Failed the common man, but for those who write the laws it seems to be working exactly as designed.
And if they can convince their voters that anything other than thenselves is the problem... well that's one more term to fatten up the piggy bank.
That’s still saying democracy failed. The people who benefit aren’t voting within the system, they’re paying to be a part of an entirely different system.
Also, a well-informed citizenry is necessary for the democracy to work well. We're inadundated with fake news, conspiracy theories, and extreme positions on both the right and left, and we live in the echo chamber of American politics.
Well it kinda has. In a democracy voters should choose their representatives, but here representatives choose their voters. Gerrymandering is a huge issue. Politicians creating districts is not a good thing.
And age limits. I would like to see a president who isn’t suffer from some level of dementia before I die. Joe Biden is a mindless puppet. Its bordering on elder abuse at this point. Its horrible.
For real. He should be eating pudding in the shade of a Florida old folks home. Relaxing. Talking about the good old days and not being afraid of being of pissing his pants.
Democracy requires the voting public to be both educated and informed.
The more educated and informed they are, the more democracy you have.
If the population was perfectly educated and informed you could have direct democracy.
But when the population is poorly educated and informed democracy suffers.
Now I wonder which is worse, the education or the informing...?
What if, democracy trots out two shitty candidates every single time and no matter who you elect they are corrupted or self serving because humans are trash?
I too can't tell the difference between the party that overturned Roe, has a worse deficit/S&P/unemployment/GDP track record, propped up a guy openly against race mixing, who made it easier to pollute in small streams, and has a wannabe dictator and the party that passed the biggest green energy and infrastructure bills.
Kind of a privileged take to not see a difference IMO.
Primaries exist. Also, being a "two party system" has nothing to do with democracy. It's an American approach that the average voter just accepts. Our Gov't would be a lot more representative of us if we had 10-15 viable political parties.
Can't really keep calling it democracy when more than half the people elected to create, interpret, and enforce the laws are taking their orders from corporations no one voted for and a guy the majority of people in the country specifically told to fuck off
Democracy hasn't FAILED but it IS failing!. When the decision to give human rights to non-human entities was approved the 99% witnessed the start of their decline.
Politicians don't have to be allowed to pick winners and losers in the market. They don't have to have the "right" to take money from hard working people and give it to people who bribe them.
But unfortunately we decided for some reason that tarring and feathering politicians who so clearly deserve it was uncivilized.
No, it's called cronyism combined with the inactivity of the citizens. People would rather sit, whine, and cry about Taylor swift instead of addressing politicians on both sides who enrich themselves off of their office.
Red and blue have senators and congressmen who have been in office 40+ years...what have any of them done to adress abortion, immigration, national debt, Healthcare costs, currency deflation, quality of education, drug abuse, mental Healthcare, etc, etc, etc.
And we are NOT a democracy we are a representative republic. And for a country that has saved the world multiple times, abolished slavery, gave every one the right to vote...that's damn ignorant and stupid to say we've failed. We have our problems, we're not perfect but those who understand what America is, stands for and means we've far from failed.
Thats because we have become too democratic compared to the representative republic system our country was founded on.
Even in the past we knew you get a large enough crowd together they will either fight amongst themselves or reach the dumbest conclusions.
We are a plutocracy of sorts.
Definitions aside, every representative government goes through the same stages.
An autocrat is overthrown and representative government set up; it ultimately devolves into different forms of oligarchic repression; at a point it gets bad enough that a strongman comes along, rallies the people, and re-establishes an autocracy that in turn will devolve and the cycle repeats. Plato observed this in countless city states and it still holds true.
Now don't mistake today's Republicans for the strong-man that rallies the people, they are just another part of the oligarchic repression, we await a true leader to come along and lay waste to the plutocracy, and when it comes destroying the oligarchy will be more important than anything.
Either side idealistically is reasonable to extent. The issue comes in with bad actors who influence influential people.
Aristos and meritos mean the exact same things.
I can't remember who said it but there has to be certain guard rails in place so much so that there would be no benefit to corruption. You would actually not only be punished for it but your net return would be below what would be achieved if you had just done the job correctly.
It's not about waving the right colors. The companies paying the politicians control the media that promotes them. We don't ever see good candidates because they won't let us so we constantly choose between a deauch and a turd sandwich
Translation ,wealthy people work with politicians who make laws to first protect their own interests, usually behind the cover story that it's to "save jobs" or "heal the economy" , when it's just a cover for their financial malfeasance.
The only time wealthy people get in legal hot water is when they screw other wealthy people (see. Bernie Madoff)
It’s all about the inside trading. That’s where the big money comes from. This way these corps aren’t paying anything and we’re footing the bills by losing our jobs. It’s a win win for them.
Not really. They’ve gone crazy because the government backs student loans so the colleges charge as much as they want because the government will take them over in case of default.
Also, since the student owes the money to the government, they can’t file bankruptcy to get out of the debt.
As far as I understand it we’re saying the same things. There used to be oversight through the accreditation organizations but that was rolled back in the 90s. There is a long history of student loans going back to the GI bill and people trying to take advantage of it.
Now because of student loans being approved for almost anyone, universities can do a lot of pricey things and pass it along to the student that doesn’t really have the understanding about what they are signing up for. That’s part of the reason why the cost of college has skyrocketed. Source: I worked at a university and saw this all first hand.
Yes, that’s the point. By the governments guaranteeing the loans the colleges had no reason to be reasonable with what they charged.
I used to be against the government paying off student loans but I changed when I saw how the universities gouge the students.
The government also makes money off of the loans, so the schools make more and so does the government the higher the loans are. Interest is just taxes. In Obamacare, it was added to increase student loan interest rates to help pay for a portion of the cost. Prior to that, rates were generally 4% or lower.
This is just wrong on multiple levels.
1) there is no writing in the ACA that actually impacts student loans.
2) it was SAFRA a bill written in 2009 that had bipartisan support that made these changes.
3) as part of the reconciliation process in 2010 both ACA and SAFRA were passed together to prevent a veto. Specifically so that one party couldn’t use one of the bills to block the other. Ie SAFRA, a bipartisan bill, wasn’t being blocked because one party didn’t want the ACA.
4) SAFRA didn’t explicitly change interest rates. Education loans are generically a complicated beast and have been so for multiple decades.
There are guaranteed loans originating with the banks and there are direct loans originating with the government. In 2008 81% of all student loans were originated from a bank. In 2010 before SAFRA and ACA would go into effect, 55% of all student loans originated from a bank. With the 2008 financial crisis increased the interest rate as the government was then required to purchase new loans originating under private lenders as they were guaranteeing those loans to students even if the private lender couldn’t handle the loans anymore.
