8 ms·

Until you beg for a bail out.

tathougies 7y ago
I mean, the government shut down the economy, not the virus. Even after we all knew about it, spring breakers were still partying, people still wanted to go on vacation, people were still going out. The government had to shut the economy down with the threat of force. That action alone should open the government up to civil tort liability. Like, if the government imprisoned me unjustly they would have to pay me when I sue them. The same should apply here. Without government intervention, the market would have still been going on strong. If the government orders an indefinite shut down, a huge violation of American's civil rights (but one that is warranted in my opinion), then they need to properly reimburse for that drastic change in civil rights. If the government did not want to pay, they should have let the market decline due to people dying and then refuse to bail out corporations, because that would have been a problem of the market's own making. Now it is a problem of the government's making, and they have to compensate, period.
- addHocker 7y ago
  If the government would not act, it would open any public buisness up to liability from transmitting a lethal disease. This is libertarian nonsense.
- duxup 7y ago
  Wouldn't the result of your argument simply be that there be no effort on the government to stop / slow / or manage the spread of a dangerous disease to simply avoid the liability you describe?
  - tathougies 7y ago
    If you accepted that it is okay to exchange people's lives for money, then yes. I don't. I do accept that monetary compensation is a decent enough equivalent to a suspension in liberty for a temporary period of time though Life is a more important right than liberty, but loss of any right must be compensated appropriately. The same is true for property. The government currently seeks to co-opt private property for its use fighting the pandemic. I think it is right to do so. However, any co-opting of private property (i.e., eminent domain powers) must be met with an appropriate compensation, as the constitution requires. Otherwise, you basically are calling for the legalization of civil asset forfeiture (which, if I'll remind you, the Supreme Court declared illegal).
    - duxup 7y ago
      You don't "accepted that it is okay to exchange people's lives for money" but that's the incentive you're creating by your proposal. I don't think efforts to deal with a pandemic is "legalization of civil asset forfeiture" and it feels like your understanding of the law is swerving all over the road here.
      - tathougies 7y ago
        > I don't think efforts to deal with a pandemic is "legalization of civil asset forfeiture" and it feels like your understanding of the law is swerving all over the road here. That is not at all what I said. I said that stopping the economy without compensation to deal with a pandemic is akin to civil asset forfeiture. This has nothing to do with law, but with ethics. You take something away, you have to pay it back.
        duxup 7y ago
        There's a weird sort of thing here going where you seem to expect the government to act as a parachute for say a pandemic, but if the results are in any way negative they have to both eat the cost of the pandemic, and reimburse you if for some reason fighting it involves negatives for you. That seems like double dipping / transferring responsibility of all the problems of the world onto the government regardless if they created them or not.
        honeyloop 7y ago
        They are saying that, due to restrictions put in place by the government, certain industries have been adversely affected and need to be made right. Closed restaurants, for example, have absolutely no revenue due to the actions of the government. How does that not warrant compensation by the entity that imposed the restrictions? Yes, it was for the best. But it still hindered certain industries ability to thrive (or make money at all).
        tathougies 7y ago
        > but if the results are in any way negative they have to both eat the cost of the pandemic, and reimburse you if for some reason fighting it involves negatives for you. Yes, like how I expect the government to do things like conduct high speed chases of dangerous criminals, but if their police car hits me, I expect reimbursement. > That seems like double dipping / transferring responsibility of all the problems of the world onto the government regardless if they created them or not. The Government's checkbook ultimately comes from people's taxes, and yes, I expect people to be willing to float the cost of this economic shutdown. After all, the government's actions are undoubtedly keeping you safe. Taxes are a way of reallocating the cost. As someone making income during the shutdown, my taxes will be higher than someone who is not (even if they get a bailout). Thus I will help pay for them. This is good. Not every business is equally affected. Those that continue to remain active are able to do so because the government has taken massive steps to prevent a lot of people from dying. These businesses are unfairly benefiting from the current economic climate, while some businesses are being forced to suffer. The costs of this economic shutdown ought to be socialized, since the benefit of the shutdown is for society. This kind of economic action is unprecedented. I do not expect government compensation for natural disasters in general, because those are not the government's fault. I especially do not expect government compensation when people or businesses make mistakes. For example, in 2008, banks wrote bad loans, and irresponsible consumers took them on. There should have been no bailout at all. None of what happened was really the government's fault. However, if we did that, I don't see how anyone can escape responsibility here.
