Indeed, most of SVBs customers were those who had almost zero business finance experience. There were lots of startups but there were also lots of normal businesses and non-profits in the Bay Area that used SVB.
Perhaps the slow depositors should be punished for not being sufficiently sophisticated, or as quick as the Thiel-backed startups that got the bat-signal to do a bank run. But the "moral" value of letting all those organizations lose their deposits is very low. The moral value of letting SVB fail, which it did, seems high to me!
> Indeed, most of SVBs customers were those who had almost zero business finance experience. There were lots of startups but there were also lots of normal businesses and non-profits in the Bay Area that used SVB.
The thing is that you don't need to be a financially sophisticated. Why are they making companies without talking to a CPA? They can get an account with PayChex and they will literally handle everything related with payroll. If your average mom and pop restaurant didn't do this we would fault them for being irresponsible.
I'm actually willing to be more charitable than that. For many homeowners, less restricted zoning and construction would actually increase the value of the land by more than it would decrease the value of the dwelling (imagine converting a few single family homes into a multi-story apartment building, that's a _much_ more valuable use of the land). So, at least in some cases, it isn't entirely about their own personal enrichment. Lots of people do have honest desires to not see the "character" of the neighborhood change.
Now, I personally think that A) a static neighborhood is a slowly dying neighborhood and B) when almost every neighborhood acts this way the cumulative negative effects on society quickly become profound, but I can at least understand why, and can see the impulse as not an entirely selfish one. It's just naive and short sighted.
> For many homeowners, less restricted zoning and construction would actually increase the value of the land by more than it would decrease the value of the dwelling (imagine converting a few single family homes into a multi-story apartment building, that's a _much_ more valuable use of the land).
But a huge chunk of them don't think that way and they want to maintain the "character of the neighborhood." I've seen this first hand multiple times. My own grandparents once tried to argue with me against any sort of expansion because it would mean some people would be effected and have to change their lifestyle or pay for changes as a result of, for example, expanding city sewer services.
I believe that the fight is more by developers than residents. It's a zoning outcome, after all, and most people, I suspect, don't keep on top of that being too busy with the lives
Maybe you are right. I live in the bay area and people here who lucked out buying a house in a normal time at a normal value have nothing to do but show up at all sorts of public hearings, meetings, etc. and shout down any kind of new development
As long as population continues to increase, if you want the same living conditions as your parents on similar economic terms supply will need to increase.
This just isn't true. Rents decreased in Texas after an increase in supply. Increasing supply will decrease prices. Freeways typically don't cost money so that doesn't apply.
Houses largely don't get built without being presold. Presales are not going to happen without a significant interest rate drop. Interest rates aren't going to drop. This isn't the multifamily market under discussion. Rent prices have significantly more wiggle room under market forces than does new single family construction, the latter which needs to be profitable upon sale instead of over 30 years.
If Apple would add native Vulkan support to macOS, it would most likely also go through a Metal "emulation layer" (just like their GL implementation, or the D3D12 implementation in the Game Porting Toolkit).
