4 ms·

The economy is for the people, the people aren't for the economy, ideally. If you run a business that relies on particular behaviour, like people commuting the

by jemmyw 4y ago

The economy is for the people, the people aren't for the economy, ideally. If you run a business that relies on particular behaviour, like people commuting the office, then I'm sorry things are hard but we do not owe you our business. Something that seems similar that comes up often around here is when there are proposals to improve the road system to move traffic out of towns. Currently the main highways run through a bunch of small towns, so they get lots of non-local traffic. Frustrating for drivers due to the extra time, and its a safety issue. But whenever changes are happening businesses in those towns are up in arms omg we'll lose our passing trade, don't build the road. They've capitalised on some inconvenience, we don't owe them to keep it around.

klodolph 4y ago
> The economy is for the people, the people aren't for the economy, ideally. If you run a business that relies on particular behaviour, like people commuting the office, then I'm sorry things are hard but we do not owe you our business. There's a pattern of restaurant closures. People want food from restaurants, but the demand shifted to different locations and restaurants were forced to close for some time. When a restaurant re-opens, it now owes tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in back rent. The restaurant goes bankrupt and the landlords get paid from the liquidated assets. That's nothing short of wealth transfer from restaurant owners to landlords. We can say "the economy is for the people" all we want, but in situations like this, the economy favors some over others. Increasingly, the economy favors capital + rent seeking, and does not favor labor.
- chii 4y ago
  > The restaurant goes bankrupt and the landlords get paid from the liquidated assets. what assets? If the restaurant is renting, their assets are just the equipment they own. The landlord will only get what they by selling those equipment for rent owed. I don't see how a transfer of wealth is happening in this scenario. If the restaurant's location is owned by the proprietor, then they're their own landord. Their creditor would have a claim on the property, if they borrowed money to run the restaurant. But calling this a transfer of wealth is misleading - the owners of the restaurant signed up for the debt. Businesses and investments are not guaranteed to succeed, and using leverage increases the risks of losing more. How is this a transfer of wealth, except for the lenders recovering what they could, as is their right to do for lending out the capital in the first place?
- chmod600 4y ago
  "When a restaurant re-opens, it now owes tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in back rent. The restaurant goes bankrupt and the landlords get paid from the liquidated assets." Is that what actually happens? "That's nothing short of wealth transfer from restaurant owners to landlords." You're arguing that the owners of commercial real estate are winners here?

by jemmyw 4y ago

klodolph 4y ago

> The economy is for the people, the people aren't for the economy, ideally. If you run a business that relies on particular behaviour, like people commuting the office, then I'm sorry things are hard but we do not owe you our business. There's a pattern of restaurant closures. People want food from restaurants, but the demand shifted to different locations and restaurants were forced to close for some time. When a restaurant re-opens, it now owes tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in back rent. The restaurant goes bankrupt and the landlords get paid from the liquidated assets. That's nothing short of wealth transfer from restaurant owners to landlords. We can say "the economy is for the people" all we want, but in situations like this, the economy favors some over others. Increasingly, the economy favors capital + rent seeking, and does not favor labor.

chii 4y ago
> The restaurant goes bankrupt and the landlords get paid from the liquidated assets. what assets? If the restaurant is renting, their assets are just the equipment they own. The landlord will only get what they by selling those equipment for rent owed. I don't see how a transfer of wealth is happening in this scenario. If the restaurant's location is owned by the proprietor, then they're their own landord. Their creditor would have a claim on the property, if they borrowed money to run the restaurant. But calling this a transfer of wealth is misleading - the owners of the restaurant signed up for the debt. Businesses and investments are not guaranteed to succeed, and using leverage increases the risks of losing more. How is this a transfer of wealth, except for the lenders recovering what they could, as is their right to do for lending out the capital in the first place?
chmod600 4y ago
"When a restaurant re-opens, it now owes tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in back rent. The restaurant goes bankrupt and the landlords get paid from the liquidated assets." Is that what actually happens? "That's nothing short of wealth transfer from restaurant owners to landlords." You're arguing that the owners of commercial real estate are winners here?