- ornornor 7y ago
  The market is not a living being. It’s a concept. Why should The Market matter more than real people’s lives? We’ve seen how well letting The Market self regulate and its players self regulate goes... Tobacco is addictive and kills lots of people with totally preventable deaths. But for decades tobacco companies were allowed to profit while ruining people’s lives. Had there not been for laws restricting tobacco use, we would be a lot worse off. That’s one example. There are countless others.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    It shouldn't at all. Did you read my comment? I said the government's actions were warranted. However, that doesn't exculpate them of responsibility to the people. The citizens of the United States are guaranteed the right to liberty. The government stopped that forcefully, so the people need compensation. That is true even if the government was right to forcefully stop them.
    - save_ferris 7y ago
      So the government's actions were warranted, but said actions still violate people's rights and therefore the government should be held responsible? Who do you think pays the government's legal fees and damages in such case? The taxpayer does.
      - tathougies 7y ago
        > Who do you think pays the government's legal fees and damages in such case? The taxpayer does. Sure. That doesn't mean the government doesn't owe everyone money. Some individuals have more income than others. A progressive tax system ensures that they will end up paying more for it than I will. I will also point out that I said the government owes everyone for lost income. Not all companies or individuals experienced income loss. I for example can work from home, so I only should be paid for my loss of liberty. Others cannot work at all right now (like airlines and their employees) so they (both companies and individuals) ought to be paid more in addition to their compensation for loss of liberty.
      - 7y ago
- save_ferris 7y ago
  Are you suggesting that the government acted inappropriately by shutting down public activity? This disease has the potential to kill millions, is health and human safety not a responsibility that falls on the government?
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > Are you suggesting that the government acted inappropriately by shutting down public activity? No not at all. I would highly encourage you to actually read my comment. I said: > If the government orders an indefinite shut down, a huge violation of American's civil rights (but one that is warranted in my opinion), then they need to properly reimburse for that drastic change in civil rights. In this sentence 'but one that is warranted in my opinion' indicates that I think the government's actions to shut down the economy are warranted. However, I think we must be reimbursed for the government-ordered loss of rights. Like, if the government wants to seize a house to build a road (eminent domain), I think the government can act correctly to do that, but they must reimburse the home owner the full cost of the house on the market. This means that the government in this case needs to reimburse everyone for the full cost of what their time would have garnered them on the market during the shutdown.
    - objektif 7y ago
      What a pile of nonsense. government is doing this for the safety of its citizens. So consider saved lives as a pay back from the government.
      - leetcrew 7y ago
        try thinking about it from another angle. my company has not (yet) been severely affected by the shutdown. I'm working from home still collecting my usual paycheck. the sit-down restaurant right next door to me is taking a huge hit for our safety. you don't think we, the taxpayers, owe them anything?
        objektif 7y ago
- inopinatus 7y ago
  Sounds great, how much do you want for your first amendment rights?
  - tathougies 7y ago
    Depends on how long this goes on for?
- rexpop 7y ago
  > the government shut down the economy, not the virus. This is not true. I put myself in self-isolation over a week before the State mandate came out. Many of us are doing this for ourselves, based on collective intelligence and agreement.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    That's fine, but for most Americans, this is simply not the case, or we wouldn't need government stay-home orders. People like you are not what is causing restaurants to shut down or airlines to refund their tickets (causing the cash pinch they're in). That was all threat of government crackdown.
    - xyzzyz 7y ago
      At least with airlines, they'd be heavily affected even without US government meddling, as they'd have lost lots of very profitable business from international flights.
      - tathougies 7y ago
        Sure, but they were also threatened with governmental intervention if they didn't refund their tickets (including ones bought under the non-refundable price range). They ended up refunding everyone, but the cash they refunded had already been used to pay for fuel, to hire and train people, to pay airport fees, etc. In a fair world, where everyone made good on their agreements, those consumers that bought non-refundable tickets wouldn't get their money back, but they did. I don't think airlines need to have all their income replaced, just that which is directly attributable to governmental intervention. If they're still in the red after that, the money should go to their creditors and then their investors. That is what we all agreed to.
