This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Commercial banks could offer higher interest rates on deposits, lend out their own capital, or issue bonds. If this didn't provide sufficient funding for whatever amount of lending the government wanted to see, the government itself could loan money to banks to re-lend.
Really though, the easiest patch to the system would just be for FDIC insurance to (officially) cover unlimited balances, or at least scale high enough that only the largest organizations had to worry about it. It makes no sense to require millions of entities (if you include individuals of moderate net worth) to constantly juggle funds to guard against a very small chance of a catastrophic outcome that most of them aren't well positioned to evaluate the probability of. That's exactly the sort of risk insurance is for.
If the concern is that this will create moral hazard because banks that take more risks will be able to pay higher interest rates and fully-insured depositors will have no reason to avoid them, the solution is just for regulators to limit depository institutions to only taking on risks the government is comfortable insuring against. Individuals should be allowed to take on risk to chase returns, but there's no compelling reason to offer this sort of exposure through deposit accounts in particular. Doing so runs contrary to the way most people mentally model them or wish to use them.
This results in a fully socialized lending system with the government making all the decisions. Which is likely where we're headed ANYWAY, I'll grant, but it seems like a bad end.
More options
Context Copy link
Why not require banks to buy insurance instead of government regulation? Get market pricing on risks instead of government fiat?
Insurance is a key if not the main function of the US government and many other governments. They can print money. There’s no insurance company big enough to insure. SVB. Maybe a consortium could also insure a little. But the insurance industry is not bigger than the banking industry. They couldn’t insure a bank issue that is systematic with multiple failing. You would move the stystematic risks for bank failure to banks failure causing insurance failure. AIG had a quant insurance unit that insured some financial risks and surprise surprise they sold it too cheap and blew up.
More options
Context Copy link
Forcing banks to buy insurance still is government regulation.
Yes it is. I should’ve made it clear. One is command and control (ie you must do XYZ). Think old school environmental regulation. The second is more like a carbon tax. It regulates via pricing arguably allowing a more accurate risk.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Who are you going to buy global financial collapse insurance from? What counterparty can be relied on to pay out in such a scenario?
You gotta have physical. Physical gold, yes. But also physical land you can reach, physical guns, and a physical body of followers you can trust.
More options
Context Copy link
In the case of global financial collapse the dollar is probably worthless so who cares?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link