52 thoughts on “Is being anti-woke a winner?”

    2. “Well, since Jen Psaki says it, it must be so. She would never lie to us.”

      There is no possibility of a lie here. She is expressing the opinion that MAGA is overplaying the woke nonsense. She supports her opinion with various MAGATS using the woke charge in absurd ways. You do not have to call her a liar – a juvenile ad hominem response – just because you do not agree with her. Or do you?

      But since you are calling her a liar, what does that make Spicer, McEany, Sanders, and Kellyanne “Alternative Facts” Conway. Each of them told outrageous, easily disproven porkies on a weekly basis. I would bet that in spite of you slime, you cannot cite even one actual lie that Psaki told the press.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  2. Of course being anti-woke is a winner. Even moral philosopher Susan Neiman — a self-identified leftist — says so.

    Transcripted version:
    https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=OMU3qkKALj8

    Notably, Dr. Neiman accuses “the woke” of deriving their core beliefs from Nazi philosophy. For this reason “wokeness” is basically flawed and erroneous.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Your opinion based on her opinion is noted.

      I have not studied her works, but this description from Wikipedia’s bio struck me as interesting:

      “ Learning from the Germans examines German efforts to atone for Nazi atrocities and identifies lessons for how the U.S. might come to terms with its legacy of slavery and racism.”

      This is the racial part of “woke” in a nutshell, IMO.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. RE: “This is the racial part of ‘woke’ in a nutshell, IMO.”

        It may be, but the point Neiman makes in the video concerns an entirely different topic. She believes that the German philosophers who came to prominence prior to WWI/WWII misunderstood or abandoned key intellectual accomplishments of the Enlightenment which preceded them. It is this body of post-Enlightenment work which infuses today’s woke thinking, making wokeness illegitimate.

        Thinkers on the right make essentially the same point when they describe scientific materialism as a philosophical dead end.

        Like

        Reply

  3. Blaming theses bank failures on woke is ignorant. We should start with the deregulation by Trump in 2018 that allowed mid sized banks to play the casino with deposits.

    Allan Greenspan said during the 2008 recession that he was shocked that the financial sectors couldn’t regulate itself.

    Executives with access to money belonging to others will often do whatever they feel will make them personally rich, barring the rules to prevent just that. We do this stuff every so often and the deregulatory fervor expresses surprise or, now, blames “woke”.

    In reality, they should wake up. Period.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. I don’t think the change in regulation would have made any difference.

      What crashed SVB was careless laddering of its bond portfolio. SVB bought A LOT of government bonds at very low interest rates. Those are supposedly safe as the principle and interest are guaranteed. Regulators love that.

      But when interest rates rise rapidly, such as when trying to stop the inflation caused by runaway deficit spending, those bonds lose value in the short term, as who would pay face value for a bond at 0.1% interest in 10 years if bonds paying 2% interest are available. To sell them you have to discount them.

      Banks are supposed to protect themselves by not being concentrated in those vulnerable bonds and owning bonds with various interest rates and maturity dates.

      So, from the regulatory standpoint, SVB was fine, but competent bankers would have been concerned. But SVB’s risk officer who was supposed to watch that took 6 months off to plan a Pride event.

      Does that mean “woke” caused it? only indirectly. The real cause was Biden’s overspending and immature bank officers not seeing the risk that brings.

      Like

      Reply

      1. You just can’t let go of the pride event can you?

        I’m gonna stick with gross mismanagement exacerbated by deregulation and the false belief that the financial sector can regulate itself.

        You blame cross dressers.

        GOP talking points seem hard wired.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. I gave you the exact cause, poor laddering of the bonds it held.

          Those decisions were entirely within the regulations that existed prior to Trump. Regulation made no difference.

          It is a fact that the SVB officer responsible for managing that took off for 6 months to plan the Pride event. I pointed out that was only indirectly involved.

          You are the one locked into a partisan view, totally iunconnected with the facts.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “It is a fact that the SVB officer responsible for managing that took off for 6 months to plan the Pride event.”

            That is NOT a fact. You think repeating falsehoods makes them true?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “I gave you the exact cause,”…

            So you are now an investigator with access to ALL of the information and have deemed it to be the only reason?

            Dn, the Great and Wise has spoken

            Like

      2. RE: “I’m gonna stick with gross mismanagement exacerbated by deregulation and the false belief that the financial sector can regulate itself.”

        In that case, Bill Clinton, not Donald Trump, is your man. The repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act is the operative deregulation that applies to SVB. It happened on Clinton’s watch.

        I didn’t know that SVB’s risk manager was on a leave of absence to pursue gay pride interests. That is certainly ironic — almost to the point of entertainment. But of course the lesson to be learned is that risk management is a core function of modern banking, especially in an environment where the Fed has become unpredictable and dangerous.

        Like

        Reply

      3. Your attempt to spin this to Biden causing world-wide inflation is childish nonsense. The bankers are paid big bucks to avoid exactly what happened to them. THEY failed. Not Biden. And their failure was due – at least in part – by the Trump de-regulation of 2018 which gave them more room to make these mistakes.

