5 ms·

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 regula

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.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Yes, this is not new territory. This is exercised with eminent domain.
  - notyourday 7y ago
    This has not been litigated in NYS: based on my quick search the order has not been challenged.
- komali2 7y ago
  > The citizens of the United States are guaranteed the right to liberty. The government is protecting people from companies that would force them to go to work and harm their help. The government is defending their health and liberty to say "no" to a boss demanding them to come in.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    The government cannot expect a company to pay people that are not working, nor can it expect to tell people to stay home without a paycheck. Thus the government should pay them. It is the government's fault they are home. In the absence of government, some people would have gone to work. Some people don't even think this is important. I don't agree with those people, but it seems cruel to force someone who thinks this is nothing to not go to work and not earn their money and then not give them anything.
  - komali2 7y ago
    Harm their health "*"
leetcrew 7y ago
the shares are owned by real people. it's not totally different from the situation where the government wants to build a train track through where your house currently sits. the train line will connect two important cities and allow for lots of people to commute with less emissions. it's a great thing, but the government is still obligated to pay you for the house it's about to bulldoze.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- kortilla 7y ago
  It is in the US. If your ideal model of government is something like China, the concept of the right thing for the people still requiring compensation to the disrupted individuals is pretty foreign.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    one of many reasons I prefer to live here.
- jariel 7y ago
  "it's not totally different from the situation where the government wants to build a train track through where your house currently sits." It's not at all similar to eminent domain. A better parallel would be the military 'draft'. Does the US government pay soldiers enough to truly consider the violence they will face? What would the 'going market rate' be for soldiers in such a situation? And yet somehow people do it for relatively low pay? I wonder why? Hmmm ... maybe because there's something more than 'private property' at stake? This is not a situation wherein government action to ostensibly benefit the many, causes minor economic injury to a few or even one. This is a situation wherein the entire game is up for grabs, there are lives at stake, and everyone is 'all in'.
kortilla 7y ago
> The market is not a living being. It’s a concept. Why should The Market matter more than real people’s lives? The market is real people’s lives. Every good traded is done so in a market. Your mental model of a market seems to be the stock market, which makes it easier for you to pretend that when markets stop, there are no real consequences for non-shareholders.

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.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Yes, this is not new territory. This is exercised with eminent domain.
- notyourday 7y ago
  This has not been litigated in NYS: based on my quick search the order has not been challenged.
komali2 7y ago
> The citizens of the United States are guaranteed the right to liberty. The government is protecting people from companies that would force them to go to work and harm their help. The government is defending their health and liberty to say "no" to a boss demanding them to come in.
- tathougies 7y ago
  The government cannot expect a company to pay people that are not working, nor can it expect to tell people to stay home without a paycheck. Thus the government should pay them. It is the government's fault they are home. In the absence of government, some people would have gone to work. Some people don't even think this is important. I don't agree with those people, but it seems cruel to force someone who thinks this is nothing to not go to work and not earn their money and then not give them anything.
- komali2 7y ago
  Harm their health "*"

leetcrew 7y ago

the shares are owned by real people. it's not totally different from the situation where the government wants to build a train track through where your house currently sits. the train line will connect two important cities and allow for lots of people to commute with less emissions. it's a great thing, but the government is still obligated to pay you for the house it's about to bulldoze.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kortilla 7y ago
It is in the US. If your ideal model of government is something like China, the concept of the right thing for the people still requiring compensation to the disrupted individuals is pretty foreign.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  one of many reasons I prefer to live here.
jariel 7y ago
"it's not totally different from the situation where the government wants to build a train track through where your house currently sits." It's not at all similar to eminent domain. A better parallel would be the military 'draft'. Does the US government pay soldiers enough to truly consider the violence they will face? What would the 'going market rate' be for soldiers in such a situation? And yet somehow people do it for relatively low pay? I wonder why? Hmmm ... maybe because there's something more than 'private property' at stake? This is not a situation wherein government action to ostensibly benefit the many, causes minor economic injury to a few or even one. This is a situation wherein the entire game is up for grabs, there are lives at stake, and everyone is 'all in'.

kortilla 7y ago

> The market is not a living being. It’s a concept. Why should The Market matter more than real people’s lives? The market is real people’s lives. Every good traded is done so in a market. Your mental model of a market seems to be the stock market, which makes it easier for you to pretend that when markets stop, there are no real consequences for non-shareholders.