    - choward 7y ago
      When the government decided to regulate smoking that hurt tobacco company profits, but it was for public safety. Should the government have had to reimburse tobacco companies? No. The government changes laws all the time. Some of these laws hurt/help businesses more than others. Do they owe the ones they hurt money? I don't think so.
- Teever 7y ago
  > That action alone should open the government up to civil tort liability. I was under the impression that the US Gov't can decide whether or not it can be sued by a plaintiff. If that is the case I have a sneaking suspicion that the Government would decline to continue with any case against itself regarding this issue. Do you think it would be any different?
  - kortilla 7y ago
    “The government” is just people and in the US there are many people who don’t believe the government should have unlimited power, including many who work in the government as judges.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > I was under the impression that the US Gov't can decide whether or not it can be sued by a plaintiff. If that is the case I have a sneaking suspicion that the Government would decline to continue with any case against itself regarding this issue. Yes, the US government has inherited the concept of sovereign immunity from UK common law. That means the US can only be sued with its consent. However, Congress (which represents the people) has waived its own sovereign immunity in most cases. Thus, the people of the United States can sue the United States since they have (via Congress) given their own consent to sue themselves.
- 0x8BADF00D 7y ago
  These companies are not struggling because the government told them to shut down. They're struggling because they're levered to the hilt with cheap debt from the Fed. They should not be bailed out and allowed to fail, because the management was incompetent and did not save any money for a downturn. As an aside, this used to be a site of entrepreneurs and hackers. Sadly, now it is filled with government cronies and apologists of bad behavior. It's shameful.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    > These companies are not struggling because the government told them to shut down. They're struggling because they're levered to the hilt with cheap debt from the Fed. Strangely enough, these companies were totally fine before the government shut them down, despite tons of cheap debt. How is it that none of them asked to be bailed out in February? Maybe the forced shutdown have something to do with their problems after all?
  - tathougies 7y ago
    So you don't think refunding non-refundable tickets had anything to do with it? When you buy a ticket, that money is used to buy gas, pay wages, pay debt, etc. That money is not typically refundable, unless you pay a higher ticket price as an insurance premium against the risk you need a refund. Can you ask an employee for wages back, a gas supplier for a return, or a creditor for a stop payment? As a courtesy, the airlines refunded all tickets (which is a lot of money). Now they don't have a lot of cash. That is not fair, at all. A lot of companies are funded with cheap debt and are not at all affected by the shutdown because their industry is unaffected by the government's meddling. In fact, they're making a lot of money right now.
  - jariel 7y ago
    This isn't true. The vast majority of failing businesses right now had no special access to government programs. In fact, the larger organizations will probably do just fine, and they were far more likely to lever previous bailouts and cheap financing. The people getting nailed right now are individual contractors, individual employees, small business owners. And yes, it's totally unfair that Boeing will probably get a big fat government bailout.
- jariel 7y ago
  This is absurd. If the government did not coordinate action, not only would 20% of need hospitalization and wouldn't get it (so we'd be dying in the streets), 'the economy' would fall apart quite quickly on its own. The government's actions are quite literally saving the economy in the long run. Yes, we need be wary of unnecessary intervention etc. but I'm just shocked to read this kind of stuff. The government is using the legit powers it has, mostly for what it's supposed to do right now. If anything, there could be a considerably more direct intervention in healthcare.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > Yes, we need be wary of unnecessary intervention etc. but I'm just shocked to read this kind of stuff. You are shocked that I think people ought to be compensated for the income lost due to government order? I am shocked that you think it is okay for the government to take people's property and liberty without even thinking of compensation, as they are mandated to do by law.
    - choward 7y ago
      > I am shocked that you think it is okay for the government to take people's property and liberty What property are you referring to? What about the money they took from me to fund the Iraq War? And you think the government should compensate when they take away liberty? Do you have any idea what the NSA has done since 9/11? I never voted to have my 4th amendment rights taken away and I've never been compensated. Earlier you said > I mean, the government shut down the economy, not the virus. That seems to be the entire basis of your argument. First of all, the government didn't "shut down the economy". They responded to a pandemic. What other action could they have taken? Pretty much any action will have an effect on the economy. So what? This isn't new. What about when a hurricane is coming or something else that causes forced evacuations? Or when people aren't allowed back to their homes immediately after? They could have saved their property if the government didn't intervene, right? Does the government owe them money? Companies should be responsible like citizens are expected to be. They shouldn't just always assume the happy path and then cry when a disaster happens because they weren't prepared. Always be prepared. You're profits may not accelerate as fast but that's not my problem. Businesses being dependent on loans being the norm has to stop. That's why our economy is so fragile.
