3 ms·

> Is there a federal bailout waiting for the immigrant? Or the immigrant’s employees who might also be family members? Why shouldn't there be? As long as they

> Is there a federal bailout waiting for the immigrant? Or the immigrant’s employees who might also be family members? Why shouldn't there be? As long as they weren't utterly reckless up to some reasonable standard, IMO they should be. This has the same empty tenor as arguments against student debt relief on whatabout/fairness grounds. > The purpose is to show we are playing by the same rules. And that somehow, it is not always the poorer, the more uneducated, the ones born to the wrong parents who do not get bailed out. Two wrongs don't make a right. I get that you're bitter. So am I. Doesn't mean we need to fuck over a bunch of people who are not at all at fault and possibly trigger systemic economic problems, contagion, recession, etc.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Someone always gets fucked. It is either startup or the taxpayer, restaurant owner or the taxpayer, student debt holder or the taxpayer. The taxpayer minding their own business gets tired of always being on the short end.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  You could say the same about any government-provided taxpayer-funded service that benefits people in times of need. This is literally what our taxes are supposed to be for.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    >You could say the same about any government-provided taxpayer-funded service that benefits people in times of need. But certainly not every need should be the taxpayers responsibility. Government safety nets should have positive return on investment for individual citizens. Increasing the cost to the individual without increasing the benefit threatens to delegitimize the entire endeavor. Why would I ever want to expand the scope to include restaurants, student debt, or business risk if that scope has no benefit to me? If I don't have student debt, a restaurant, or a corporate account, it just becomes crony capitalism and extortion from my perspective. A lot of people feel that the purpose of taxes is not to socialize the cost of people's mistakes, but rather provide services where all sides see net benefit.
    - nerdponx 4y ago
      Preventing thousands of job losses and helping small businesses stay afloat during crises that they should not reasonably have to expect does have a positive return on investment for taxpayers. It is absolutely valid to interpret this incident as a regulatory failure and the failure of our legal system to enact sufficient penalties on those responsible, leading to some amount of moral hazard, which means that problems like this might arise again in the future. But you are also arguing that, in general, spending taxpayer money to help businesses and individuals ride out random crises and catastrophes is not a good use of that taxpayer money. I and I think most sound-minded economists would disagree with you, on a purely mechanical cost-benefit basis.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        >Preventing thousands of job losses and helping small businesses stay afloat during crises that they should not reasonably have to expect does have a positive return on investment for taxpayers. Why do you say this with such certainty?? I am for efficient government and savings to the taxpayer, so I would absolutely support such a measure if I agreed. Just because the government provides help, it is not given that it will ultimately be positive ROI for the taxpayers. What is the payback period here and when can I expect to see the savings on my tax bill going down? If it takes 50B to make depositors whole, how many jobs will be saved, how long will it take to recoup that from taxing those jobs, and what will the profit in excess of cost be? Reasonable people would agree that 1 billion to save a single job would never pay itself back, so clearly there is a threshold somewhere. No economist would refute that one exists. People seem to assume or treat it as an axiom that any help the government provides is a net positive investment, independent of cost or analysis. The idea that this is known or calculated here is absurd. We don't know what % the deposits will be written down, How many jobs that will cost, or how successful those companies will ever be at generating tax revenue. I am not strictly opposed to aid in a crisis. It is clear that in some cases government action saves the taxpayer money. For example, a cheap medical treatment might prevent lifelong government disability payments, with tax savings that vastly outweigh the initial cost. That does not mean that every medical treatment at any cost translates to tax savings. There are also questions of moral Hazzard and incentives, but I put those secondary. Regulations can and should be fixed, independent of how we respond to this crisis. However, that does not factor into question of if an account holder bailout is a profitable venture for the taxpayer. Does this make sense and do you understand where I am coming from?
confidantlake 4y ago
But where does it stop? When I lent my friend $100 dollars when we were 16 and he never paid me back, should I have been bailed out too? If not, why not? If the government bails out people/businesses every time something goes wrong there will be a lot more risky investments.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  No, because your friend isn't a tightly-regulated institution whose proper functioning is integral to the core of our economic and financial system, and as a "client" of your friend you have no reason to generally expect that your friend will be trustworthy. And yes, I do think we should have some kind of public fund to help victims of theft and fraud. I can think of many worse uses of my tax money.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Someone always gets fucked. It is either startup or the taxpayer, restaurant owner or the taxpayer, student debt holder or the taxpayer. The taxpayer minding their own business gets tired of always being on the short end.