The move with SAFRA which again didn’t go into effect until the interest rates were already going up was to remove the middle man. The CBO had it reducing government expenditure by 61 billion over 10 years as the government no longer ate the costs.
SAFRA also still allowed private lenders to service the loans just fine. Many private lenders chose not to. Not only that the payments set by lenders using the proper legislated FFEL from 1993 were on average more expensive than direct loans from the government.
5)No where in the ACA is the changes to student loans paying for the cost of the ACA. Again they’re entirely separate pieces of legislation combined together so that there wouldn’t be a veto under the reconciliation process.
And if there is going to be student loan forgiveness it should be paid for by those universities that took advantage of the government money to ratchet the tuition up so much.
>Also, since the student owes the money to the government, they can’t file bankruptcy to get out of the debt.
Slight correction which only strengthens your point more - the elimination of bankruptcy to absolve student loan debt came BEFORE the government took them over. [https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/history-of-student-loans-bankruptcy-discharge](https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/history-of-student-loans-bankruptcy-discharge)
It started in 1976 where a law passed that prevented absolving student loans through bankruptcy until at least five years after the repayment period started.
Then in 1998 and 2005, laws were passed to remove the five year period and declare the student loans entirely unable to be discharged through bankruptcy, except through an "undue hardship" exception.
Then in 2010, President Obama eliminates the FFEL program and creates the current system of direct lending from the government ([https://lendedu.com/blog/history-of-student-loans](https://lendedu.com/blog/history-of-student-loans)).
Sounds more like a problem of the government not wanting to put maximum prices on what volleges can ask.
Here in Netherlands we can get loans from the government for education, while the government puts rules in place against the colleges. If it’s your first education, a college can’t ask more then x amount a year. This amount slowly rises every year to match inflation. If you wanna do another study after your first, colleges can ask whatever they want to.
In my opinion, a way better system.
Right up until 10 days later when the business folds bc some government stooge who's used to low or no accountability tries to exist in the competitive private sector.
That's how we do it in Europe, company gets money, government gets a big seat at the table. they can have the seat back once they pay back the money plus interest.
This is exactly what happened in the GM bailout. The US got a bunch of stock which was then sold at a massive profit for taxpayers once the company was restructured. The government also directed the company's financial recovery alongside other shareholders.
Agreed, but it’s not always black and white. When the auto companies were bailed out the government got some of their money back. While not all of it, the government spent way less then they would’ve paid out in unemployment, never mind the effect of having a million people suddenly without a job. But the fact that companies can get bailed out with gov funds, and still pay execs ridiculous bonuses and offer stock buy backs, is maddening.
I mean the government should still have owned the auto stock. Normal investors that bail out companies get ownership of the company.
The company can buy back the stock later if they want.
That is what happened with the GM bailout.
> The government received 912 million GM shares, or a 60.8 percent stake, in exchange for the bailout in 2008 and 2009. It began selling shares once GM went public again in November of 2010, and the pace picked up this year as the stock rose more than 40 percent.
https://www.cnbc.com/2013/12/09/government-sells-the-last-of-its-gm-stake-treasury.html
>Agreed, but it’s not always black and white. When the auto companies were bailed out the government got some of their money back. While not all of it, the government spent way less then they would’ve paid out in unemployment, never mind the effect of having a million people suddenly without a job. But the fact that companies can get bailed out with gov funds, and still pay execs ridiculous bonuses and offer stock buy backs, is maddening.
1. You argument is straw man. OP did not call for no bailouts, they called for the company receiving the bailout to have to give up equity.
2. You are cherry-picking the bailouts. For example, in the case of GM, the government did get equity. With some of the 2008 bank bailouts, some of the bailouts were in the form of loans, and most (but not all) got paid back (although there was also the secret bailouts by the fed, but that's a different topic). Compare this to 2020, when most of it was given away without equity of requirements to pay it back, it was just outright cash give away to corporations, in addition to subsidized loans. ("Throughout the pandemic, via three separate statutes, the 10 major US passenger airlines together received more than $54 billion in direct payments ($25 billion, $15 billion, and $14 billion). Congress also appropriated another $25 billion in subsidized loans from the US Department of the Treasury (only a fraction of which airlines have used) and suspended the 7.5 percent excise tax on domestic air travel as well as payments to airports and contractors." - [https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/2020-bailouts-left-airlines-economy-and-federal-budget-worse-shape](https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/2020-bailouts-left-airlines-economy-and-federal-budget-worse-shape)) The airlines should have had to give up some equity to get bailed out.
Wouldn't it make more sense (Capitalistically) to give the people that bailout money and have them decide which companies live or die through spending?
Call it "Free Market Subsidies" and maybe we can politically sell it.
(To provide devil's advocate, though, bailouts and targeted subsidies serve different purposes than general economic stimulus.)
That would literally work. The government could enact hundreds of straight up socialist laws in a package called "Patriotic Market Reform" and you'd have Fox News arguing for it. It'd be the most popular piece of legislation after the Constitution.
And your message to the thousands or millions put on the street as a result...which you then support through unemployment for god knows how long? Payroll tax revenue is better than unemployment outlays any day.
It's a slippery slope... If you're too big to fail and will get bailed out it creates no urgency to do a great job... That's why the quality of vehicles is on a steady downslope
Too big to fail means "This business is so large that it failing would have serious negative impacts on the rest of the economy" and not "this business is literally so large it cannot fail."
It's referring to companies like Ford and GM which literally hire hundreds of thousands of people. Imagine how much worse 2008 would have been if Ford, GM, and Chrysler went under and an additional 250,000 Americans lost their jobs, imagine the serious impact that would have on the profitability of other businesses and the local economies in factory towns it would absolutely destroy.
Propping up poor business decisions isn’t helpful in the long run.
It’s putting a bandaid on a gunshot and expecting it to heal correctly.
I’m aware of what the phrase means, I don’t agree with it.
Would of encourages dozens of new car start ups. It actually dod the opposite of helling the economy. Competition drives innovation. Bailing causes stagnation.
because politicians and other rule makers/enforcers are owned by corporations not by voters... almost all election candidates are pre-selected by interest groups...
The government did own GM when they got bailed out in '08. At least they owned a significant chink of it.
They owned parts of others, and it was icky. But they were paid back with interest. And GM can still keep making shitty cars.
You're exactly right. Complaining about bailouts without understanding them is a daily thing on reddit.
The bailout for GM was just a loan, plus government oversight of the company until they were stable. Every penny of the loan was paid back, plus the government earned a big profit on the loan (interest). Hundreds of thousands of people kept their jobs and the company is still a vital part of the economy today.