- seb314 7y ago
  seriously, are you trolling? in general, measuring the cost of government decisions seems good. But here, you seem to be suggesting that a) if the government acts, it should pay the income you'd had if you had kept working (and assuming corona hadn't stopped you anyway) or b) if it doesn't act, I guess you'd like to claim damages for that family member that got killed by corona because the goverent allowed the epidemic to get out of control?
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > b) if it doesn't act, I guess you'd like to claim damages for that family member that got killed by corona because the goverent allowed the epidemic to get out of control? No. The government has no real control over the epidemic. In some ways, this is the trolley problem. There is a trolley (COVID-19) heading towards a group of people (the general population), and the government can pull a lever to switch the track to a smaller group of persons (the industries impacted by COVID). Make no mistake about it, some people will die if the government simply ordered people to stay home (i.e., pulls the lever). Some will die due to suicide because of mental illness or because they lost their job. Some will die because they don't have the social support they're used to. Either way, there will certainly be deaths caused if the government did nothing else and just pulled the lever (i.e., ordered people to stay home and business to shut down) Nevertheless, the government has currently chosen to pull the lever to redirect the trolley towards this group of people. Because it has done so, it now owes those people restitution to mitigate the impacts of the government's decision. This is what a stimulus bill is. If the government did nothing, it wouldn't owe anyone anything. This is not such a crazy belief. Many major moral philosophies claim that by pulling the lever, you gain responsibility for the outcome, whereas by doing nothing, you are not responsible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
- triceratops 7y ago
  > they should have let the market decline due to people dying and then refuse to bail out corporations That sounds great in theory. In practice, you'd have everyone who could work from home continuing to do so. And everyone who could not, forced to come to work, get sick and possibly die, under pain of losing their job (and therefore, their healthcare).

I mean, the government shut down the economy, not the virus. Even after we all knew about it, spring breakers were still partying, people still wanted to go on vacation, people were still going out. The government had to shut the economy down with the threat of force. That action alone should open the government up to civil tort liability. Like, if the government imprisoned me unjustly they would have to pay me when I sue them. The same should apply here. Without government intervention, the market would have still been going on strong. If the government orders an indefinite shut down, a huge violation of American's civil rights (but one that is warranted in my opinion), then they need to properly reimburse for that drastic change in civil rights. If the government did not want to pay, they should have let the market decline due to people dying and then refuse to bail out corporations, because that would have been a problem of the market's own making. Now it is a problem of the government's making, and they have to compensate, period.

addHocker 7y ago
If the government would not act, it would open any public buisness up to liability from transmitting a lethal disease. This is libertarian nonsense.
duxup 7y ago
Wouldn't the result of your argument simply be that there be no effort on the government to stop / slow / or manage the spread of a dangerous disease to simply avoid the liability you describe?
- tathougies 7y ago
  If you accepted that it is okay to exchange people's lives for money, then yes. I don't. I do accept that monetary compensation is a decent enough equivalent to a suspension in liberty for a temporary period of time though Life is a more important right than liberty, but loss of any right must be compensated appropriately. The same is true for property. The government currently seeks to co-opt private property for its use fighting the pandemic. I think it is right to do so. However, any co-opting of private property (i.e., eminent domain powers) must be met with an appropriate compensation, as the constitution requires. Otherwise, you basically are calling for the legalization of civil asset forfeiture (which, if I'll remind you, the Supreme Court declared illegal).
  - duxup 7y ago
    You don't "accepted that it is okay to exchange people's lives for money" but that's the incentive you're creating by your proposal. I don't think efforts to deal with a pandemic is "legalization of civil asset forfeiture" and it feels like your understanding of the law is swerving all over the road here.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      > I don't think efforts to deal with a pandemic is "legalization of civil asset forfeiture" and it feels like your understanding of the law is swerving all over the road here. That is not at all what I said. I said that stopping the economy without compensation to deal with a pandemic is akin to civil asset forfeiture. This has nothing to do with law, but with ethics. You take something away, you have to pay it back.