nerdponx 4y ago
You could say the same about any government-provided taxpayer-funded service that benefits people in times of need. This is literally what our taxes are supposed to be for.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  >You could say the same about any government-provided taxpayer-funded service that benefits people in times of need. But certainly not every need should be the taxpayers responsibility. Government safety nets should have positive return on investment for individual citizens. Increasing the cost to the individual without increasing the benefit threatens to delegitimize the entire endeavor. Why would I ever want to expand the scope to include restaurants, student debt, or business risk if that scope has no benefit to me? If I don't have student debt, a restaurant, or a corporate account, it just becomes crony capitalism and extortion from my perspective. A lot of people feel that the purpose of taxes is not to socialize the cost of people's mistakes, but rather provide services where all sides see net benefit.
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    Preventing thousands of job losses and helping small businesses stay afloat during crises that they should not reasonably have to expect does have a positive return on investment for taxpayers. It is absolutely valid to interpret this incident as a regulatory failure and the failure of our legal system to enact sufficient penalties on those responsible, leading to some amount of moral hazard, which means that problems like this might arise again in the future. But you are also arguing that, in general, spending taxpayer money to help businesses and individuals ride out random crises and catastrophes is not a good use of that taxpayer money. I and I think most sound-minded economists would disagree with you, on a purely mechanical cost-benefit basis.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      >Preventing thousands of job losses and helping small businesses stay afloat during crises that they should not reasonably have to expect does have a positive return on investment for taxpayers. Why do you say this with such certainty?? I am for efficient government and savings to the taxpayer, so I would absolutely support such a measure if I agreed. Just because the government provides help, it is not given that it will ultimately be positive ROI for the taxpayers. What is the payback period here and when can I expect to see the savings on my tax bill going down? If it takes 50B to make depositors whole, how many jobs will be saved, how long will it take to recoup that from taxing those jobs, and what will the profit in excess of cost be? Reasonable people would agree that 1 billion to save a single job would never pay itself back, so clearly there is a threshold somewhere. No economist would refute that one exists. People seem to assume or treat it as an axiom that any help the government provides is a net positive investment, independent of cost or analysis. The idea that this is known or calculated here is absurd. We don't know what % the deposits will be written down, How many jobs that will cost, or how successful those companies will ever be at generating tax revenue. I am not strictly opposed to aid in a crisis. It is clear that in some cases government action saves the taxpayer money. For example, a cheap medical treatment might prevent lifelong government disability payments, with tax savings that vastly outweigh the initial cost. That does not mean that every medical treatment at any cost translates to tax savings. There are also questions of moral Hazzard and incentives, but I put those secondary. Regulations can and should be fixed, independent of how we respond to this crisis. However, that does not factor into question of if an account holder bailout is a profitable venture for the taxpayer. Does this make sense and do you understand where I am coming from?

confidantlake 4y ago

But where does it stop? When I lent my friend $100 dollars when we were 16 and he never paid me back, should I have been bailed out too? If not, why not? If the government bails out people/businesses every time something goes wrong there will be a lot more risky investments.

nerdponx 4y ago
No, because your friend isn't a tightly-regulated institution whose proper functioning is integral to the core of our economic and financial system, and as a "client" of your friend you have no reason to generally expect that your friend will be trustworthy. And yes, I do think we should have some kind of public fund to help victims of theft and fraud. I can think of many worse uses of my tax money.