVB? Or maybe it's bigger, and Thiel, who famously hates competition, saw a way to hurt ALL startups, including some that might one day threaten him and his businesses. It's the old story about the orphan who makes it, recognizes the positive influence the orphanage had on his success, and then burns the orphanage down to ensure no others get its benefits and challenge his power.

[iandanforth]

"the old story about the orphan who makes it, recognizes the positive influence the orphanage had on his success, and then burns the orphanage down to ensure no others arise to challenge his power."

This would be a really interesting villain. Someone who wasn't subject to the fundamental attribution error and had an unlimited appetite for destruction.

[javajosh]

It sounds interesting to me, and worth trying, but I'd be worried that such a villain would be uninteresting to watch on film. No cackle? No monologuing? They would be pure self-interest, executed calmly and without pity (including self-pity), would do crime but never brag about it, never get caught. Such a one would not be terribly interesting to watch because the villain basically has the mind of a spreadsheet.

[gen220]

Sounds like the plot to "There will be blood" to me. :)

That was one of the best plots/executions of a plot that I've ever seen!

[javajosh]

Love "There Will be Blood" (and PTA), but I don't see how it fits. Plainview as a villain was great because his extraordinary, single-minded ambition motivated him to attempt kill his own humanity. But Plainview failed. His humanity was still in there, in long-abused, long-neglected agony and rage, which had its final, full, disgusting eruption in the final scene of the film with Paul Dano's character. It was evidence that Plainview couldn't kill his own humanity. This made him interesting. My spreadsheet villain succeeds in fully killing his own humanity. I don't know if this is even possible, but given the plasticity and variation in the human mind, it probably is. But I still don't think it would be interesting to watch!

[gen220]

That's a fair point!

I guess the most searing part of the film, in my memory, is the first / middle thirds of the movie. But maybe I only remember the first two thirds because it's balanced so effectively by the ending. :D

I'd watch your movie, but I agree it'd probably be criticized as boring because the anti-hero doesn't "develop". Maybe it'd be better if you focus on their childhood/adolescence, i.e. the experiences that sparked the intent to crush their own humanity. Godfather 2 vibes.

[JetSpiegel]

That's Voldemort, he did burn down his own orphanage.