When people take financial risks (such as holding more than $250K in FDIC insured bank account), why should taxpayers cover their losses?

It doesn’t follow that there will be any losses to cover. The government can take ownership of the assets of the bank and won’t be stuck having to sell them at a loss.

After two years, that bond now has FMV of 1000/(1.02^8) = $853. But then interest rates increase to 4%, so its FMV drops to 1000/(1.04^8) = $731.

If we sold today at the FMV then we'd realize an $89 loss from our purchase price. That's neither better nor worse than holding to maturity, though--that's what makes it the FMV. In the case where we sell, we'd get $731 now, but we could reinvest it at 4%. After the remaining eight years, that would give us 731*(1.04^8) = $1000, exactly the same as if we'd held.

HTM accounting treats the two cases as different, but that's an arbitrary regulatory decision, untethered from any economic reality. It has no meaning outside that narrow compliance purpose. The SVB's decision to treat that accounting fiction as if it were economically meaningful appears to be a major part of how they blew themselves up.

They are indeed trying to shrink their balance sheet, but at the volumes they are working at, the entirety of SVBs assets amount to a few months of the fed’s current volumes.

The FDIC is a modern intervention that protects most personal and small business accounts from needing to consider that risk.

Clearly, some people who grew up in the shadow of that insurance protection failed to learn about this “bizarro” world that they lived in and made uninformed choices when they suddenly came into money.

But the world never changed, just the naiveté of the people making deposits.

You don’t open a savings acct and get told “you could lose this money.”

You’re given a sold-to-you contract from the bank for a specific rate of return for the privilege of them being allowed to hold and work with your money.

If one chooses to dep >250k - that’s on them.

Most likely there are no losses so long as the assets don’t need to be sold in a fire sale. The bank just needs liquidity.

Banks that may be otherwise solvent may become insolvent because of a domino risk of bank runs.

Probably the right thing to do is forced equity dilution of a bank experiencing a run. That is, the Fed buys senior equity in the bank and the injection pays for short term losses.

The equity injection guarantee alone would likely be enough to stop the contagion and calm markets.

I thought "TARP" / equity injections into banks was a "never again" kinda deal. With Dodd-Frank regulations being passed back then to try to stop these things from being regular. We can't just buyout every bank that collapses.

---------

At a minimum, I want to see major banks (similar to AIG) teetering on the brink before we reach for those tools again. This absolutely should not, and cannot, be our main way forward whenever a banking issue arises.

That to me implies the bank was never solvent in the first place. You could have easily created a bank that is always solvent, see the case of The Narrow Bank, but the Fed wouldn't allow it.

I'm 68 and this is self-limiting B.S.

In the last few years I have seen many things I never saw before, and never imagined.

Ironically, when I was about 30, I was in a similar position and complained to my dad that there was nothing new under the sun, everything is just a rehash of what has come before.

He laughed at me, and threw me out of the house.

A quote from a novel has always been an inspiration since I read it in high school - "An artist must leave a body of work" from The Agony And The Ecstasy, about Michelangelo. If your programming no longer excites you, learn something new in programming, or even learn something that isn't programming and do that. It's not easy, and might cost you money, but wasting your life doing something you no longer care about is not worth it.

Of course some people can deal with a terrible job, and just spend the non-working time doing what they love, and that's OK if you can deal with it. I could never do that; I didn't turn to art until the last few years.

Most companies want to push me upward into management (which I don't want to do) - and I feel like I'm aging out of eligibility for most development jobs.

How did you manage to stick with it? I still love it.

Learn, learn, learn. Find the new hotness (at least one that has staying power).

For me, kubernetes is the latest 'big hill'. It seems to have legs for years ahead, and plenty of technical details that prevent anyone from completely mastering it.

58 in a few weeks, and seriously considering going the other way: To jump off the treadmill of new fads and concentrate on / return to basics.

"Big Data!" "Data Lake!" Data Vault!" "Apache Spark!" "Kafka!" "Cloud this!" "Cloud that!" "Cloud the other!""Snowflake!" "R!" "Python!" "Pandas!" "This new ETL tool!" "That new ETL process!" "This other new ETL tool!" "That other new ETL process!"...

Sigh.

SQL and bash ain't going anywhere, and they're all you really need for ETL.

I'm thinking of really learning the old cool in stead.

When I was just starting out (circa 1990) a good friend of mine had a pal that was making his living servicing punch card machines.

They were completely unsupported by IBM at the time, this guy had been an IBM tech and saw the opening. He embraced the old tech, knowing there were people still using it and willing to pay for some form of support.

So I don't disagree with that idea, it's definitely workable.

Anecdata: was asked by a client why the same query was running orders slower on our infrastructure (IaaS on Xeons) than on their test server (a regular desktop with i7). I check the load, IO, yada-yada and I don't see anything what could indicate the slowness. After a bit I check the db size and ... I'm pretty speechless, because it is 77MBs. 77 megabytes and the query runs for tens of seconds. I tell the client to give me the query. They are happily oblige and provide a two FullHD screens of SQL with like... 20? More? 'SELECT *' from the same tables on and on.

After speaking nicely with the client about the origins of this query and checking their dev environment, I learned:

1. this query was autogenerated by Lavarel

2. their dev environment is 100 times smaller than the prod

3. until I forced them to copy prod data to dev they didn't believe the problem was with the query

4. between two programmers and one sysadmin on the client side NOBODY was even close to reasons of slowness.

So... for some people SQL in 2022 is pretty equal to punchcards.

I'm still far from an SQL expert, and certainly wasn't 15 years ago, but you can get a lot of win by just spending as little as one or two days learning about SQL. It really surprises me how some people don't.

Then again, for a very long time I thought awk was basically useless to learn, until I did last year after which I kicked myself for not learning it sooner as I had spent a ridiculous amount of time cooking up inferior solutions for ~20 years, and spending just an hour or two learning awk would have been a great ROI *shrug*.

I guess the moral of the story is that you can never be quite sure if something is useful or useless until you actually learn it.

Had to come back and add. I am doing a lot more embedded python utilities in the last three years, but it is all interfacing to C based firmware on raw silicon underneath.

I have found python to be a lot of fun.

A half-aged kid here. This is the source of my anxiety, that all I’ve done and learned will age, slip through fingers and become forgotten. I wish our craft could stabilize on something, but it just doesn’t.

However, there is some light at the end of the “everything changes” tunnel: as you learn different frameworks and languages you’re gaining new perspectives on the deeper concepts, and for the most part those deeper concepts don’t change. In OOP the “gang of four” is practically as relevant now as it was then, for example.

If anything, things are stabilizing now more than ever before. Java and Javascript are almost 30 years old, and still as relevant as ever. Computers have been "fast enough" for most purposes and aren't obsolete the moment you've bought them, like they were in the early 1990s. The x86 architecture is surprisingly still with us. And despite all the new languages and frameworks, there's still tons of stuff being done in all of the old ones. They don't get obsolete as fast as they used to.

You can never do everything. Pick what you love, and focus on that.

This is the key right here. If what you used to do is no longer exciting you, it is time to try something else. This often means getting out of your comfort zone, and there is no guarantee that the new thing you try will excite you. But if that happens, at least you tried. Every discovery of something that doesn't interest you is a step closer to something that does.

-What about economics, a management role or something else? my advice: Have the habbit to improve your habbits (including your thinking) the medicine = reading btw

]

It’s not that you can’t find novel things any more if you go looking for them, but most everyday things hold no more (or less) excitement.

I notice this especially much with my 3 year old son, for whom everything is fascinating. He’ll find out that sticking a bowl upside down in the water and turning it face up will make a lot of bubbles and he’s tremendously excited. I’m excited to see him being excited (which is novel’ish), but the fact that bubbles appear is incredibly mundane now.

At 44 I have the opposite problem. The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. When I was younger I had the ego of a young person and thought I was always on the cusp of knowing it all. As I got older I realized I was simply unaware. It's a bit cliché, but I started approaching everything, even things I 'knew' with a beginners mindset.

One of activities that really helped trigger this shift was finding something brand new to me at ~40 that I also became passionate about. In my case it was jiu-jitsu, but it can be anything where you're drinking from the firehose again. That mindset spread through everything else in my life.

There is so much out there to know and experience and it makes me sad to realise that there is no way that I'm going to be able to do everything.

I've a history of every couple of years diving deep into an interest. Woodwork was a thing for a few years, then wood turning. Gardening has come and gone a few times.

We spend a lot of time travelling and seeing new areas, slowly in a caravan, we never get to see it all.

Recently I've started running a Dungeons and Dragons game for a couple of my kids and their friends, there can be a lot more depth to that than you may think.

I've got to agree with you that you start to see a lot more things that you are familiar with. This is not really surprising if you are staying in the same environment.

Cycles of initiatives at work seem to come back every 5 or 6 years and they always ignore the same problems... sigh. There is truth in the idea that history repeats and the more things change the more they stay the same.

My suggestion for dealing with the feeling that nothing is new is much the same as everybody. If your world is getting boring and feels like everything is just on repeat, just change your world. Even if that means you are stepping into the unknown or you are taking risks, you are still going to change your experience.

This rings truer to me than anything else posted here. I feel exactly the same way right now, (in my late thirties) as if I suddenly realize I spent my life going deep rather than broad and that there’s a whole world of opportunities out there to be a beginner again, with the same enthusiasm as a much younger person (but now with resources!). The struggle of trying new things has completely changed my outlook.

My advice: try things you thought looked interesting but never thought you’d be good at.

So while something can be new, as one ages even "new" things have elements that are immediately obviously the same as one's past experiences. The older one is, the more of these elements there are. There's a diminishing return, so to speak, in experiencing new things.

If you can build a life around mastering Jiu-Jitsu or learning machining techniques, more power to you.

I'm 47 and in the same place. I have only recently come to grips with the fact that I am a good programmer and I do know what I'm talking about, but there's also so much that I still don't know. I keep learning, but you've got to pick your focus, because you can't possibly learn everything.

Now that I have time, I find an incredible wealth of knowledge and insight about early human history has been developed. I feel like a dim area of my understanding is being illuminated, like exploring a dark attic with a bright flashlight, it is very satisfying, and particularly when pieces fall into place and I have an "aha! so that is what that was all about" moment, it is exciting as well.

Not OP but I don’t feel this way at all.

My oldest son is starting college next year. That alone has been a learning experience! I coach his robotics team, that has been tremendously new experiences.

I’ve gotten three cloud certifications in the past year. I have a huge list of things I want to learn about - assembly language on Linux, FPGAs and about 20 other things.

I could spend 10,000 lifetimes and not scratch the surface of what this world has to offer.

Despite the pleas in responses to continue to explore and experience new things, it seems to me that the experience of being surprised at new things becomes rarer as one ages, with exploration yielding diminishing returns with respect solely to that experience.

Maybe you can fall so deeply into it that you can’t even tell you’re in a rut any more and just think that that’s how the world is, which is a puzzling perspective to those outside of the rut because the complexity and novelty of the world really is literally everywhere.

Not that endless novelty seeking is the be all end all, but it’s there if you want it.

I can use the same example though! Seeing each of my children born left an immense imprint on me. Seeing them experience basic physics for the first time was as novel of an experience for me as experiencing it myself many years earlier.

There are infinite novel experiences awaiting you if you want to seek them.

I think many people take the availability of information we have at our fingertips today for granted. It wasn't always this way. Dig into it, learn something, rinse and repeat.

A single square inch of lawn could provide material for multiple PhDs.

I don't feel that at all.

I've always felt there was a lot to know. I don't think I ever felt the "ego on the cusp of knowing everything" when I was younger, because I knew I hadn't studied most fields and that there was much more I didn't know about. But I did feel like I was getting that way within a few narrow technical fields.

But as I get older the awareness that there's so much still to see, learn and do in just about every area, including those where I'd become something of an expert, just grows and grows, and it is depressing.

As time passes I feel more and more the limited bandwidth of my capabilities, and that nothing I can do begins to scratch the surface of what there is. Some people seem to find a joy in learning. I enjoy it, indeed I can't help it, but I feel so small and my future life feels so short, it gets me down.

Most things I take an interest in, it feels like it will take 300 years to get to grips with them. If anything, I feel an almighty rush to see what tiny part of what there is I can see, be around, and even better, understand and work with, while it's still possible.

So much to see, so little time.

Only if you stop exploring. When you think there's nothing new left to learn, nothing novel to experience, well, you stop looking. Start looking again.

> I notice this especially much with my 3 year old son, for whom everything is fascinating.

Spending time with kids is the best way there is to rediscover your sense of wonder.

China is putting people into forced labour (or concentration) camps en-mass. Its arrested or exiled thousands of HK democracy protestors. Its going backwards on democracy and rule of law. Not to mention causing the largest pandemic of the 21st century (so far). Its support for North Korea is another whole mess. Oh, and it almost started a war with the neighbouring nuclear power.

If people are satisfied with that, they're pretty socially bankrupt imho.

What's more likely is that with absolute control of the media, the vast majority have no idea what's really going on. They're just reassured about how awful every other country is.

In fairness, the camps and the plague weren't a thing till after the 2016 end of the survey. Xi Jinping only really ramped up his authoritarian storm in the last few years.

I wonder how the average citizen there would react after an hour of straight forwards factual updates on the domestic situation.

All this aside, I am glad they have eliminated extreme poverty. That is progress, socially as well as economically.

The notion that Chinese people aren't perceptive and that they would adopt Western ideals if only we could reach out to them is pretty much orientalism 101 mixed with the End of History. There is a wealth of diversity in terms of opinions at all echelons of Chinese society, including inside the Party structure. This diversity will tend to touch on ideas orthogonal to the Western equivalent. Similar or identical in parts, but very different in others.

Picture someone whose only understanding of America would be specific events like Guantanamo Bay or a smattering of memes relating to Trump. You'd want to tell this person about the complex interplay of history and culture that shaped America into what it is today, and that they are missing out on 99% of it since they are so zoomed out. What I have described here is in fact the equivalent of what the typical person commenting on China thinks and knows about the country. I myself absolutely do not claim to be an expert, just that I got a taste of how much I don't know about the topic.

All of this matters greatly since it has an effect on how the West will conduct its strategy going forward.

“ At the township level, the lowest level of government surveyed, only 11.3 percent of respondents reported that they were “very satisfied.” “

Also, they note they don’t poll migrant workers, those citizens with the worst lives.

She said that people in China simply do not think of it in those terms. Being "happy with the government" struck her as a particularly Western way of framing the question. I pressed her further and asked if she thought that they governed in a way that improved people's lives or made them worse. She said that she thought they improved people's lives, and that a country like China needs a strong government to hold it together, and that the CCP is succeeding in that respect.

I don't know if this is a representative view, but take it for what it is: an account of what a single Chinese lady told a random person on HN.

Of course, the level at which it’s appropriate to omit to mention an ongoing atrocity is difficult to determine. Clearly it’s somewhere above a sentence, and clearly it’s beneath the question of broad strategy. But I would suggest that understanding China’s broad strategy for poverty alleviation (in the Han heartland) is a discrete topic that can quite reasonably be discussed without inviting this sort of response. In fact, if you don’t understand topics like this, it’s likely that your response to China is going to be handicapped.

Uyghur forced labour is certainly widespread and bad. I am not sure that it’s fundamental to the Chinese economy though. If we say that there are 20 million Uyghurs (which is a very large overestimate), out of 1.3 billion that’s not very much. Moreover the current strategy of forced labour mostly began in the 2010s, so all of China’s previous economic strategies managed to proceed without the use of forced labour. And sterilisation means that they’re unlikely to be relied upon economically in the long term—elimination and economic exploitation are very difficult to reconcile, as indeed the Nazis found.

If you’re discussing some market in a small village far from Xinjiang—of course forced Uyghur labour in some way impinges on it, but, well, it would be odd to discuss the camps as the most important determinant of what’s going on in those camps at all times. You can’t develop an understanding of the whole without understanding the component parts, and that involves occasionally e.g. reading articles that don’t mention the Uyghurs.

The obvious analogy is the Holocaust. Nobody complains about books about the Nazis that contain e.g. chapters mostly concerning matters other than the Holocaust. That’s for good reason: you have to pay attention to the other components too, even though the aim of extermination is an important overall reason to understand the Nazis.

In the frame of my original comment, i.e., ‘at what level should one focus on specific individual parts even at the expense of overall important atrocities?’, I agree that discussing the economy writ large whilst ignoring the Uyghurs would neither lead to a good factual understanding of the economy nor be appropriate morally. But the question of poverty alleviation in the Han heartlands to me is a discrete one that (a) is important to broadly understanding the economy and (b) is a sufficiently narrow topic to be discussed without necessarily focusing on the Uyghurs.

> Moreover the current strategy of forced labour mostly began in the 2010s, so all of China’s previous economic strategies managed to proceed without the use of forced labour.

is rubbish interpreted in the natural sense. Of course I meant without the use of forced Uyghur labour as we see at the moment. It is arguable that growth 1970s-now mostly was not underpinned by forced labour, but the strategies of the 50s-60s certainly involved a lot of what we should call forced labour.

Also count your blessings, there are a lot of people your age who would love to have your problem.

best wish and good luck