4 ms·

> Government should take a hit, in my opinion. Government means "everyone who pays taxes". I'm not sure that's fair. I think it's fine to spend taxes rescuing

> Government should take a hit, in my opinion. Government means "everyone who pays taxes". I'm not sure that's fair. I think it's fine to spend taxes rescuing people (including the business owners if they're in personal trouble), but rescuing businesses feels like a very different story.

chrischen 7y ago
Businesses exist to serve people—both customers and as employers. In this case the businesses are also the ones being sued, and people only get affected because the business gets sued.
- Nullabillity 7y ago
  Funny how that's never the story when the economy is going up. Then they're suddenly amoral actors that should never have to care about the outside society or the people that they impact.
  - ars 7y ago
    That's right, they shouldn't. Instead we need to structure the economy so that they automatically act in a way that benefits society as a whole. And it's not corporations either - individuals are perfectly capable of being amoral, and we want to structure things so that they have no desire to.
Robotbeat 7y ago
So we just don’t have restaurants (or people working there) for a year even after the stay at home orders end? I think people saying we shouldn’t bail out businesses haven’t fully thought these things through.
- FartyMcFarter 7y ago
  People are free to start up new restaurants.
  - papeda 7y ago
    Is this the right trade? When a restaurant goes out of business, we do lose a kind of stock of wealth. It's a tuned machine (suppliers, cooks, customers, an evolving menu maybe) and now we're starting over from scratch with an untuned machine. That's a real cost to everyone.
    - FartyMcFarter 7y ago
      Yes, it's a cost. But so is bailing out the shareholders of businesses, who (by nature) are holding a supposedly risky asset.
      - dahdum 7y ago
        Giving the business a grant is a cost, but how are loans? The US bank bailouts turned a small profit, and there's no reason that couldn't happen again this time.
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    Which is why I said a year after. Depression-level unemployment rates for a good year are not without secondary bad effects even with “haha money printer go brrrr.”
dahdum 7y ago
If you don't rescue businesses, you end up needing to rescue a lot more people. You can also give loans (not tax dollars) to rescue business. People require grants.
- londons_explore 7y ago
  "loans" given to businesses often turn into grants when the principal is written off in a few years time after the public spotlight has passed. Sometimes government even announces that they intend to do that at fancy private dinners with a wink and a nudge...
DanBC 7y ago
I don't mind rescuing businesses. People need jobs. I do get a bit annoyed at businesses who've gone out of their way to avoid as much tax as possible by using a variety of weird schemes, and who've gone out of their way to pay their workers as little as possible using a variety of weird schemes, suddenly deciding that The Government isn't so bad after all and asking for a handout.

chrischen 7y ago

Businesses exist to serve people—both customers and as employers. In this case the businesses are also the ones being sued, and people only get affected because the business gets sued.

Nullabillity 7y ago
Funny how that's never the story when the economy is going up. Then they're suddenly amoral actors that should never have to care about the outside society or the people that they impact.
- ars 7y ago
  That's right, they shouldn't. Instead we need to structure the economy so that they automatically act in a way that benefits society as a whole. And it's not corporations either - individuals are perfectly capable of being amoral, and we want to structure things so that they have no desire to.

Robotbeat 7y ago

So we just don’t have restaurants (or people working there) for a year even after the stay at home orders end? I think people saying we shouldn’t bail out businesses haven’t fully thought these things through.

FartyMcFarter 7y ago
People are free to start up new restaurants.
- papeda 7y ago
  Is this the right trade? When a restaurant goes out of business, we do lose a kind of stock of wealth. It's a tuned machine (suppliers, cooks, customers, an evolving menu maybe) and now we're starting over from scratch with an untuned machine. That's a real cost to everyone.
  - FartyMcFarter 7y ago
    Yes, it's a cost. But so is bailing out the shareholders of businesses, who (by nature) are holding a supposedly risky asset.
    - dahdum 7y ago
      Giving the business a grant is a cost, but how are loans? The US bank bailouts turned a small profit, and there's no reason that couldn't happen again this time.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  Which is why I said a year after. Depression-level unemployment rates for a good year are not without secondary bad effects even with “haha money printer go brrrr.”

dahdum 7y ago

If you don't rescue businesses, you end up needing to rescue a lot more people. You can also give loans (not tax dollars) to rescue business. People require grants.

londons_explore 7y ago
"loans" given to businesses often turn into grants when the principal is written off in a few years time after the public spotlight has passed. Sometimes government even announces that they intend to do that at fancy private dinners with a wink and a nudge...

DanBC 7y ago

I don't mind rescuing businesses. People need jobs. I do get a bit annoyed at businesses who've gone out of their way to avoid as much tax as possible by using a variety of weird schemes, and who've gone out of their way to pay their workers as little as possible using a variety of weird schemes, suddenly deciding that The Government isn't so bad after all and asking for a handout.