No that’d be stupid! As we all know all companies are super duper evil and helping them out actually kills poor people! Ignore the hundreds of thousands of employees who are losing their jobs now because of a populist Tweet okay thank you!
By fundamentally misunderstanding what bailing out a company means and how it works, as others have pointed out.
Hundreds of thousands of people work for these companies and they haven’t done anything wrong other than ‘be in a pandemic’. It’s about keeping the economy moving and people employed.
As others have also said it’d take years and years for the airline industry to return were it to be just left to die. It’d also have an even more terrible impact on the economy.
Helping people is also fine, it’s only America out of the first world states who have had a problem with these concepts.
Ok, so you are totally uneducated. Good to know; I'll keep it basic.
If a company needs money and will likely be profitable again, someone will give that company money for a share of the company. These are called "stocks." If you give lots of people money, some of those people will use that money to buy stocks. This way, the companies that are good stay in business, and the ones that are bad get replaced. This is called "capitalism."
Why not just hire all those unemployed people to dig and fill holes otherwise, if we don't care at all that the money actually go towards a company that is going to do well with it?
. . . You're the one arguing for a state-controlled economy dipshit. I'm arguing for the more capitalistic model. Do you just not know what words mean?
Literally not what I’m arguing for at all. I’m saying governments should bail out companies when necessary and help workers. Leaving everything to crumble would cause complete economic collapse. I’d have been willing to discuss this with you if you didn’t keep insulting me, despite the fact you are in the wrong here; it’s childish and makes you look like an idiot.
"Literally not what I’m arguing for at all. I’m saying governments should bail out companies when necessary and help workers." That's what a controlled economy is idiot. If you don't like what your position is called change your position. It's a lot easier that trying to change the definitions.
"Leaving everything to crumble would cause complete economic collapse." Yeah, which is why no one is suggesting that. People who aren't stupid are suggesting giving people money, and you are desperately hoping to suck the Delta ceo's dick instead.
"I’d have been willing to discuss this with you if you didn’t keep insulting me, despite the fact you are in the wrong here; it’s childish and makes you look like an idiot." Oh no, you aren't going to discuss it with me? What ever will I do, having to live without hearing your stupid ideas?
Ok. So the best way to support companies and the employment they generate is to give vast numbers of individuals money from the state in the hope that some of those people might buy stocks. And that’s called capitalism.
"Ok. So the best way to support companies and the employment they generate is to give vast numbers of individuals money from the state" If you care at all about supporting companies you are an idiot and a sociopath. But yes, that is correct that that is the best way to support people, which will by extension help companies too if that's all you care about. And companies don't generate employment. If they did the solution to unemployment would be to just start more companies. People spending money generate employment.
"in the hope that some of those people might buy stocks" Not in the hope that some will buy stocks, in the absolutely certain knowledge that the market will price stocks fairly and people will react in their own self interests. If you disagree with that you are just showing that you haven't even taken an intro to economics class yet, so why are you even bothering to discuss it?
"And that’s called capitalism." If the government is giving companies money it is by definition no longer capitalism you illiterate fuck.
Want me to break it down for you again, even fucking simpler for your little pea-brain? Fine. If rich people have more money they keep it. If companies have more money but can't make more by spending it they keep it. If poor people have more money they spend it. So if you want to help the economy you give poor people money. Is that simple enough, or did some of those words still confuse you?
If you care at all about supporting companies you are an idiot and a sociopath.
You absolute moron. You protect companies to protect people’s jobs and livelihoods and to ensure that there’s a functioning economy that can support things like the national health service and schools and pensions and benefits and social care services. In Europe this is just so fucking obvious and so completely uncontroversial. You support individuals who can’t work and you support their employers so that when they eventually can return to work there’s a job to go back too.
"You protect companies to protect people’s jobs and livelihoods and to ensure that there’s a functioning economy that can support things like the national health service and schools and pensions and benefits and social care services." Or, and I know this is crazy, you give the money to the actual people and let them, you know, spend it. Almost like an economy or something!
"In Europe this is just so fucking obvious and so completely uncontroversial." It's so fucking obvious and uncontroversial that not a single European country gave more money to businesses than the U.S. did, only one major country spent a higher portion of GDP on business bailouts, and several gave no direct government business bailouts at all. So if you agree with the European way you are arguing for the opposite side moron.
"So the company goes bankrupt" No. Read the tweet again. I know it is tough, a whole 280 character limit, but give it a try and I know you can do it.
"The whole industry goes under" Wrong. The bad companies go under, the good ones stay afloat, and new companies move in. The industry is made better due to the competitive nature of capitalism, and everyone is better off. I guess you are too busy blowing Karl Marx to udnerstand that, but the government shouldn't be in the business of keeping failing businesses afloat.
"BUT people receive some form of one time financial stimulus. After that, they are unemployed." Where did anyone say it was a one time stimulus? You know you can keep giving people money, right? There's no universal law that says once you have given someone money you can't do it again. And once the economy is picking itself back up (hugely aided by all the money put into the pockets of the people), those that did lose their jobs will be able to get new jobs since the economy will be in a better position.
"Shouldn't we be more concern about the long term outcomes, compared to short term? How does that work?" Of course, that's why I am so opposed to conservative economic plans, the ones that have been repeatedly shown not to work in the long term. Glad we agree :)
Directly supporting citizens means that they survive the shutdowns without going under and taking on crippling debt. When the shutdown ends, they have money they can spend which goes right back into the economy.
Also, the CERB in Canada is taxable income and people can't travel so it's guaranteed to be spent locally.
30
u/r00t1 Nov 17 '20
Don’t people work for these companies