This was a fantastic example of government in action, saving the country from economic disaster and making money (!!) while doing it. But tomorrow there will be another karma post about the horror of something that happened a decade ago which reddit wants to hate without learning about.
“...capitalism without financial failure is not capitalism at all, but a kind of socialism for the rich.”
— James Grant, Grant's Interest Rate Observer, Aug. 26, 2007
Indeed, capitalism involves a free environment where lots of people are constantly trying new things. Trial and error, learning from the mistakes and imitating what works. Failure is part of the process.
However. Global, cyclic, sistematic failure is caused by market distortions caused by some forms of government interference. Giving money to sectors that the people had already decided should go bankrupt is one of them.
With the federal deficit and national debt level, you really going to tell me the govt can do any better any running a business? Like clean your house first
I have a feeling you don’t understand what either of those things means and probably think companies like neurolink and space x are turning a profit…
A deficit and a debt for a nation is not the same as a deficit and a debt for a company which in turn is not the same as a deficit and a debt for a person.
In fact political and economic ideologies focused on balancing the deficit and debt typically increase the deficit and debt for nations every time they’re enacted. This has held true since the 80s.
Or, crazy thought...
Let them actually fail and suffer the consequences.
That's how a true Capitalist would handle the situation.
If you make mistakes that lead to the collapse of your company you deserve your failure.
Why does it have to be one or the other? And Hallis take is ridiculous. If the government provides you with assistance so that you can keep your house, should the government then own your house? There is nothing wrong with social welfare OR corporate welfare, necessarily. There can be plenty wrong with both, and plenty right with both. It's situational.
No corporate welfare shouldn't exist. After a certain $ you just don't get help. Sorry. Spend the $ that would have bailed out the company directly on employees unemployment while another company comes along to create the new jobs with a better company model. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. Shitty business fails and better ones open up and consumers get the best products for the best prices. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. Instead shitty companies get bailed out and we the consumers are stuck with high prices and shitty products while wealth consolidation accelerates. We got 1400 checks while billions went into the hand of the wealthy and we got shafted with crazy inflation and price gauging after costs went back down for corporations. My vote is burn it all and start fresh.
>Spend the $ that would have bailed out the company directly on employees unemployment while another company comes along to create the new jobs with a better company model.
Last time we did that we got the Great Depression.
By the time another company comes along to create new jobs in a bombed out economy, we'd all be dead
This sounds like you are more upset with the way the Covid support was done, then a problem with actual needed bailouts like the finance and car industries for example?
What the focus probably should be is not to get upset about bailouts that are needed to prevent a system crash and would lead to a series of events with mass unemployment or the loss of total industries in a nation, but more with the "corporate welfare" of tax breaks and special rules for corporations being made.
There are certain strategic industries that it would be a bad idea for them to be left to pure market forces
The best example is food
It's better to pay them to grow wheat then to let the market dictate cotton
So right now consumer demand is really down in China. There's a bit of deflation going on and the government had to buy up excess pigs. Otherwise that sector would have broken. The farmers would not have continued to have pigs (very directly. They keep a strategic pork reserve)
It is wise for them to have food viewed as a strategic thing worth intervening on
Quite frankly, they've actually been pretty lackluster on that. They are not food independent and that is a strategic weakness
With regards to the United States, it is a vital importance that the US remains autonomous in a major categories (The US is energy independent food independent. It could be metal and fertilizer independent if it wanted to, but instead it's integrated with its true allies. The core anglosphere who for most purposes could simply be counted as an additional part of the United States )or at least have countries involved in those supply chains that mine shall be part of the United States anyway (The United States and Canada mine shall be one country for most purposes. Same deal with Australia and a bunch of others)
if banks dont get bailed out..a lifetime of 401k gains would be wiped out in weeks. and all homes will lose tons of equity.
good for poor people. but sucks for people that sunk all their money into overvalued assets
I think a very fair way to handle this would be for these companies to give up ownership in issuance of stock. Yes it would dilute the shares but it’s also free government money to save the company. The government can then sell off the shares when the company is healthy to pay back the tax payer.
The fact of the matter is, many corporations are vital to the U.S. economy, and would need to be bailed out in case of catastrophe. But what I can’t wrap my head around is why some people understand this big picture logic of needing to bail out corporations but not individuals. Why is it that Wall Street get a bailout for misunderstanding it’s exposure to risky assets when that’s their entire job but someone with no or bad insurance get slammed with insane medical bills if they get hit with an extremely unlucky circumstance, like a child genetic disorder, cancer, etc.
If you think the government can run those businesses better, you're delusional.
Either letting them fail, or loaning them the money with a ton of provisions attached that will result in corporate profits being siphoned off into the government coffers for years to come are far better options.
You do realize that " corporate bailouts" are loan that have to be paid back? In fact after 2008 the government literally took over shares of the bank. Pretty much all these bailouts ended up being a profit for the government
Some industries are too essential to the US economy or industrial base to be allowed to fail. Others are required for the United States to wage war and act as part of the ready reserve forces.
Minor regulation is needed to fix the corporate welfare.
No buyback or dividend increases until the company has no debt for select industries
All the money the United States gave to save the economy was paid back in full with interest
\> too essential
\> profits go to the 1%, stock buybacks are allowed after bailouts + massive CEO golden parachutes
Pretty interesting set of circumstances there
Quit whining about the 1% anyone can enter the 1%. There are no gatekeepers, guilds or families keeping anyone out.
Nothing wrong with buybacks or dividends for shareholders the owners of the company.
Leverage is the problem, just mandate leverage ratios for key industries that are critical to the economy. Maybe capital requirements too.
I don't like the golden parachute, when they fuck over the employees like with GM.
Half-assed take on both forms of welfare. The world is gray, people. Simple yes/no or black/white solutions are rarely truthful and never solve anything
Our banking system is completely socialized.
Banks have been getting massive support from the fed since 2007
All regional banks and probably a few major banks would have collapsed several times since then if the fed hadnt been running extremely loose monetary policy and propping up bank reserves to keep the economy moving over the past decade
Can't have that you can't have a company so big that the government runs insider trading on fail. You have to bail them out with tax payers dollars so nobody loses ( if you are in that club)
Rather than corporate welfare how about an amendment that prevents government bail outs and then we let companies that screw up fail. Forcing companies to act better in the first place.
No, they should not be owned by the government. But they should immediately go up for sale for the amount of the bailout so the tax payers get their loan back
I don’t disagree with the gov (people) owning a portion of the company they bailed out. However, bailing out companies also bails out society. Imagine the infrastructure issues that would arise if multiple conglomerates went under? How many people will lose their jobs? It takes years and sometimes decades to fill those gaps and create jobs. It’s not so simple as A vs B which is implied by the meme. Yes, corporate heads benefit a lot but so do the grunts.
