4 ms·

>As long as the executives think they can earn more than 2.5% to 5% per year on any money they borrow, why not borrow it? Back in the day, people were responsi

>As long as the executives think they can earn more than 2.5% to 5% per year on any money they borrow, why not borrow it? Back in the day, people were responsible for their Choices. So if some unforeseen happened, a savings was considered a good thing. Today, a CEO can just shrug and say “meh, pandemic” and the government is suppose to be the lender of last resort. This is the moral hazard that we were all afraid would happen after 2008.

smabie 6y ago
What was this day when people were responsible?
- ooobit2 6y ago
  Good question. But the issue of kicking the can about insolvency played a huge role in the Great Depression. At that time, and having had one major global conflict behind the largest sovereign states in the world, I have no clue why people in power continued placing the same bets with even higher amounts attached. I do think the safety net of shared consequences has made it safer for them to get away with it. Companies will take huge risks because, while the equity holders stand to lose everything, so too do the workers. And they know the downward pressure on those workers forces them into choosing between their needs and their time. I mean, look at gaming companies like Bethesda and Rockstar Games. The downward pressure on having to deliver a billion-selling title because they deliberately limit staff and new IP opportunities, contract more and more labor. It's a framework of continuous stress and instability. Companies optimize for stress all the time. I've seen it firsthand across meetings with Inc. 5000 and Fortune 500 logos.
- N1H1L 6y ago
  Great question.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Well, in the great depression and 19th economic mood swings they certainly more of paid a price for irresponsibility. If there's no welfare for the poor, better that there be no welfare for the rich.

smabie 6y ago

What was this day when people were responsible?

ooobit2 6y ago
Good question. But the issue of kicking the can about insolvency played a huge role in the Great Depression. At that time, and having had one major global conflict behind the largest sovereign states in the world, I have no clue why people in power continued placing the same bets with even higher amounts attached. I do think the safety net of shared consequences has made it safer for them to get away with it. Companies will take huge risks because, while the equity holders stand to lose everything, so too do the workers. And they know the downward pressure on those workers forces them into choosing between their needs and their time. I mean, look at gaming companies like Bethesda and Rockstar Games. The downward pressure on having to deliver a billion-selling title because they deliberately limit staff and new IP opportunities, contract more and more labor. It's a framework of continuous stress and instability. Companies optimize for stress all the time. I've seen it firsthand across meetings with Inc. 5000 and Fortune 500 logos.
N1H1L 6y ago
Great question.
Ericson2314 6y ago
Well, in the great depression and 19th economic mood swings they certainly more of paid a price for irresponsibility. If there's no welfare for the poor, better that there be no welfare for the rich.