Sample: "For what it’s worth, no, S.V.B. didn’t stand out from other banks in its concern for diversity, the environment and so on. And banks have been going bust for centuries, since long before H.R. departments began including boilerplate language about social responsibility in their mission statements. So the talk about wokeness tells us nothing about bank failures — but a lot about the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the modern American right."
Keep your eye on the ball in that piece: “While the main reason SVB failed was its decision to buy bonds at the top of the market (it got hit when it had to sell) …”
That's a deceptive claim in that article. Silicon Valley Bank didn't fail because of its "ESG" or "woke" depositors, or even because of its lending clients. Read the NY Times piece, especially the link in the excerpt I reprinted.
But either way the point I was making is pretty much lost now.
Sigh, the thanks I get for calling attention back to it and learning a couple of things.
you called attention back to it, and in the process probably made mtierney think that her assumption that SVB was acting as a VC firm was correct, even though it wasn't.
you called attention back to it, and in the process probably made mtierney think that her assumption that SVB was acting as a VC firm was correct, even though it wasn't.
Something I posted probably made mtierney think? The mind reels, while laughter gales, at the possibility that this thread and our presence in it could be taken that seriously.
Apologies to joanne. I don’t want to steer the discussion away from your welcome point.
you called attention back to it, and in the process probably made mtierney think that her assumption that SVB was acting as a VC firm was correct, even though it wasn't.
Something I posted probably made mtierney think? The mind reels, while laughter gales, at the possibility that this thread and our presence in it could be taken that seriously.
Apologies to joanne. I don’t want to steer the discussion away from your welcome point.
I considered that.
maybe a different thinking person could have found themselves convinced of mtierney's point.
either way, I don't think your contributions did much to clarify the discussion. Mostly the opposite.
maybe a different thinking person could have found themselves convinced of mtierney's point.
either way, I don't think your contributions did much to clarify the discussion. Mostly the opposite.
To each his own. They helped clarify for me what SVB’s role was after I read your statement (and took your point), as does this new article, which I share in the same spirit.
“David Enrich of the New York Times points out, one of the reasons a good portion of congressional Democrats thought this was not a harmful change to Dodd-Frank was the endorsement of former Massachusetts Democratic congressman Barney Frank:
Frank was a primary architect of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, better known as Dodd-Frank. But since his retirement in 2013, he had repeatedly voiced support for softening one of the law’s key planks: that any bank with more than $50 billion in assets should face especially intensive federal supervision.
The ensuing tweak — lifting the threshold to $250 billion — had big consequences. Among other things, scores of very large banks would escape, at least initially, the Federal Reserve’s annual “stress tests” and enjoy easier financial-safety requirements.
One beneficiary of the change was Signature Bank, a New York lender whose board of directors included Mr. Frank.
Enrich interviewed Frank Monday:
In the interview on Monday, Mr. Frank said the legislation’s goal had been to focus on the country’s very largest banks and not to saddle smaller institutions with stringent rules or oversight. . . .
Mr. Frank, who received more than $2.4 million in cash and stock from Signature during his seven-plus years on the board, left the job on Sunday as regulators dissolved the board. He said on Monday that the bank was the victim of overzealous regulators. “We were the ones who they shot to encourage others to stay away from crypto,” he said.
“No individual depositor caused this mess, but the collective, herd-like decision-making of Silicon Valley venture capitalists did.
“Silicon Valley Bank was the bank of choice for 1,074 private-equity and venture-capital funds in recent years. Fortuneexplains that, “As venture capitalists are legally required to ‘custody’ their fund assets at a financial institution, they use ‘custodians,’ which are banks like SVB that will monitor and safekeep the capital and ensure it is not stolen or lost.” In other words, when venture capitalists invest in a start-up company, they require that company to use their bank, in this case, Silicon Valley Bank. In retrospect, it was wildly risky to have almost an entire sector of the U.S. economy doing so much of its banking through one mid-sized bank.
“Then, late last week, spooked venture capitalists instructed their portfolio companies to move money out of SVB. This is more or less firing the starter’s pistol for a run on the bank; as more companies withdrew their funds, everyone else panicked and tried to take out their money, too.
“(By the way, what are venture capitalists supposed to be good at? Looking hard at business plans and fiscal information, evaluating financial risks, and seeing opportunities where everyone else doesn’t see them.)
First, the biggest venture-capital depositors already took their money out of SVB during the run that caused the bank’s collapse. Second, the DIF fees the government levies on banks impose a cost that, ultimately, gets passed on to those banks’ customers. And finally, SVB’s depositors are mainly the portfolio companies of [venture capital] firms, meaning the main purpose of the bailout is to keep the VC firms whole.