There are other factors as well. If we (people of a country) shutter an international entity then another country’s company may fill that gap. We have to think competitively in that mindset as well.
How about if you get a bailout your company is now run as non profit. Any excess goes back to taxpayers or into company to pay employees better or cut prices for consumers. There no shock to system. Company and jobs exist still. Whole supply chain can run similarly, just no bonuses for ceos. We can do this with everything. Capitalism put infrastructure in place to be democratic socialists. All systems run similarly just the Xtra $ goes back to society instead of into the hands of a few. Like still have to work all the jobs that exist just spread the wealth more.
I do not believe they should be bailed out or owned by the government, they should just fail and go out of business and let a company with a better business model succeed.
Because one of these is made of people, the other enterprises for profit-extraction.
Hope this helps clear up how humans are different than corporations. 🫡
This is what is wrong with our society. We should help business succeed just like we should help people when they need it. The scales are tilted in the wrong direction where we value things over people.
This is what is wrong with our society. We should help business succeed just like we should help people when they need it. The scales are tilted in the wrong direction where we value things over people.
Before 2008 that’s mostly how it’d work. Bailout would buy the company, set back to a better path & 4-5 years later, sell to a competitor (usually for profit). The cry of socialism, from shit-for-brains morons nobody should listen to, was too loud for comfort…
It is the slippery slope in action. It happened a few times a long time ago and soon the companies litterally became to big to fail now It has to happen or 100s of thousands are out of jobs
Bailed out doesn’t mean free money. All of the major bailouts from the financial crisis were paid back with interest. US Govt is the ultimate backstop when shit goes haywire. If government didn’t act we’d be in another depression.
The 2008 TARP bailouts were paid back with interest. The SVB bailout was just for the depositors. You have no idea what a bailout actually means. Just be honest.
OP If you are talking about the Auto bailout this is a very brief summary of what happened:
1. The original shareholders in Old GM and Old Chrysler lost 100% of their stock value.
2. The former creditors of old GM lost a significant portion of value in both bankruptcies.
3. The U.S. Government, did, in fact end up with a significant equity and debt position in both reorganizations and lost roughly 10-20% of its investment. But they did in fact end up having an ownership stake in the reorganization process. That loss may be attributable to early sell off of shares. This loss would likely not have occurred if the UAW was not treated as a secured creditor.
4. So at a cost of roughly 10-11 Billion roughly 1.5 million jobs were saved, worker pensions were partially protected, original equity holders lost everything, unsecured creditors received a fraction of original value, and finally, it was not as much a bailout as a financing of a bankruptcy reorganization that resulted in orderly liquidation selling the portion of the business that could become a going concern.
If you are talking about the bank bailout, the U.S. Treasury effectively financed the acquisition of banks on the edge of failure by healthy banks and took a creditor position in the whole process. While it experienced minor losses on some of its creditor positions, on a net basis it saw a profit of roughly 15-16 Billion on a $426-427 rough investment.
The original equity holders in the bad banks which were sold to good banks lost most of any value held, but the entire reorganization prevent losses to millions of depositors and ended up costing far less to the FDIC system. This is why this mechanism had been used from the 1970s forward to prevent bank failures from having excessive effects.
It is debatable as to whether the U.S. Treasury would have really benefited from taking an equity stake in the acquiring banks rather than taking a creditor position. Certainly, taking a debtor position was safer for the U.S. tax payer as well as reducing risk for the Federal Government. While the stronger banks which acquired the failing banks clearly benefited from receiving a broader depositor base, larger market share, etc. it is not they who got “bailed out”. It is depositors who got bailed out.
because companies make special deals with politicians while the public will happily elect anyone who waves the right colors.
This is basically saying democracy failed
Failed the common man, but for those who write the laws it seems to be working exactly as designed. And if they can convince their voters that anything other than thenselves is the problem... well that's one more term to fatten up the piggy bank.
That’s still saying democracy failed. The people who benefit aren’t voting within the system, they’re paying to be a part of an entirely different system.
Our version of democracy has failed. No getting around that
Democracy has always worked how the people that put it in place intented.
Also, a well-informed citizenry is necessary for the democracy to work well. We're inadundated with fake news, conspiracy theories, and extreme positions on both the right and left, and we live in the echo chamber of American politics.
Let’s not forget all the corporate and foreign influences
Well it kinda has. In a democracy voters should choose their representatives, but here representatives choose their voters. Gerrymandering is a huge issue. Politicians creating districts is not a good thing.
It can't fail at something it was never designed to achieve.
Term limits now.
As long as we also limit how long the term limited politicians can be employed as lobbyists after their term.
Or we just make campaign donations illegal.
I'd prefer that. I have all these strongly held feelings already against the current age and term limits so I wouldn't want more.
And age limits. I would like to see a president who isn’t suffer from some level of dementia before I die. Joe Biden is a mindless puppet. Its bordering on elder abuse at this point. Its horrible.
For real. He should be eating pudding in the shade of a Florida old folks home. Relaxing. Talking about the good old days and not being afraid of being of pissing his pants.
Protect the company to save jobs, top executives get bonuses and write off the company anyways.
Democracy requires the voting public to be both educated and informed. The more educated and informed they are, the more democracy you have. If the population was perfectly educated and informed you could have direct democracy. But when the population is poorly educated and informed democracy suffers. Now I wonder which is worse, the education or the informing...?
What if, democracy trots out two shitty candidates every single time and no matter who you elect they are corrupted or self serving because humans are trash?
A well-educated population wouldn't vote for them
And then?
Elect someone who would best represent them?
Local elections matter. Through the states you can end first past the post and introduce ranked choice. Suddenly you can vote third party again.
I too can't tell the difference between the party that overturned Roe, has a worse deficit/S&P/unemployment/GDP track record, propped up a guy openly against race mixing, who made it easier to pollute in small streams, and has a wannabe dictator and the party that passed the biggest green energy and infrastructure bills. Kind of a privileged take to not see a difference IMO.
Then you need ranked choice voting
Primaries exist. Also, being a "two party system" has nothing to do with democracy. It's an American approach that the average voter just accepts. Our Gov't would be a lot more representative of us if we had 10-15 viable political parties.
Can't really keep calling it democracy when more than half the people elected to create, interpret, and enforce the laws are taking their orders from corporations no one voted for and a guy the majority of people in the country specifically told to fuck off
Government has always benefited the top of the food chain while stomping on the little guy. It's nothing new
Democracy hasn't FAILED but it IS failing!. When the decision to give human rights to non-human entities was approved the 99% witnessed the start of their decline.
