Subject: Re: SVB bailout
RW said not only this isolated sentence: "The system was working as it should."

It's the context that counts:
This was a bailout of the VC industry that should not have taken place. Over the weekend there were stories of founders writing checks to keep things afloat and VCs planning equity injections into their promising startups. The FDIC was going to make initial payments on uninsured deposits and provide certificates for uninsured deposits that would receive substantial recovery over time. The system was working as it should.

RW described that over the weekend the system "was working as it should" and used that as reason why the bailout "should not have taken place".

If one replies to that "Really? What do you think would have happened if the Fed had done nothing?" it's not just a simple question but clearly implies that the poster is of a different opinion regarding both, negating that the system was working as it should AND negating that the bailout should not have taken place.

That's the used language's logic for me, but as a non-native English speaker I might be wrong of course.

P.S.: What's the point? Life goes on. RW may or may not post again here, with me VERY much hoping he does (especially now that Mungofitch seems to be more busy to sleeplessly roam Monaco's streets at night), aware that there might be robust replies.