        Since you believe the market has the answer to every problem, it is not surprising that you cannot accept the simple truth that it doesn’t even when – once again – the government has had to step in to avert disaster in the banking sector.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

          1. “While the law did reduce oversight of small and midsize banks, experts are divided over whether deregulation in 2018 ultimately caused Signature and Silicon Valley Bank to collapse.”

            I did not claim that deregulation caused the SVB failure. What I would claim is that the oversight that was removed might have prevented it.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “I did not claim that deregulation caused the SVB failure.”

            Doesn’t matter. Both you and Mr. Rothman point fingers of blame at Trump, despite demonstrable weakness of the assertion.

            Like

          3. “Doesn’t matter.”

            Knock yourself our rebutting things I did not say.

            Whatever the role of Trump’s role back of Dodd-Frank, it could not be more clear that there is too little regulation of banks. There is too much at stake to let gamblers bet the economy to get a bigger bonus.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “There is too much at stake to let gamblers bet the economy to get a bigger bonus.”

            Did you really say that? I just want to be clear that you really said that, because your words convey a false notion of the failures at SVB.

            Like

          5. “I just want to be clear that you really said that, because your words convey a false notion of the failures at SVB.”

            Unlike some, I stand by what I write. I don’t make things up. I don’t spread lies. I do not offer nonsense.

            There is nothing false in the notion of the failures at SVB. The collapse did not come out of the blue. The structure of their assets was illiquid and they did nothing about it until it was too late. They delayed action because it would hurt their bottom line to do so.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. RE: “They delayed action because it would hurt their bottom line to do so.”

            You don’t know that. You are just guessing or pretending to be a mind reader.

            Like

          7. “You are just guessing or pretending to be a mind reader.”

            Don did the same kind of thing. Is he guessing or mind reading? Or is it because you agree with his assertions that he doesn’t get the same treatment? Or is it because the hypocrisy that runs rampant here from the right is contagious and ya gotta have each other’s backs?

            Liked by 1 person

          8. “You don’t know that. You are just guessing or pretending to be a mind reader.”

            I am not guessing and I do not need to be a mind reader. Their liquidity problems could have been solved at ANY point in time by selling long term bonds for cash but it would have been at a price below what they paid – because interest rates had increased. That would mean they would have to book realized losses. That they did not take that action is a matter of record – not guessing. Instead of taking losses they tried to raise capital from investors and it was that attempt that triggered the run on the bank.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. RE: “Instead of taking losses they tried to raise capital from investors and it was that attempt that triggered the run on the bank.”

            Like I said, you are guessing. It is also a matter of record that there was no risk manager on the payroll. My guess that a risk manager might have averted the problem is at least as good as yours about the internal workings of SVB’s brains in other positions.

            Like

          10. “My guess that a risk manager might have averted the problem is at least as good as yours about the internal workings of SVB’s brains in other positions”

            No, it is not. Your theory that this huge bank operated for nearly a year without knowing its capital position and liquidity risks solely because one position was not filled is complete nonsense.

            Whatever the role of the risk manager MIGHT have been is irrelevant. The Board and the Risk Committee were responsible for that position not being filled in a timely manner.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. So, they failed by buying government bonds. Please point to the regulation, past or present, that would have barred that.

          Regardless of other country’s problems, it is Biden who inflated our currency by increasing the money supply to pay for spending.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “So, they failed by buying government bonds. ”

            No, they failed by choosing to take risks rather than taking a profit hit by improving their liquidity position. Bigger banks have stricter capital and liquidity requirements and have to pass annual stress tests. These requirements were removed on small and midsized banks by the Trump deregulation. They should be restored.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “No, they failed by choosing to take risks rather than taking a profit hit by improving their liquidity position.”

            Karl Marx couldn’t have said it better. Of course, SVB could not have made a conscious choice between profits and risk in the absence of a risk manager, the position being unfilled at the time.

            Restoring the regulations may or may not be the right thing to do, but the event of SVB’s failure doesn’t advance either argument.

            Like

          3. “Karl Marx couldn’t have said it better.”
            There is no good way to better state obvious facts.

            “Of course, SVB could not have made a conscious choice between profits and risk in the absence of a risk manager, the position being unfilled at the time.”

            What a dopey comment! The CRO position was left vacant when it should not have been but that does not mean that the bank was flying blind. A bank that size is full of analysts and modelers who would have been reporting very regularly what was happening to their capital and liquidity structure. That somehow the CEO and the Board was blindsided is nonsense.

            The CRO was pushed out early in 2022 with no reason given. I would not be surprised to learn that she fell out of favor because she was a Cassandra. Shareholder lawsuits are likely to probe this question. . .

            https://news.yahoo.com/svb-lack-risk-officer-emerges-203322107.html

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “The CRO position was left vacant when it should not have been but that does not mean that the bank was flying blind.”

            It also means that we can’t assume the bank was aware of its risk position, as you do.

            Like

          5. “It also means that we can’t assume the bank was aware of its risk position, as you do.”