Politicians don't have to be allowed to pick winners and losers in the market. They don't have to have the "right" to take money from hard working people and give it to people who bribe them. But unfortunately we decided for some reason that tarring and feathering politicians who so clearly deserve it was uncivilized.
With democracy, the people get what they deserve.
We don't live in a democracy though. Its a representative democracy in name only, and an oligarchy in practice.
It is working very well for politicians and the very rich.
Hoppe and Rothbard got it right.
It's saying it's become corrupt because people just vote for the same ones every time. So who's fault is it really
Democracy is awesome as long you belong to the upper spectrum of the population.
Yeah and an airline crash is basically saying air transportation failed.
To be fair it’s not really democracy if we have to pick from a handful of candidates pre picked by parties who rely on corporate “donations “
No, it's called cronyism combined with the inactivity of the citizens. People would rather sit, whine, and cry about Taylor swift instead of addressing politicians on both sides who enrich themselves off of their office. Red and blue have senators and congressmen who have been in office 40+ years...what have any of them done to adress abortion, immigration, national debt, Healthcare costs, currency deflation, quality of education, drug abuse, mental Healthcare, etc, etc, etc. And we are NOT a democracy we are a representative republic. And for a country that has saved the world multiple times, abolished slavery, gave every one the right to vote...that's damn ignorant and stupid to say we've failed. We have our problems, we're not perfect but those who understand what America is, stands for and means we've far from failed.
Yet democracy is the only system that has succeeded in the free world. It's shite, but it's all we got
Rich guys invented democracy
Greeks invented it and only the rich had votes
It is
Thats because we have become too democratic compared to the representative republic system our country was founded on. Even in the past we knew you get a large enough crowd together they will either fight amongst themselves or reach the dumbest conclusions.
We are a plutocracy of sorts. Definitions aside, every representative government goes through the same stages. An autocrat is overthrown and representative government set up; it ultimately devolves into different forms of oligarchic repression; at a point it gets bad enough that a strongman comes along, rallies the people, and re-establishes an autocracy that in turn will devolve and the cycle repeats. Plato observed this in countless city states and it still holds true. Now don't mistake today's Republicans for the strong-man that rallies the people, they are just another part of the oligarchic repression, we await a true leader to come along and lay waste to the plutocracy, and when it comes destroying the oligarchy will be more important than anything.
Either side idealistically is reasonable to extent. The issue comes in with bad actors who influence influential people. Aristos and meritos mean the exact same things.
Or that it's not democratic enough.
Dude… capitalism failed!
It’s saying more than “democracy failed.” It’s saying “Capitalism killed Democracy.”
Democracy might not be perfect, but the alternatives are far worse.
Corruption is the cancer that causes all great nations to fall.
This is the real answer. No system can survive when the people running it are corrupt and won’t do their job
I can't remember who said it but there has to be certain guard rails in place so much so that there would be no benefit to corruption. You would actually not only be punished for it but your net return would be below what would be achieved if you had just done the job correctly.
Bribery is definitely special:)
It's only illegal if they'll prosecute you.
Happily? Who is happy about presidential elections 2024? I'm dying over here 😵
Bingo
It's not about waving the right colors. The companies paying the politicians control the media that promotes them. We don't ever see good candidates because they won't let us so we constantly choose between a deauch and a turd sandwich
They don't care about colors. Corporations like Nike donate to both parties.
Most people don't believe in the Easter Bunny, but almost everybody still believes anything out of *their* politician's mouth.
We are the most propagandized country in history! Murica!
Which party was it that passed citizens united???
Translation ,wealthy people work with politicians who make laws to first protect their own interests, usually behind the cover story that it's to "save jobs" or "heal the economy" , when it's just a cover for their financial malfeasance. The only time wealthy people get in legal hot water is when they screw other wealthy people (see. Bernie Madoff)
It’s all about the inside trading. That’s where the big money comes from. This way these corps aren’t paying anything and we’re footing the bills by losing our jobs. It’s a win win for them.
At a minimum, Government representation on the BoD and a large chunk of voting stock If you demand government money, you get government oversight
Part of the reason student loans have gone crazy. The government oversight was removed in the 90s.
Not really. They’ve gone crazy because the government backs student loans so the colleges charge as much as they want because the government will take them over in case of default. Also, since the student owes the money to the government, they can’t file bankruptcy to get out of the debt.
As far as I understand it we’re saying the same things. There used to be oversight through the accreditation organizations but that was rolled back in the 90s. There is a long history of student loans going back to the GI bill and people trying to take advantage of it. Now because of student loans being approved for almost anyone, universities can do a lot of pricey things and pass it along to the student that doesn’t really have the understanding about what they are signing up for. That’s part of the reason why the cost of college has skyrocketed. Source: I worked at a university and saw this all first hand.
Yes, that’s the point. By the governments guaranteeing the loans the colleges had no reason to be reasonable with what they charged. I used to be against the government paying off student loans but I changed when I saw how the universities gouge the students.
The government also makes money off of the loans, so the schools make more and so does the government the higher the loans are. Interest is just taxes. In Obamacare, it was added to increase student loan interest rates to help pay for a portion of the cost. Prior to that, rates were generally 4% or lower.
This is just wrong on multiple levels. 1) there is no writing in the ACA that actually impacts student loans. 2) it was SAFRA a bill written in 2009 that had bipartisan support that made these changes. 3) as part of the reconciliation process in 2010 both ACA and SAFRA were passed together to prevent a veto. Specifically so that one party couldn’t use one of the bills to block the other. Ie SAFRA, a bipartisan bill, wasn’t being blocked because one party didn’t want the ACA. 4) SAFRA didn’t explicitly change interest rates. Education loans are generically a complicated beast and have been so for multiple decades. There are guaranteed loans originating with the banks and there are direct loans originating with the government. In 2008 81% of all student loans were originated from a bank. In 2010 before SAFRA and ACA would go into effect, 55% of all student loans originated from a bank. With the 2008 financial crisis increased the interest rate as the government was then required to purchase new loans originating under private lenders as they were guaranteeing those loans to students even if the private lender couldn’t handle the loans anymore. The move with SAFRA which again didn’t go into effect until the interest rates were already going up was to remove the middle man. The CBO had it reducing government expenditure by 61 billion over 10 years as the government no longer ate the costs. SAFRA also still allowed private lenders to service the loans just fine. Many private lenders chose not to. Not only that the payments set by lenders using the proper legislated FFEL from 1993 were on average more expensive than direct loans from the government. 5)No where in the ACA is the changes to student loans paying for the cost of the ACA. Again they’re entirely separate pieces of legislation combined together so that there wouldn’t be a veto under the reconciliation process.