“Also note that everyone who was in danger of losing their money from personal accounts in Silicon Valley Bank was, by any common measure, wealthy. Many of the companies that kept all their cash in the bank were big, or at least sizable. In addition to Circle mentioned above, streaming service Roku had $487 million in Silicon Valley Bank; defunct crypto lender BlockFi had $227 million; and Roblox, the California-based online-gaming platform, had $150 million. BuzzFeed “said it had about $56 million in cash and cash equivalents at the end of 2022, majority of which was held at SVB.”
More information, as we, here, understand very well, doesn’t always translate to comprehension, but always includes jabs and kill the messengers zingers.
In earlier conversations, you had been asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory and felt natural spillover to be far more probable. All things being equal, natural spillover is the most likely origin given the nature and history of pandemics, and with this new evidence, that's even more true. While it doesn't conclusively prove natural spillover/rule out lab leak, it does add considerable weight to that theory.
As a side note, people favoring the lab leak theory have pointed to China's actions in suppressing and hiding evidence and data, but as Katherine Wu points out in her article, China's position has always been that the pandemic didn't even begin in China at all -- IOW, even the natural spillover from the Wuhan market theory is one China has been working to discredit from the beginning.
In earlier conversations, you had been asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory and felt natural spillover to be far more probable. All things being equal, natural spillover is the most likely origin given the nature and history of pandemics, and with this new evidence, that's even more true. While it doesn't conclusively prove natural spillover/rule out lab leak, it does add considerable weight to that theory.
As a side note, people favoring the lab leak theory have pointed to China's actions in suppressing and hiding evidence and data, but as Katherine Wu points out in her article, China's position has always been that the pandemic didn't even begin in China at all -- IOW, even the natural spillover from the Wuhan market theory is one China has been working to discredit from the beginning.
when I read that today I was thinking of posting it but I figured someone would do it sooner or later… I was gonna dedicate it to MT, I actually forgot about smedley.
In earlier conversations, you had been asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory and felt natural spillover to be far more probable. All things being equal, natural spillover is the most likely origin given the nature and history of pandemics, and with this new evidence, that's even more true. While it doesn't conclusively prove natural spillover/rule out lab leak, it does add considerable weight to that theory.
As a side note, people favoring the lab leak theory have pointed to China's actions in suppressing and hiding evidence and data, but as Katherine Wu points out in her article, China's position has always been that the pandemic didn't even begin in China at all -- IOW, even the natural spillover from the Wuhan market theory is one China has been working to discredit from the beginning.
I wasn’t “asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory.” I was pointing out that what had been dismissed as misinformation and a conspiracy theory for political reasons, was a plausible theory all along.
As far as this new information, it’s interesting enough. I guess you get a run in your half of the inning, after there was a run scored in the lab leak half of the inning. But I personally lean toward this guy’s view:
“But David A. Relman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University who has said both origin scenarios are plausible, called the new data “very inconclusive” in an email. “Frankly, the breathlessness and alacrity with which stories like this one are promoted, in the face of very incomplete and confusing ‘data’, leaves me frustrated and concerned,” he said.”
I wasn’t “asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory.” I was pointing out that what had been dismissed as misinformation and a conspiracy theory for political reasons, was a plausible theory all along.
As far as this new information, it’s interesting enough. I guess you get a run in your half of the inning, after there was a run scored in the lab leak half of the inning. But I personally lean toward this guy’s view:
“But David A. Relman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University who has said both origin scenarios are plausible, called the new data “very inconclusive” in an email. “Frankly, the breathlessness and alacrity with which stories like this one are promoted, in the face of very incomplete and confusing ‘data’, leaves me frustrated and concerned,” he said.”
Well, taking this is as some kind of competitive point-scoring exercise is one way to go I guess.
In earlier conversations, you had been asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory and felt natural spillover to be far more probable. All things being equal, natural spillover is the most likely origin given the nature and history of pandemics, and with this new evidence, that's even more true. While it doesn't conclusively prove natural spillover/rule out lab leak, it does add considerable weight to that theory.
As a side note, people favoring the lab leak theory have pointed to China's actions in suppressing and hiding evidence and data, but as Katherine Wu points out in her article, China's position has always been that the pandemic didn't even begin in China at all -- IOW, even the natural spillover from the Wuhan market theory is one China has been working to discredit from the beginning.
I wasn’t “asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory.” I was pointing out that what had been dismissed as misinformation and a conspiracy theory for political reasons, was a plausible theory all along.
As far as this new information, it’s interesting enough. I guess you get a run in your half of the inning, after there was a run scored in the lab leak half of the inning. But I personally lean toward this guy’s view:
“But David A. Relman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University who has said both origin scenarios are plausible, called the new data “very inconclusive” in an email. “Frankly, the breathlessness and alacrity with which stories like this one are promoted, in the face of very incomplete and confusing ‘data’, leaves me frustrated and concerned,” he said.”
it's misinformation when people throw out a "theory" with absolutely no evidence.
