I do like it, but I like a lot of things I would consider niche and that dont have impacts on large markets. I was wondering what they meant about impact on the gaming market. It's not clear to me how many steam decks have been sold in comparison to say, the nintendo switch. Which is why when they talk about impact I'm just not sure what the impact is.
More like our government fully understands how to weaponize social media to spread their bullshit, and how valuable it is for mass control and surveillance. We're more than ok with our social media platforms because of this usefulness, but TikTok is China's version and we can't have that type of mass surveillance and control and propaganda in anyone's hands but ours.
A few years ago this would have sounded like a conspiracy theory. Now it's the only logical conclusion.
Our government (well, our congressmen and women) demonstrably has no clue what social media is capable of outside of their meta sponsored talking points.
Tbf, China doesn't allow US propaganda in their country either, i.e Facebook and co. They even banned or make it impossible for stuff like wikipedia and google to work over there.
It was trading at about $200 a share, you don't need a loan to be a shareholder. Besides, you can get fractional shares so even if $200 is too much you could still be a shareholder.
Lots of normal people own stocks. You can save money and invest it for retirement, etc. It’s risky because… Well… Public companies you invest money in can go bankrupt.
What did the depositors do wrong? You're saying in a just world, the individuals and businesses who just decided to open a checking account—at a top-20 US bank—deserve to lose everything? What did they do wrong?
Businesses should better manage their risks, and advisors such as VCs should be helping them do that. Bank runs aren't new and _shouldn't_ be surprising (in the sense that they are possible, not in the sense of any particular occurrence). It is well known how much the FDIC insures, so beyond that amount you are taking on a risk with the financial institution. I have family that uses multiple banks just for that reason, both to for insurance coverage and to address any short-term liquidity issues that might arise before the FDIC enabled repayment.
There probably should also be better services out there for outsourced corporate treasury functions. ICD exists, but probably is too costly and specialized for smaller firms.
I think it's fine if the new precedent we're setting is that the FDIC backs any amount of money on deposit for everyone going forward.
If that is not the new precedent, then this is a bailout of rich individuals and some specific corporations. That doesn't seem a problem to you? If the savings and loan of Bismarck North Dakota fails, is the government bailing out the car lot owner and the wheat farmer and the home builder?
> If the savings and loan of Bismarck North Dakota fails, is the government bailing out the car lot owner and the wheat farmer and the home builder?
Yes, the depositors would get bailed out, but the bank itself would be sold for parts. That might constrain the way that retail deposits are allowed to be managed.
A start would be undoing the Trump administration's rollback of Dodd-Frank stress testing requirements for smaller banks [1]. It will probably also mean the FDIC will require more insurance on deposits. This will all hurt profitability of banks, and reduce risk for depositors.
> Above the 250k limit, that is not normally the case. The joint statement is creating a special situation here.
Yes, the special situation will likely become the new normal. There will be pressure to reintroduce the Dodd-Frank stress tests that the Trump administration (with the help of many banking-industry-aligned Democrats) eliminated in 2018 for banks with < $250M in deposits, and there will be greater insurance required on deposits.
Just 4 years after that change, the lessons of 2008 will have to be relearned.
IANA-Economist, but I believe the reason that capitalization requirements aren't sufficient is because of the "Last Taxi Problem", described in this article:
Tech companies should understand the risks with banks the same way banks need to understand tech risks. If a bank got ransomwared because they left the password to their webserver root/root no one in tech would ask "what did they do wrong?".
Bankers? Absolutely. We can nit pick which bankers are the "good" ones vs the "bad" ones, but as a whole, there are useful functions they perform for society. Usury though? Possibly not.
I'm not saying they're useless, or evil. They're just playing their part. I'm saying that in a just world we'd have found a different way to solve the problems that they solve.
For instance, I can get a loan from a bank for a mining operation that will contaminate the ground water somewhere. Thanks to bankers, I can expect that the locals will accept the money I'm paying my employees--since they can't distinguish it from any other money--even though they'd be much better off refusing it and continuing to drink clean water.
The way we practice money involves a loss of agency to whoever has less of it. A just world would require the consent of the locals, our world only requires that I prove to a banker that the operation will be profitable.
yeah i was thinking the same thing, at the very least it's not designed with accessibility in mind and could easily trick people who are more vision impaired.
i feel like lawyers will be able to legally keep AI out of their field for a while yet. they have the tools at their disposal to do so and a huge incentive.
> i feel like lawyers will be able to legally keep AI out of their
field for a while yet. they have the tools at their disposal to do
so and a huge incentive, other fields like journalism not so much.
That was my initial response too.
Artists, programmers, musicians, teachers are threatened... but shrug
and say "that's the future, what can you do". If lawyers feel
"threatened" by AI, they get it shot down.
I suddenly have a newfound respect for lawyers :)
Yet if we think about it, we all have exactly the same tools at our
disposal - which is just not playing that game. Difference is, while
most professions have got used to rolling with whatever "progressive
technology" is foisted on us, lawyers have a long tradition of caution
and moderating external pressure to "modernise". I'm not sure
Microsoft have much influence in the legal field.
it is a national risk but i imagine there's also economic / trade grounds in the fact that china doesn't let american companies compete in their market.
I don't see any reason for it not to be in the purview of government.
It is in the purview of the government. That's not the question; the statutory justification for a ban is the question.
Every single country on this planet of ours engages in some form of protectionism, whether we like it or not: again, it isn't clear what casuistic justification explains singling out China's protectionism, and even then banning just one company involved in it. Italy doesn't let us sell the sawdust we call "Parmesan," but I'd prefer it if we didn't ban selling the real thing in retaliation.
Finally, for the national risk: what, precisely is the national risk? You can argue (correctly!) that they're a bad actor given this news, and I would be more than happy to see those involved in the surveillance of journalists see the inside of a court. But this doesn't even come close to meeting the standard for a national security risk, weak as that standard has become.
did you mean sun microsystems?