            There is zero reason to think that a major bank, its officers, analysts, and its directors were unaware of the sea changes in the bond market. None. We are talking about senior officers whose compensation is in the millions. They don’t get to feign ignorance.

            Liked by 1 person

      4. “But SVB’s risk officer who was supposed to watch that took 6 months off to plan a Pride event.”

        That is a LIE. You are a liar or a fool who cluelessly repeats lies.

        The truth is that the Chief Risk Officer of SVB was pushed out in early 2022 for undisclosed reasons and was not replaced until December 2022. This was detailed in an October proxy statement filed with the SEC by SVB. And, another truth is that the risk officer of the UK branch of the bank is a gay woman who helped organize a gay pride event in London.

        Lying liars of right wing media have conflated these two facts to feed to the fools ready to blame “wokeness” for the banks troubles.

        Chris Hayes explains why this woke bullshit is being blamed for the failure . . .

        https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/-preposterous-chris-hayes-rips-gop-for-blaming-svb-collapse-on-wokeness-165294149612

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. RE: “Chris Hayes explains why this woke bullshit is being blamed for the failure…”

          Too funny. Chris Hayes is so “woke” he’s blind.

          He complains about rhetoric, not reality. You can’t be more woke than that.

          Like

          Reply

        2. As I pointed out, it could only be an indirect factor. There should have been other staff to take up the slack.

          But there was no regulation in place or previous that would have blocked this particular mistake.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “As I pointed out, it could only be an indirect factor. There should have been other staff to take up the slack.”

            It was not a factor – direct or indirect – because IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

            You spread an outright LIE designed to inflame hatred against the LGBTQ community. This bank failure as absolutely nothing to do with them. Nothing at all. There is nothing “woke” about it. I have to ask as Joseph Welch did . . . “Have you no sense of decency?” Do any of you people? If you do, you hide it very, very well.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “There is nothing ‘woke’ about it.”

            Sure there is. That’s why the “woke” meme has legs. As Susan Neiman says in the video, above, we don’t need definitions, we need analysis.

            Pretty ridiculous to play semantic games when confronted with a strong analysis that shows SVB deviated from a core banking function.

            Wokeness is at least a handy and plausible explanation for such deviance.

            Like

          4. RE: “Only if you are a moron and a bigot.”

            Sure, a moron and a bigot who happens to be correct in this instance.

            Like

          6. RE: “Okay, genius. What was ‘woke’ about the decisions that lead to the collapse?”

            As I understand the criticism, preoccupation with, for example, DEI and ESG issues across the banking industry have been a distraction away from core competencies. In this case, SVB’s failure to replace the discharged risk manager in a timely manner allegedly was a symptom of this generalized distraction.

            Like

          7. What you understand from reading the websites of lying liars is not evidence. Or, more accurately, it is evidence that you have been duped. Lying liars have their eager-to-be- duped audience believing that the SVB CRO was absent due to being on a leave of absence for six months to organize gay events. That is a LIE.

            The position of CRO should have been filled. On that we can agree. But the fatal decisions that were made were the decisions to not liquidate illiquid positions in a timely manner. How were those decision “woke?” They were not. Not in any way.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. “There was a big ESG component. SVB overcommitted to a $5billion environmental program with little to no chance of profit.”

            More bullshit. That had NOTHING to do with the banks’s failure.

            That $5 Billion was a commitment to provide finance of up to that amount through 2027. Their rational is clear and business-like . . . “As the bank of the innovation economy, and in
            alignment with our mission to help our clients succeed and innovate for a better world, SVB has committed to provide at least $5 billion in loans, investments and other financing to support sustainability efforts by 2027.”

            You know NOTHING about any of this. How much has been deployed? On what sort of projects and products? How much turned out to be a bad debt? Etc. But that does not dampen your bullshit which, a quick Google search reveals, is more clueless parroting or lying liar talking points.

            Forbes gives a pretty good critique of the problems in the bank and on Wall Street that caused the failure. ESG was NOT the problem. . .

            “SVB is less of an E&S story, contrary to the storm in the ESG teacup raised in certain quarters. Its certainly a story of dodgy “G.” (G is for governance)

            https://tinyurl.com/546eatuu

            Liked by 1 person

      5. …”from the regulatory standpoint, SVB was fine,”

        Not really. If they had maintained the liquidity put in place by Dodd-Frank and then dropped by the Trump admin, they would not have been in the position to fail.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Nope. they met all prior regulatory standards.

          They just didn’t keep up with proper laddering of their bonds and instead of investing in sound businesses, they put a whole year’s profit into environmental projects with no payback.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “They just didn’t keep up with proper laddering of their bonds and instead of investing in sound businesses, they put a whole year’s profit into environmental projects with no payback.”

            Oh really? How much was invested in such black holes? Which projects are they and when did they fail? I know you have no idea. You are again parroting some lying liar trying to shift blame from where it belongs – loose oversight and greedy management.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “they met all prior regulatory standards.”

            You mean the ones that were rolled back by the Trump administration? They did NOT meet the liquidity requirements put in place by Dodd-Frank BECAUSE they were rolled back for smaller banks, after much lobbying by them, during Trump’s term

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment