Back to episode — Episode 2048 Scott Adams - Banks, Cartels, CIA Manipulation, Narrative Poisoning, The Success Reframe
Context —
ow for the unparalleled pleasure of the simultaneous sip. The thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip, but it happens now. Go. Sip it. Sip it. Well, let's talk about all the stories. Would you like to talk about banking? Sorry, I just nodded off there. You know, I was a banker for a number of years. I started my career as a banker. Thought I'd be a big old banker guy.…
← Previous segment →one place you really want some regulation, in my opinion. Yeah, if you're going to get rid of all regulation and get rid of banking, last you want to keep that one around. Not too much regulation, but you want something.
So what would we do? Maybe some kind of a government brake. So the brakes just gone. Now, there's an analogy to this whole banking problem that I've been thinking about. Have you ever thought about how unfair it is that if somebody knows to form, let's say, an LLC, limited liability corporation, or a corporation, which takes a lawyer — you have to need a lawyer to do that — if somebody does that little bit of paperwork, they protect themselves individually from all kinds of legal risks and bankruptcy and stuff. But if you don't do that paperwork, you don't have those protections. Does that sound like a good system to you? If you happen to know to do it, you're protected just from some paperwork. And if you didn't know to do it, you wouldn't be protected. That's a terrible system.
Here's a better system. If you're a business, you have all the protections of a corporation. How about that? What's wrong with that? If you're in business, you get all the protections of a corporation. You don't have to do the paperwork. I don't see any problem with that, right?
And how about this for banks? Oh, taking that concept. How about if you're a depositor, the government protects you? How about that? Well, I don't think having limits — I've seen some really bad takes, and it goes like this. If you don't have a $250,000 limit that's really a strict limit and you really stick to it and you never change it, it will incentivize bad behavior.
So let's take this example with Silicon Valley Bank. All right, let's say the Silicon Valley bankers who made the mistakes, let's say that they were aware there was a good chance that even the $250,000 would be guaranteed beyond that if something went wrong. So under those conditions, if those leaders and especially the risk management person said to themselves, well, I thought I was evaluating the risk properly, but you know, all those depositors would be protected, huh? So I guess I don't have that much risk. The only risk would be, let's see, I would lose all of my money. I would lose my reputation forever. It would be dangerous to go outside if I ran into a deposito
Context —
r. And everything that I care about, my life would be destroyed. I'm gonna do it because the depositors are protected. Maybe that's the actual thinking. I actually saw like an actual adult say that the executives would be disincentivized by what happens with the depositors, as if they would not be disincentivized by losing all of their own money. You don't think that's enough? You don't think tha…
Next segment → →