      - duxup 7y ago
        There's a weird sort of thing here going where you seem to expect the government to act as a parachute for say a pandemic, but if the results are in any way negative they have to both eat the cost of the pandemic, and reimburse you if for some reason fighting it involves negatives for you. That seems like double dipping / transferring responsibility of all the problems of the world onto the government regardless if they created them or not.
        honeyloop 7y ago
        They are saying that, due to restrictions put in place by the government, certain industries have been adversely affected and need to be made right. Closed restaurants, for example, have absolutely no revenue due to the actions of the government. How does that not warrant compensation by the entity that imposed the restrictions? Yes, it was for the best. But it still hindered certain industries ability to thrive (or make money at all).
        tathougies 7y ago
        > but if the results are in any way negative they have to both eat the cost of the pandemic, and reimburse you if for some reason fighting it involves negatives for you. Yes, like how I expect the government to do things like conduct high speed chases of dangerous criminals, but if their police car hits me, I expect reimbursement. > That seems like double dipping / transferring responsibility of all the problems of the world onto the government regardless if they created them or not. The Government's checkbook ultimately comes from people's taxes, and yes, I expect people to be willing to float the cost of this economic shutdown. After all, the government's actions are undoubtedly keeping you safe. Taxes are a way of reallocating the cost. As someone making income during the shutdown, my taxes will be higher than someone who is not (even if they get a bailout). Thus I will help pay for them. This is good. Not every business is equally affected. Those that continue to remain active are able to do so because the government has taken massive steps to prevent a lot of people from dying. These businesses are unfairly benefiting from the current economic climate, while some businesses are being forced to suffer. The costs of this economic shutdown ought to be socialized, since the benefit of the shutdown is for society. This kind of economic action is unprecedented. I do not expect government compensation for natural disasters in general, because those are not the government's fault. I especially do not expect government compensation when people or businesses make mistakes. For example, in 2008, banks wrote bad loans, and irresponsible consumers took them on. There should have been no bailout at all. None of what happened was really the government's fault. However, if we did that, I don't see how anyone can escape responsibility here.
ornornor 7y ago
The market is not a living being. It’s a concept. Why should The Market matter more than real people’s lives? We’ve seen how well letting The Market self regulate and its players self regulate goes... Tobacco is addictive and kills lots of people with totally preventable deaths. But for decades tobacco companies were allowed to profit while ruining people’s lives. Had there not been for laws restricting tobacco use, we would be a lot worse off. That’s one example. There are countless others.
- tathougies 7y ago
  It shouldn't at all. Did you read my comment? I said the government's actions were warranted. However, that doesn't exculpate them of responsibility to the people. The citizens of the United States are guaranteed the right to liberty. The government stopped that forcefully, so the people need compensation. That is true even if the government was right to forcefully stop them.
  - save_ferris 7y ago
    So the government's actions were warranted, but said actions still violate people's rights and therefore the government should be held responsible? Who do you think pays the government's legal fees and damages in such case? The taxpayer does.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      > Who do you think pays the government's legal fees and damages in such case? The taxpayer does. Sure. That doesn't mean the government doesn't owe everyone money. Some individuals have more income than others. A progressive tax system ensures that they will end up paying more for it than I will. I will also point out that I said the government owes everyone for lost income. Not all companies or individuals experienced income loss. I for example can work from home, so I only should be paid for my loss of liberty. Others cannot work at all right now (like airlines and their employees) so they (both companies and individuals) ought to be paid more in addition to their compensation for loss of liberty.
    - 7y ago
save_ferris 7y ago
Are you suggesting that the government acted inappropriately by shutting down public activity? This disease has the potential to kill millions, is health and human safety not a responsibility that falls on the government?
- tathougies 7y ago
  > Are you suggesting that the government acted inappropriately by shutting down public activity? No not at all. I would highly encourage you to actually read my comment. I said: > If the government orders an indefinite shut down, a huge violation of American's civil rights (but one that is warranted in my opinion), then they need to properly reimburse for that drastic change in civil rights. In this sentence 'but one that is warranted in my opinion' indicates that I think the government's actions to shut down the economy are warranted. However, I think we must be reimbursed for the government-ordered loss of rights. Like, if the government wants to seize a house to build a road (eminent domain), I think the government can act correctly to do that, but they must reimburse the home owner the full cost of the house on the market. This means that the government in this case needs to reimburse everyone for the full cost of what their time would have garnered them on the market during the shutdown.
  - objektif 7y ago
    What a pile of nonsense. government is doing this for the safety of its citizens. So consider saved lives as a pay back from the government.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      try thinking about it from another angle. my company has not (yet) been severely affected by the shutdown. I'm working from home still collecting my usual paycheck. the sit-down restaurant right next door to me is taking a huge hit for our safety. you don't think we, the taxpayers, owe them anything?
      - objektif 7y ago
inopinatus 7y ago
Sounds great, how much do you want for your first amendment rights?
- tathougies 7y ago
  Depends on how long this goes on for?
rexpop 7y ago
> the government shut down the economy, not the virus. This is not true. I put myself in self-isolation over a week before the State mandate came out. Many of us are doing this for ourselves, based on collective intelligence and agreement.
- tathougies 7y ago
  That's fine, but for most Americans, this is simply not the case, or we wouldn't need government stay-home orders. People like you are not what is causing restaurants to shut down or airlines to refund their tickets (causing the cash pinch they're in). That was all threat of government crackdown.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    At least with airlines, they'd be heavily affected even without US government meddling, as they'd have lost lots of very profitable business from international flights.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      Sure, but they were also threatened with governmental intervention if they didn't refund their tickets (including ones bought under the non-refundable price range). They ended up refunding everyone, but the cash they refunded had already been used to pay for fuel, to hire and train people, to pay airport fees, etc. In a fair world, where everyone made good on their agreements, those consumers that bought non-refundable tickets wouldn't get their money back, but they did. I don't think airlines need to have all their income replaced, just that which is directly attributable to governmental intervention. If they're still in the red after that, the money should go to their creditors and then their investors. That is what we all agreed to.
  - choward 7y ago
    When the government decided to regulate smoking that hurt tobacco company profits, but it was for public safety. Should the government have had to reimburse tobacco companies? No. The government changes laws all the time. Some of these laws hurt/help businesses more than others. Do they owe the ones they hurt money? I don't think so.
Teever 7y ago
> That action alone should open the government up to civil tort liability. I was under the impression that the US Gov't can decide whether or not it can be sued by a plaintiff. If that is the case I have a sneaking suspicion that the Government would decline to continue with any case against itself regarding this issue. Do you think it would be any different?
- kortilla 7y ago
  “The government” is just people and in the US there are many people who don’t believe the government should have unlimited power, including many who work in the government as judges.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > I was under the impression that the US Gov't can decide whether or not it can be sued by a plaintiff. If that is the case I have a sneaking suspicion that the Government would decline to continue with any case against itself regarding this issue. Yes, the US government has inherited the concept of sovereign immunity from UK common law. That means the US can only be sued with its consent. However, Congress (which represents the people) has waived its own sovereign immunity in most cases. Thus, the people of the United States can sue the United States since they have (via Congress) given their own consent to sue themselves.
0x8BADF00D 7y ago
These companies are not struggling because the government told them to shut down. They're struggling because they're levered to the hilt with cheap debt from the Fed. They should not be bailed out and allowed to fail, because the management was incompetent and did not save any money for a downturn. As an aside, this used to be a site of entrepreneurs and hackers. Sadly, now it is filled with government cronies and apologists of bad behavior. It's shameful.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  > These companies are not struggling because the government told them to shut down. They're struggling because they're levered to the hilt with cheap debt from the Fed. Strangely enough, these companies were totally fine before the government shut them down, despite tons of cheap debt. How is it that none of them asked to be bailed out in February? Maybe the forced shutdown have something to do with their problems after all?
- tathougies 7y ago
  So you don't think refunding non-refundable tickets had anything to do with it? When you buy a ticket, that money is used to buy gas, pay wages, pay debt, etc. That money is not typically refundable, unless you pay a higher ticket price as an insurance premium against the risk you need a refund. Can you ask an employee for wages back, a gas supplier for a return, or a creditor for a stop payment? As a courtesy, the airlines refunded all tickets (which is a lot of money). Now they don't have a lot of cash. That is not fair, at all. A lot of companies are funded with cheap debt and are not at all affected by the shutdown because their industry is unaffected by the government's meddling. In fact, they're making a lot of money right now.
