site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34432 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 2023

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.

15
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So I’m starting to just assume there’s zero reason for regional banks to exists.

This whole affair has actually convinced me of the exact opposite - there's no reason for gigantic banks which can cause the entire economy and unrelated businesses to go under/suffer when placed under stress. There shouldn't be any banks which are systemically important and require bailouts in order to prevent the collapse of the entire economy. Beyond the incredible fragility induced by having corrupt financial institutions with broken incentives (note the people actually profiting off these issues and selling stock in SVB before the news broke), the sheer concentration of wealth and power that occurs in those banks gives them far more influence over the levers of national power than is healthy for society.

So then why have GSIBs losts. They have higher capital ratios. They’ve lost every regulatory fight for a decade. The shit SVB did would never be allowed at the mega banks.

Being that SVB was deemed systematic and got a full bailout it’s obvious banks like them were benefiting from easier regulations while still being systematic.

I guess the solution is the regionals are treated like the GSIBs. So they need to raise their tier one capital about 50-80% right now to fit the same standards as the GSIBs. And we just drop the asset cap down to 10 billion for regulatory reasons since these guys are claiming their depositors need protected.

GSIB

Could you please explain this acronym?

Global systematically-important bank.

“Too big to fail” (without bringing down everything else too)

I'm sorry but could you please reword your comment? I have no idea how to parse the sentence "So then why have GSIBs losts." and the grammar errors elsewhere leave me unwilling to talk in depth on a technical subject.

@sliders1234 appears to be arguing: if GSIBs are so powerful, we should expect them to have less regulation. Mid-sized banks like SVB are dodging regulations which (hopefully!) apply to full-size ones, but are still getting the benefits of bailouts. If we are giving them the benefits they should also be paying the costs.

I don’t know what the bit about “asset cap” means.

$250 billion in assets was trigger for tighter regs.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats