12 ms·

Counterpoint, companies will learn not to overextend and we won't have to worry about job loss or bailouts the next time this happens

mewpmewp2 7y ago
Counterpoint. We will have less innovation and tech advancement if companies will have to spend more to prepare for disasters like this virus. If new businesses have to do that then we will have a lot tougher barrier entry meaning old fish will prevail.
- chickenpotpie 7y ago
  But don't they already have to spend more to prepare in the form of taxes?
  - mewpmewp2 7y ago
    Then it is like insurance which makes more sense than requiring companies to hold certain amount of money in reserves.
- 93po 7y ago
  I have happy with less innovation if it means people don't go homeless and starve every time the economy tanks
dllthomas 7y ago
Companies can't "learn not to overextend" for things this rare. If they spend a bunch of resources making sure they can weather sufficiently infrequent storms, they'll be out competed in the shorter term by companies that refuse to. If we need companies to prepare for this kind of thing, we need to somehow test their readiness more frequently.
- jonlucc 7y ago
  More frequently than every 10 years?
  - dllthomas 7y ago
    I don't recall multiple month suspension of broad categories of business in the last 20 years. But yes, probably even more frequently than every 10 years - it's too easy to cut corners, so someone will, and the businesses behaving "correctly" need to compete against that. That's if we want companies to be prepared for this.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Ericson2314 7y ago
  Companies should just plan on failing, and everyone moves on to the next thing. Not everything has to last for ever.
  - dllthomas 7y ago
    Yeah, my point was just that "make them hurt so they learn" doesn't really make sense here. There may be plenty of reasons to allow companies to fail, in particular instances or in general.
joosters 7y ago
They've had generations to learn that, why do you think they will suddenly get clever now?

mewpmewp2 7y ago

Counterpoint. We will have less innovation and tech advancement if companies will have to spend more to prepare for disasters like this virus. If new businesses have to do that then we will have a lot tougher barrier entry meaning old fish will prevail.

chickenpotpie 7y ago
But don't they already have to spend more to prepare in the form of taxes?
- mewpmewp2 7y ago
  Then it is like insurance which makes more sense than requiring companies to hold certain amount of money in reserves.
93po 7y ago
I have happy with less innovation if it means people don't go homeless and starve every time the economy tanks

dllthomas 7y ago

Companies can't "learn not to overextend" for things this rare. If they spend a bunch of resources making sure they can weather sufficiently infrequent storms, they'll be out competed in the shorter term by companies that refuse to. If we need companies to prepare for this kind of thing, we need to somehow test their readiness more frequently.

jonlucc 7y ago
More frequently than every 10 years?
- dllthomas 7y ago
  I don't recall multiple month suspension of broad categories of business in the last 20 years. But yes, probably even more frequently than every 10 years - it's too easy to cut corners, so someone will, and the businesses behaving "correctly" need to compete against that. That's if we want companies to be prepared for this.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Ericson2314 7y ago
Companies should just plan on failing, and everyone moves on to the next thing. Not everything has to last for ever.
- dllthomas 7y ago
  Yeah, my point was just that "make them hurt so they learn" doesn't really make sense here. There may be plenty of reasons to allow companies to fail, in particular instances or in general.

joosters 7y ago

They've had generations to learn that, why do you think they will suddenly get clever now?