3 ms·
Yeah, it's the same line of reasoning behind farm subsidies: running a farm is risky, and if it's so risky that nobody does it, none of us eats... so we all chi
by commandlinefan 7y ago
Yeah, it's the same line of reasoning behind farm subsidies: running a farm is risky, and if it's so risky that nobody does it, none of us eats... so we all chip in (whether we want to or not) to farmers to offset their losses.
- Aachen 7y agoOkay, so the farmer's risk is low crop yield, farmer bankrupt, no food, people die. What about airlines? No passengers, airlines bankrupt, only very limited air travel possible, covid-19 ends, someone buys the airplanes from the asset auction, gives them an inspection, life continues as usual? Solidarity is a whole other matter: if you can't work (because you're disabled or because you can't find work) you get money from the government. Doesn't matter if you're a farmer or airline employee, nor whether the company you worked for goes bankrupt. That's no reason to keep the companies alive, the people won't personally go bankrupt. (That might be different in developing countries, but those won't have 10B bailouts for nonessential businesses anyway.)