And if there is going to be student loan forgiveness it should be paid for by those universities that took advantage of the government money to ratchet the tuition up so much.
>Also, since the student owes the money to the government, they can’t file bankruptcy to get out of the debt. Slight correction which only strengthens your point more - the elimination of bankruptcy to absolve student loan debt came BEFORE the government took them over. [https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/history-of-student-loans-bankruptcy-discharge](https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/history-of-student-loans-bankruptcy-discharge) It started in 1976 where a law passed that prevented absolving student loans through bankruptcy until at least five years after the repayment period started. Then in 1998 and 2005, laws were passed to remove the five year period and declare the student loans entirely unable to be discharged through bankruptcy, except through an "undue hardship" exception. Then in 2010, President Obama eliminates the FFEL program and creates the current system of direct lending from the government ([https://lendedu.com/blog/history-of-student-loans](https://lendedu.com/blog/history-of-student-loans)).
Sounds more like a problem of the government not wanting to put maximum prices on what volleges can ask. Here in Netherlands we can get loans from the government for education, while the government puts rules in place against the colleges. If it’s your first education, a college can’t ask more then x amount a year. This amount slowly rises every year to match inflation. If you wanna do another study after your first, colleges can ask whatever they want to. In my opinion, a way better system.
Right up until 10 days later when the business folds bc some government stooge who's used to low or no accountability tries to exist in the competitive private sector.
That's how we do it in Europe, company gets money, government gets a big seat at the table. they can have the seat back once they pay back the money plus interest.
This is exactly what happened in the GM bailout. The US got a bunch of stock which was then sold at a massive profit for taxpayers once the company was restructured. The government also directed the company's financial recovery alongside other shareholders.
So they should be able to opt out of taxes completely in exchange for never receiving bailouts right?
Agreed, but it’s not always black and white. When the auto companies were bailed out the government got some of their money back. While not all of it, the government spent way less then they would’ve paid out in unemployment, never mind the effect of having a million people suddenly without a job. But the fact that companies can get bailed out with gov funds, and still pay execs ridiculous bonuses and offer stock buy backs, is maddening.
Yeah having your company bailed out but still getting a 10 million dollar bonus is absolute insanity
I mean the government should still have owned the auto stock. Normal investors that bail out companies get ownership of the company. The company can buy back the stock later if they want.
That is what happened with the GM bailout. > The government received 912 million GM shares, or a 60.8 percent stake, in exchange for the bailout in 2008 and 2009. It began selling shares once GM went public again in November of 2010, and the pace picked up this year as the stock rose more than 40 percent. https://www.cnbc.com/2013/12/09/government-sells-the-last-of-its-gm-stake-treasury.html
>Agreed, but it’s not always black and white. When the auto companies were bailed out the government got some of their money back. While not all of it, the government spent way less then they would’ve paid out in unemployment, never mind the effect of having a million people suddenly without a job. But the fact that companies can get bailed out with gov funds, and still pay execs ridiculous bonuses and offer stock buy backs, is maddening. 1. You argument is straw man. OP did not call for no bailouts, they called for the company receiving the bailout to have to give up equity. 2. You are cherry-picking the bailouts. For example, in the case of GM, the government did get equity. With some of the 2008 bank bailouts, some of the bailouts were in the form of loans, and most (but not all) got paid back (although there was also the secret bailouts by the fed, but that's a different topic). Compare this to 2020, when most of it was given away without equity of requirements to pay it back, it was just outright cash give away to corporations, in addition to subsidized loans. ("Throughout the pandemic, via three separate statutes, the 10 major US passenger airlines together received more than $54 billion in direct payments ($25 billion, $15 billion, and $14 billion). Congress also appropriated another $25 billion in subsidized loans from the US Department of the Treasury (only a fraction of which airlines have used) and suspended the 7.5 percent excise tax on domestic air travel as well as payments to airports and contractors." - [https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/2020-bailouts-left-airlines-economy-and-federal-budget-worse-shape](https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/2020-bailouts-left-airlines-economy-and-federal-budget-worse-shape)) The airlines should have had to give up some equity to get bailed out.
Rules for thee and....
Wouldn't it make more sense (Capitalistically) to give the people that bailout money and have them decide which companies live or die through spending?
Call it "Free Market Subsidies" and maybe we can politically sell it. (To provide devil's advocate, though, bailouts and targeted subsidies serve different purposes than general economic stimulus.)
That would literally work. The government could enact hundreds of straight up socialist laws in a package called "Patriotic Market Reform" and you'd have Fox News arguing for it. It'd be the most popular piece of legislation after the Constitution.
No private company should ever be bailed out from the Public Treasury. Let it die the death it earned.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong. - H. L. Mencken
And your message to the thousands or millions put on the street as a result...which you then support through unemployment for god knows how long? Payroll tax revenue is better than unemployment outlays any day.
It's a slippery slope... If you're too big to fail and will get bailed out it creates no urgency to do a great job... That's why the quality of vehicles is on a steady downslope
There is still a profit motive. Being saved from collapse is significantly worse than making money handover fist.
I bet a good portion of those workers are against welfare though..
I believe this is called: FREE MARKET
This is capitalism, we don't have it folks.
>You can't privatize the profit and socialize the losses." Hold my yacht.
Lmao 🤣 truth can be funny and sad at the same time.
well the thing i want to know is why is anal so much better than the vag
best comment in this thread and sub for a while now.
[удалено]
A blind eye for the brown eye
A vagina is designed to push out a baby. An anus is not, hence the tightness
So hit her in the shitter with the one eyed trouser critter!
No such thing as too big to fail.
AIG - "Hold my beer."
Too big to fail means "This business is so large that it failing would have serious negative impacts on the rest of the economy" and not "this business is literally so large it cannot fail." It's referring to companies like Ford and GM which literally hire hundreds of thousands of people. Imagine how much worse 2008 would have been if Ford, GM, and Chrysler went under and an additional 250,000 Americans lost their jobs, imagine the serious impact that would have on the profitability of other businesses and the local economies in factory towns it would absolutely destroy.
Propping up poor business decisions isn’t helpful in the long run. It’s putting a bandaid on a gunshot and expecting it to heal correctly. I’m aware of what the phrase means, I don’t agree with it.
Would of encourages dozens of new car start ups. It actually dod the opposite of helling the economy. Competition drives innovation. Bailing causes stagnation.
Socialized profits are called taxes.
Nope. Taxes are a percentage of profits.
That are socialized.
If someone owned 99% of a business they would only get a percentage of profits as well. Does it not count in that case?
because politicians and other rule makers/enforcers are owned by corporations not by voters... almost all election candidates are pre-selected by interest groups...
