Sorry, but I don't think that you deserve a bailout [Updated] [Updated again]

Update: Everyone hates this take

Update Two: A question that I have at this juncture is if we need to backstop deposits in cases like this, what is the point of having a $250,000 cap on FDIC account insurance?

Update: After publishing what I felt was a somewhat irked but reasonable take, a bunch of people effectively said I was dumb on Twitter. They have a point.

The argument is that if we don’t backstop SVB deposits, there’s good chance that a lot of folks are going to get laid off, and quickly. While I would rather place the onus for keeping startups alive on their backers and owners (VCs, LPs, respectively), there is some credit to the argument that my ‘soak the rich’ take would throw out the startup baby with the venture bathwater.

Fine. Let’s backstop SVB deposits this once, but we should really close that fucking carried interest loophole regardless.

— Original Post Follows —

There are calls to bail out SVB depositors using public monies. I think not.

If we have to tolerate private-market investors getting tax advantages for just doing their jobs, we do not need to come to their salvation when they get into trouble. If SVB fucked up, it should own it. If its customers are in trouble, that sucks but it is not our fault. The companies involved should sort out the mess.

When poor people fuck up, they get a nickel and a lecture on moral hazard and personal responsibility. When rich people fuck up, we tend to try to help them. Why?

Look, I am willing to make a trade. VCs and PE types give up their tax loopholes that help them pay less tax on income than regular working folk, and we’ll bail them out this once. How about that?

Deal? Or do you want your cake and eat it too?