Here's a defense of those critiqued here (I am uninformed, so please correct me with more nuance):
Bank runs are similar to prisoners' dilemmas. If all depositors could agree to not bank run, then they would have. Without this agreement, it does make sense to participate in the bank run (earlier is better), since if the bank run happens and you tried to be "good" by not running, you could be the one holding the bag at the end. And if the bank run doesn't happen, then no cost is incurred.
So unfortunately, a bank run is one of those situations where everyone makes really rational decisions in the absence of coordination, but the outcome is bad.
Bank runs are similar to prisoners' dilemmas. If all depositors could agree to not bank run, then they would have. Without this agreement, it does make sense to participate in the bank run (earlier is better), since if the bank run happens and you tried to be "good" by not running, you could be the one holding the bag at the end. And if the bank run doesn't happen, then no cost is incurred.
So unfortunately, a bank run is one of those situations where everyone makes really rational decisions in the absence of coordination, but the outcome is bad.
Is this a valid defense?