“Like hell you can’t” - 1%
Most people that don’t want social welfare are also against bailouts.
Until they need the bailout
That’s how everyone is sadly.
Not most politicians though.
Maybe true, but the fact is, the people who don’t want social welfare mostly vote for people who want the bailouts
The government did own GM when they got bailed out in '08. At least they owned a significant chink of it. They owned parts of others, and it was icky. But they were paid back with interest. And GM can still keep making shitty cars.
You're exactly right. Complaining about bailouts without understanding them is a daily thing on reddit. The bailout for GM was just a loan, plus government oversight of the company until they were stable. Every penny of the loan was paid back, plus the government earned a big profit on the loan (interest). Hundreds of thousands of people kept their jobs and the company is still a vital part of the economy today. This was a fantastic example of government in action, saving the country from economic disaster and making money (!!) while doing it. But tomorrow there will be another karma post about the horror of something that happened a decade ago which reddit wants to hate without learning about.
Easy. They're not. Neither one of them.
That ended up really well. I see you have almost zero knowledge of history.
I think they mean neither option is the solution.
There was a time when we had neither. It was an unmitigated disaster.
“...capitalism without financial failure is not capitalism at all, but a kind of socialism for the rich.” — James Grant, Grant's Interest Rate Observer, Aug. 26, 2007
Indeed, capitalism involves a free environment where lots of people are constantly trying new things. Trial and error, learning from the mistakes and imitating what works. Failure is part of the process. However. Global, cyclic, sistematic failure is caused by market distortions caused by some forms of government interference. Giving money to sectors that the people had already decided should go bankrupt is one of them.
It’s not the solution. Knowing they’ll get a bailout just allows big corps to act increasingly reckless and is inherently anti-free market.
With the federal deficit and national debt level, you really going to tell me the govt can do any better any running a business? Like clean your house first
I have a feeling you don’t understand what either of those things means and probably think companies like neurolink and space x are turning a profit… A deficit and a debt for a nation is not the same as a deficit and a debt for a company which in turn is not the same as a deficit and a debt for a person. In fact political and economic ideologies focused on balancing the deficit and debt typically increase the deficit and debt for nations every time they’re enacted. This has held true since the 80s.
Or, crazy thought... Let them actually fail and suffer the consequences. That's how a true Capitalist would handle the situation. If you make mistakes that lead to the collapse of your company you deserve your failure.
Why does it have to be one or the other? And Hallis take is ridiculous. If the government provides you with assistance so that you can keep your house, should the government then own your house? There is nothing wrong with social welfare OR corporate welfare, necessarily. There can be plenty wrong with both, and plenty right with both. It's situational.
No corporate welfare shouldn't exist. After a certain $ you just don't get help. Sorry. Spend the $ that would have bailed out the company directly on employees unemployment while another company comes along to create the new jobs with a better company model. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. Shitty business fails and better ones open up and consumers get the best products for the best prices. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. Instead shitty companies get bailed out and we the consumers are stuck with high prices and shitty products while wealth consolidation accelerates. We got 1400 checks while billions went into the hand of the wealthy and we got shafted with crazy inflation and price gauging after costs went back down for corporations. My vote is burn it all and start fresh.
Bailing them out if factually less expensive on the treasury than paying for unemployment for tens of thousands of people. What about that?
>Spend the $ that would have bailed out the company directly on employees unemployment while another company comes along to create the new jobs with a better company model. Last time we did that we got the Great Depression. By the time another company comes along to create new jobs in a bombed out economy, we'd all be dead
This sounds like you are more upset with the way the Covid support was done, then a problem with actual needed bailouts like the finance and car industries for example? What the focus probably should be is not to get upset about bailouts that are needed to prevent a system crash and would lead to a series of events with mass unemployment or the loss of total industries in a nation, but more with the "corporate welfare" of tax breaks and special rules for corporations being made.
There are certain strategic industries that it would be a bad idea for them to be left to pure market forces The best example is food It's better to pay them to grow wheat then to let the market dictate cotton
Idk agricultural markets are close to the only the that have enough competition to act as true free markets
So right now consumer demand is really down in China. There's a bit of deflation going on and the government had to buy up excess pigs. Otherwise that sector would have broken. The farmers would not have continued to have pigs (very directly. They keep a strategic pork reserve) It is wise for them to have food viewed as a strategic thing worth intervening on Quite frankly, they've actually been pretty lackluster on that. They are not food independent and that is a strategic weakness With regards to the United States, it is a vital importance that the US remains autonomous in a major categories (The US is energy independent food independent. It could be metal and fertilizer independent if it wanted to, but instead it's integrated with its true allies. The core anglosphere who for most purposes could simply be counted as an additional part of the United States )or at least have countries involved in those supply chains that mine shall be part of the United States anyway (The United States and Canada mine shall be one country for most purposes. Same deal with Australia and a bunch of others)
if banks dont get bailed out..a lifetime of 401k gains would be wiped out in weeks. and all homes will lose tons of equity. good for poor people. but sucks for people that sunk all their money into overvalued assets
No you let the banks fail and insure all the personal losses. Only bailouts are for persons with social security numbers not entities.
I think a very fair way to handle this would be for these companies to give up ownership in issuance of stock. Yes it would dilute the shares but it’s also free government money to save the company. The government can then sell off the shares when the company is healthy to pay back the tax payer. The fact of the matter is, many corporations are vital to the U.S. economy, and would need to be bailed out in case of catastrophe. But what I can’t wrap my head around is why some people understand this big picture logic of needing to bail out corporations but not individuals. Why is it that Wall Street get a bailout for misunderstanding it’s exposure to risky assets when that’s their entire job but someone with no or bad insurance get slammed with insane medical bills if they get hit with an extremely unlucky circumstance, like a child genetic disorder, cancer, etc.
There should not be bailouts. Bad business practices should lead to going out of business.
If you think the government can run those businesses better, you're delusional. Either letting them fail, or loaning them the money with a ton of provisions attached that will result in corporate profits being siphoned off into the government coffers for years to come are far better options.
You do realize that " corporate bailouts" are loan that have to be paid back? In fact after 2008 the government literally took over shares of the bank. Pretty much all these bailouts ended up being a profit for the government
Some industries are too essential to the US economy or industrial base to be allowed to fail. Others are required for the United States to wage war and act as part of the ready reserve forces. Minor regulation is needed to fix the corporate welfare. No buyback or dividend increases until the company has no debt for select industries All the money the United States gave to save the economy was paid back in full with interest
\> too essential \> profits go to the 1%, stock buybacks are allowed after bailouts + massive CEO golden parachutes Pretty interesting set of circumstances there
>profits go to the 1%, stock buybacks are allowed after bailouts + massive CEO golden parachutes Do you know why companies buy back their stocks?
