3 ms·

For providing food? I'm not sure what you are asking here, I can't imagine how a restaurant could be a scam.

hinkley 6y ago
You suggested they should give something back. Which implies that they aren’t already giving something back that is worth keeping on its own merits. Which is a pretty dim view of both the service industry and third places like restaurants. So I ask again, what do you think restaurants are for, since they aren’t, in your opinion, doing anything that is already worth preserving?
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  You're mixing up different points in time. Normally restaurants provide food for customer money, and that is fine. The suggestion is that if they get bailout money while not providing food then there is an unmet need for them to "give back".
  - brutusborn 6y ago
    Exactly my point, thanks for clarifying.
  - hinkley 6y ago
    I am not mixing up different points in time. You are considering the past and the present. The bailout is solving a problem in the present that, if not solved, guarantees they have no future. You want guarantees and there aren’t any. If you three want cover for yourself or policy makers, that’s fine. We can tweak the rules a bit to avoid some bad press. We market it as a prorated, forgivable loan if they continue to operate for a year after this is over. That should cull the dozens of restaurants that were likely already about to close before this all happened, who see the handout as a way to avoid bankruptcy. Enough of the rest have a future we get to look forward to.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      > I am not mixing up different points in time. Well you're mixing up something if you have to ask "what do you think restaurants are for". They are for providing food. The thing they are currently failing to give back is... providing food. You might disagree with that idea but you shouldn't be confused by it. Your accusation of a "pretty dim view" sounds like you think the claim is that restaurants never give back. But that's not it at all. > You want guarantees and there aren’t any. What? "make them provide food" has nothing to do with "guarantees", and also this is not my opinion that I am explaining for you.

You suggested they should give something back. Which implies that they aren’t already giving something back that is worth keeping on its own merits. Which is a pretty dim view of both the service industry and third places like restaurants. So I ask again, what do you think restaurants are for, since they aren’t, in your opinion, doing anything that is already worth preserving?

Dylan16807 6y ago
You're mixing up different points in time. Normally restaurants provide food for customer money, and that is fine. The suggestion is that if they get bailout money while not providing food then there is an unmet need for them to "give back".
- brutusborn 6y ago
  Exactly my point, thanks for clarifying.
- hinkley 6y ago
  I am not mixing up different points in time. You are considering the past and the present. The bailout is solving a problem in the present that, if not solved, guarantees they have no future. You want guarantees and there aren’t any. If you three want cover for yourself or policy makers, that’s fine. We can tweak the rules a bit to avoid some bad press. We market it as a prorated, forgivable loan if they continue to operate for a year after this is over. That should cull the dozens of restaurants that were likely already about to close before this all happened, who see the handout as a way to avoid bankruptcy. Enough of the rest have a future we get to look forward to.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > I am not mixing up different points in time. Well you're mixing up something if you have to ask "what do you think restaurants are for". They are for providing food. The thing they are currently failing to give back is... providing food. You might disagree with that idea but you shouldn't be confused by it. Your accusation of a "pretty dim view" sounds like you think the claim is that restaurants never give back. But that's not it at all. > You want guarantees and there aren’t any. What? "make them provide food" has nothing to do with "guarantees", and also this is not my opinion that I am explaining for you.