> The article is an attack on Peter Thiel, not SVB.

I don’t understand this comment. The article doesn’t pretend to not be an attack on people like Thiel. It’s in the title. So what’s your point—is Thiel above criticism?

And since you imply that a publication somehow automatically loses credibility on this topic by leaning left, here’s a Financial Times opinion piece with a similar premise: https://archive.is/6MBEL

I don't know what your last paragraph is supposed to imply. That there shouldn't be outlets for the Left? That there shouldn't be outlets with stated political positions at all? Or it's just a basic ad hominem?

Anyway, as for the substance: a bank had risky behaviour and lost out. Now everyone, including those who never did and never will benefit from that risk, are called to pick up the check. This is, objectively speaking, a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

Now you may justify that with trickle-down economics, but I'm not arguing that point, and neither is the writer. He is merely pointing out how the "leave free enterprise alone" crowd is now suddenly in favour of handouts :)

Oh please. You know exactly what the article is saying. You chose to attack the publication instead of their arguments which boils down to Thiel and friends are very much anti-regulation and if it wasn't their money they would resist government interference. Perhaps you could talk about the quoted comments from those billionaires and correct the article?

> Given that both the Fed and the Bank of England have decades-old laws protecting the financial system long before (tech) billionaires, this article seems even more ridiculous.

Those laws don't insure deposits over $250,000. The response to SVB is relatively novel in some ways.

It's ok to point out this is a left wing magazine, but the "investigation results" pasting is over the top and just indicates potential lack of balance in the rest of the comment...