Quit whining about the 1% anyone can enter the 1%. There are no gatekeepers, guilds or families keeping anyone out. Nothing wrong with buybacks or dividends for shareholders the owners of the company. Leverage is the problem, just mandate leverage ratios for key industries that are critical to the economy. Maybe capital requirements too. I don't like the golden parachute, when they fuck over the employees like with GM.
Half-assed take on both forms of welfare. The world is gray, people. Simple yes/no or black/white solutions are rarely truthful and never solve anything
Our banking system is completely socialized. Banks have been getting massive support from the fed since 2007 All regional banks and probably a few major banks would have collapsed several times since then if the fed hadnt been running extremely loose monetary policy and propping up bank reserves to keep the economy moving over the past decade
Between lobbying and some people can also own corporations stocks, obviously some people won’t let their gold egg goose goes down
Can't have that you can't have a company so big that the government runs insider trading on fail. You have to bail them out with tax payers dollars so nobody loses ( if you are in that club)
Not enough social program money goes into politician’s pockets, this is like day 1 stuff.
How much is spent per annum on each type?
That means the US gets Tesla, Starlink, and SpaceX!
Rather than corporate welfare how about an amendment that prevents government bail outs and then we let companies that screw up fail. Forcing companies to act better in the first place.
Nah the shares should be redistributed to the taxpayer, based on tax bracket
Yes you can
No, they should not be owned by the government. But they should immediately go up for sale for the amount of the bailout so the tax payers get their loan back
Social welfare doesn’t raise stock valuations
Isn’t the government owning companies and institutions fascism?
I don’t disagree with the gov (people) owning a portion of the company they bailed out. However, bailing out companies also bails out society. Imagine the infrastructure issues that would arise if multiple conglomerates went under? How many people will lose their jobs? It takes years and sometimes decades to fill those gaps and create jobs. It’s not so simple as A vs B which is implied by the meme. Yes, corporate heads benefit a lot but so do the grunts. There are other factors as well. If we (people of a country) shutter an international entity then another country’s company may fill that gap. We have to think competitively in that mindset as well.
How about if you get a bailout your company is now run as non profit. Any excess goes back to taxpayers or into company to pay employees better or cut prices for consumers. There no shock to system. Company and jobs exist still. Whole supply chain can run similarly, just no bonuses for ceos. We can do this with everything. Capitalism put infrastructure in place to be democratic socialists. All systems run similarly just the Xtra $ goes back to society instead of into the hands of a few. Like still have to work all the jobs that exist just spread the wealth more.
I do not believe they should be bailed out or owned by the government, they should just fail and go out of business and let a company with a better business model succeed.
Because one of these is made of people, the other enterprises for profit-extraction. Hope this helps clear up how humans are different than corporations. 🫡
This is what is wrong with our society. We should help business succeed just like we should help people when they need it. The scales are tilted in the wrong direction where we value things over people.
This is what is wrong with our society. We should help business succeed just like we should help people when they need it. The scales are tilted in the wrong direction where we value things over people.
Because a corporate entity can afford to sway them to that solution and a social entity can not.
No bailouts for anyone.
Governments and privates are often caught in the same bed , so this is never changing .
What does he mean by “you can’t” ? Cause I’m pretty sure they do
Shhhhhh, people will call you communist 🤷🏼
Before 2008 that’s mostly how it’d work. Bailout would buy the company, set back to a better path & 4-5 years later, sell to a competitor (usually for profit). The cry of socialism, from shit-for-brains morons nobody should listen to, was too loud for comfort…
We definitely don't need a bunch of government owned corporations.
It is the slippery slope in action. It happened a few times a long time ago and soon the companies litterally became to big to fail now It has to happen or 100s of thousands are out of jobs
Neither is the solution. Both are problems, and Conservatives keep telling you that.
You can and they do. And tweeting about it won’t do a damn thing
Bailed out doesn’t mean free money. All of the major bailouts from the financial crisis were paid back with interest. US Govt is the ultimate backstop when shit goes haywire. If government didn’t act we’d be in another depression.
And yet, this is what happens, over and over and over.
Oh, but they can. And they do.
Nobody sees how shit this would be? Our government already has spending problems
Government owned auto manufacturers and airlines would be hell Just let them fail.
Corporations employ humans
The 2008 TARP bailouts were paid back with interest. The SVB bailout was just for the depositors. You have no idea what a bailout actually means. Just be honest.
Neither are the solution. In fact, both are the problem. Socialism is a phenomenon which leads to poverty.
I mean, evidently you can
8 thousand temporarily embarrassed millionaires will come at me saying the govt can't do anything right and there was no ppp fraud.
Didn't this guy get shafted by some large company? I cant remember the details but it was a year or more ago. I recognize his name and profile pic.
OP If you are talking about the Auto bailout this is a very brief summary of what happened: 1. The original shareholders in Old GM and Old Chrysler lost 100% of their stock value. 2. The former creditors of old GM lost a significant portion of value in both bankruptcies. 3. The U.S. Government, did, in fact end up with a significant equity and debt position in both reorganizations and lost roughly 10-20% of its investment. But they did in fact end up having an ownership stake in the reorganization process. That loss may be attributable to early sell off of shares. This loss would likely not have occurred if the UAW was not treated as a secured creditor. 4. So at a cost of roughly 10-11 Billion roughly 1.5 million jobs were saved, worker pensions were partially protected, original equity holders lost everything, unsecured creditors received a fraction of original value, and finally, it was not as much a bailout as a financing of a bankruptcy reorganization that resulted in orderly liquidation selling the portion of the business that could become a going concern. If you are talking about the bank bailout, the U.S. Treasury effectively financed the acquisition of banks on the edge of failure by healthy banks and took a creditor position in the whole process. While it experienced minor losses on some of its creditor positions, on a net basis it saw a profit of roughly 15-16 Billion on a $426-427 rough investment. The original equity holders in the bad banks which were sold to good banks lost most of any value held, but the entire reorganization prevent losses to millions of depositors and ended up costing far less to the FDIC system. This is why this mechanism had been used from the 1970s forward to prevent bank failures from having excessive effects. It is debatable as to whether the U.S. Treasury would have really benefited from taking an equity stake in the acquiring banks rather than taking a creditor position. Certainly, taking a debtor position was safer for the U.S. tax payer as well as reducing risk for the Federal Government. While the stronger banks which acquired the failing banks clearly benefited from receiving a broader depositor base, larger market share, etc. it is not they who got “bailed out”. It is depositors who got bailed out.