Even if it ultimately turns out to be true, it doesn't retroactively grant credibility to people who were pulling stuff out of their **** in order to deflect blame to another country for the poor response in the U.S. to the pandemic.
One explanation I saw elsewhere for the high price tag for the Australian subs is that they have to be specially refitted in order to sail upside down.
“When Kleiner Perkins, one of Silicon Valley’s highest-profile venture capital firms, wanted to build a bridge between two of its office buildings around 2005, it decided to take out a loan. It turned to Silicon Valley Bank, just 43 feet away on Sand Hill Road in the heart of the venture industry in Menlo Park, Calif.
“To make the loan work for Kleiner’s project, which cost more than $500,000, SVB agreed to lend the money against the value of the fees that the venture firm was set to earn from its funds, four people with knowledge of the situation said.
“SVB also provided personal banking services to many of Kleiner’s top partners, the people said. That was in addition to the banking services and venture debt that SVB provided to many of Kleiner’s start-ups, as well as mortgages for those companies’ founders. SVB even invested in Kleiner’s funds, two people said.
“And when SVB held an annual event in January on the state of the wine industry, it featured speakers from Wine.com, one of the world’s largest online wine retailers and a company that Kleiner had once invested in.
and….
“Before SVB failed last week and set off a global financial panic, it was known mostly as a regional, low-profile bank. But within tech’s ecosystem, the bank had molded itself to the quirks and idiosyncrasies of the industry, becoming deeply interwoven to an unusual degree into the lives and businesses of investors, entrepreneurs and executives.”
One explanation I saw elsewhere for the high price tag for the Australian subs is that they have to be specially refitted in order to sail upside down.
In earlier conversations, you had been asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory and felt natural spillover to be far more probable. All things being equal, natural spillover is the most likely origin given the nature and history of pandemics, and with this new evidence, that's even more true. While it doesn't conclusively prove natural spillover/rule out lab leak, it does add considerable weight to that theory.
As a side note, people favoring the lab leak theory have pointed to China's actions in suppressing and hiding evidence and data, but as Katherine Wu points out in her article, China's position has always been that the pandemic didn't even begin in China at all -- IOW, even the natural spillover from the Wuhan market theory is one China has been working to discredit from the beginning.
I wasn’t “asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory.” I was pointing out that what had been dismissed as misinformation and a conspiracy theory for political reasons, was a plausible theory all along.
As far as this new information, it’s interesting enough. I guess you get a run in your half of the inning, after there was a run scored in the lab leak half of the inning. But I personally lean toward this guy’s view:
“But David A. Relman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University who has said both origin scenarios are plausible, called the new data “very inconclusive” in an email. “Frankly, the breathlessness and alacrity with which stories like this one are promoted, in the face of very incomplete and confusing ‘data’, leaves me frustrated and concerned,” he said.”
it's misinformation when people throw out a "theory" with absolutely no evidence.
Even if it ultimately turns out to be true, it doesn't retroactively grant credibility to people who were pulling stuff out of their **** in order to deflect blame to another country for the poor response in the U.S. to the pandemic.
If you have such a high evidentiary bar, it’s mighty peculiar to me that you seem to fully accept the natural transmission theory / MSM narrative given the weak evidence for that.
There is and always has been circumstantial evidence for the lab leak theory.
Now, one can argue that the circumstantial evidence for the natural transmission theory > the circumstantial evidence for the lab leak theory. And that may well be true. But to me, embracing one theory and dismissing the other as “misinformation” is just evidence of close-mindedness and Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I wasn’t “asking why people were skeptical of the lab leak theory.” I was pointing out that what had been dismissed as misinformation and a conspiracy theory for political reasons, was a plausible theory all along.
As far as this new information, it’s interesting enough. I guess you get a run in your half of the inning, after there was a run scored in the lab leak half of the inning. But I personally lean toward this guy’s view:
“But David A. Relman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University who has said both origin scenarios are plausible, called the new data “very inconclusive” in an email. “Frankly, the breathlessness and alacrity with which stories like this one are promoted, in the face of very incomplete and confusing ‘data’, leaves me frustrated and concerned,” he said.”
Well, taking this is as some kind of competitive point-scoring exercise is one way to go I guess.
Well as another poster recently said, y’all are trying to build a case for the natural transmission theory. So I thought I’d give you credit here.
Of course it’s circumstantial evidence for the natural transmission theory, one of the people working in the lab could have been to the Wuhan market to pick up some steaks for dinner…..
https://www.theshovel.com.au/2023/03/16/albo-extras-package-submarines/ Albo was dazzled by the salesroom chatter… (lovely graphics)