3 ms·
That is very much a false dichotomy. And we did give relief to many small businesses. In fact, I'm even not making an argument that we should bail them out. Bu
by compiler-guy 6y ago
That is very much a false dichotomy. And we did give relief to many small businesses.
In fact, I'm even not making an argument that we should bail them out. But I am making the argument that "free market: you lose" isn't really the situation we find ourselves in.
- helen___keller 6y agoIf you aren't arguing that government should bail out real estate investors who find their investments struggling, I'm not sure what exactly you are arguing for. "Free market: you lose" is quite literally what's happening. Absent further action by government, there are a lot of investors who are going to lose their shirt. Free market is defined as business in the absence of government intervention, hence my attribution. Would you prefer "risky assets in a black swan event: you lose"?
- compiler-guy 6y agoI'm arguing that we aren't in a free market. The government has stepped in in a very unpredictable way and changed your contracts out from under you. That isn't "free market: you lose". That's the only claim. And yes, "risky assets in a black swan event: you lose" is a much better claim.