- jariel 7y ago
  This isn't true. The vast majority of failing businesses right now had no special access to government programs. In fact, the larger organizations will probably do just fine, and they were far more likely to lever previous bailouts and cheap financing. The people getting nailed right now are individual contractors, individual employees, small business owners. And yes, it's totally unfair that Boeing will probably get a big fat government bailout.
jariel 7y ago
This is absurd. If the government did not coordinate action, not only would 20% of need hospitalization and wouldn't get it (so we'd be dying in the streets), 'the economy' would fall apart quite quickly on its own. The government's actions are quite literally saving the economy in the long run. Yes, we need be wary of unnecessary intervention etc. but I'm just shocked to read this kind of stuff. The government is using the legit powers it has, mostly for what it's supposed to do right now. If anything, there could be a considerably more direct intervention in healthcare.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > Yes, we need be wary of unnecessary intervention etc. but I'm just shocked to read this kind of stuff. You are shocked that I think people ought to be compensated for the income lost due to government order? I am shocked that you think it is okay for the government to take people's property and liberty without even thinking of compensation, as they are mandated to do by law.
  - choward 7y ago
    > I am shocked that you think it is okay for the government to take people's property and liberty What property are you referring to? What about the money they took from me to fund the Iraq War? And you think the government should compensate when they take away liberty? Do you have any idea what the NSA has done since 9/11? I never voted to have my 4th amendment rights taken away and I've never been compensated. Earlier you said > I mean, the government shut down the economy, not the virus. That seems to be the entire basis of your argument. First of all, the government didn't "shut down the economy". They responded to a pandemic. What other action could they have taken? Pretty much any action will have an effect on the economy. So what? This isn't new. What about when a hurricane is coming or something else that causes forced evacuations? Or when people aren't allowed back to their homes immediately after? They could have saved their property if the government didn't intervene, right? Does the government owe them money? Companies should be responsible like citizens are expected to be. They shouldn't just always assume the happy path and then cry when a disaster happens because they weren't prepared. Always be prepared. You're profits may not accelerate as fast but that's not my problem. Businesses being dependent on loans being the norm has to stop. That's why our economy is so fragile.
seb314 7y ago
seriously, are you trolling? in general, measuring the cost of government decisions seems good. But here, you seem to be suggesting that a) if the government acts, it should pay the income you'd had if you had kept working (and assuming corona hadn't stopped you anyway) or b) if it doesn't act, I guess you'd like to claim damages for that family member that got killed by corona because the goverent allowed the epidemic to get out of control?
- tathougies 7y ago
  > b) if it doesn't act, I guess you'd like to claim damages for that family member that got killed by corona because the goverent allowed the epidemic to get out of control? No. The government has no real control over the epidemic. In some ways, this is the trolley problem. There is a trolley (COVID-19) heading towards a group of people (the general population), and the government can pull a lever to switch the track to a smaller group of persons (the industries impacted by COVID). Make no mistake about it, some people will die if the government simply ordered people to stay home (i.e., pulls the lever). Some will die due to suicide because of mental illness or because they lost their job. Some will die because they don't have the social support they're used to. Either way, there will certainly be deaths caused if the government did nothing else and just pulled the lever (i.e., ordered people to stay home and business to shut down) Nevertheless, the government has currently chosen to pull the lever to redirect the trolley towards this group of people. Because it has done so, it now owes those people restitution to mitigate the impacts of the government's decision. This is what a stimulus bill is. If the government did nothing, it wouldn't owe anyone anything. This is not such a crazy belief. Many major moral philosophies claim that by pulling the lever, you gain responsibility for the outcome, whereas by doing nothing, you are not responsible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
triceratops 7y ago
> they should have let the market decline due to people dying and then refuse to bail out corporations That sounds great in theory. In practice, you'd have everyone who could work from home continuing to do so. And everyone who could not, forced to come to work, get sick and possibly die, under pain of losing their job (and therefore, their healthcare).