3 ms·

> Planes wouldn't have stopped to exist, cars wouldn't have stopped to exist. > The entities would have disappeared and new ones would get created. That seems

> Planes wouldn't have stopped to exist, cars wouldn't have stopped to exist. > The entities would have disappeared and new ones would get created. That seems unnecessary considering how many jobs were at stake.

astrange 4y ago
The airlines got bailouts specifically because they had union contracts that wouldn't have survived otherwise. It was for the workers. Though, planes probably would've ceased to exist eventually, they need continual maintenance.
- xeromal 4y ago
  Isn't bailing out startups who pay employees a similar position?
  - astrange 4y ago
    Only if unemployment in the startup sector was a big problem and they were unionized.
anon291 4y ago
How about, the government simply take an equity position in these companies. That way, when the inevitable unicorns come along, they can make the VC profit. Instead, the government is simply taking a pure loss... for what? Literally, an equity position is a net win. The loss is capped out at the equity position (which they're already losing now), while the gain is unlimited. Sure, there is every interest in protecting workers. But we're also protecting shareholders in these companies, and eliminating their risk, while not taking any of the reward. When these shareholders make money on the startups, they will be first in line to demand low taxes and lauding the 'free' market. How silly
- astrange 4y ago
  Taking an equity position in a failing company that needs a bailout is obviously dumb. You want equity in the ones that don't need bailouts, i.e. you want a social wealth fund. We the people don't need equity to make money from companies growing, though; we have income taxes.
  - anon291 4y ago
    Taking an equity position in all the startups that are banking at SVB is not a failing proposition at all. You misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm saying that the fed is bailing out thousands of companies that have huge upsides. By keeping those companies in business via the fund transfer, the fed is allowing the founders / investors to make a huge upside, while retaining no right to the upside. The fed just eats the loss. I'm saying, in exchange for providing liquidity for employee wages and invention (the supposed social goods we're paying for) the government should take an equity position. In no way do I think the government should own SVB's assets, which is what is actually happening here, as the government is going to eat the cost of retaining SVB's assets while insuring them at full face value despite that being 15B over market value right now. > we have income taxes. Alas the investors and companies being bailed out are not known for being very good at paying those.

astrange 4y ago

The airlines got bailouts specifically because they had union contracts that wouldn't have survived otherwise. It was for the workers. Though, planes probably would've ceased to exist eventually, they need continual maintenance.

xeromal 4y ago
Isn't bailing out startups who pay employees a similar position?
- astrange 4y ago
  Only if unemployment in the startup sector was a big problem and they were unionized.

anon291 4y ago

How about, the government simply take an equity position in these companies. That way, when the inevitable unicorns come along, they can make the VC profit. Instead, the government is simply taking a pure loss... for what? Literally, an equity position is a net win. The loss is capped out at the equity position (which they're already losing now), while the gain is unlimited. Sure, there is every interest in protecting workers. But we're also protecting shareholders in these companies, and eliminating their risk, while not taking any of the reward. When these shareholders make money on the startups, they will be first in line to demand low taxes and lauding the 'free' market. How silly

astrange 4y ago
Taking an equity position in a failing company that needs a bailout is obviously dumb. You want equity in the ones that don't need bailouts, i.e. you want a social wealth fund. We the people don't need equity to make money from companies growing, though; we have income taxes.
- anon291 4y ago
  Taking an equity position in all the startups that are banking at SVB is not a failing proposition at all. You misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm saying that the fed is bailing out thousands of companies that have huge upsides. By keeping those companies in business via the fund transfer, the fed is allowing the founders / investors to make a huge upside, while retaining no right to the upside. The fed just eats the loss. I'm saying, in exchange for providing liquidity for employee wages and invention (the supposed social goods we're paying for) the government should take an equity position. In no way do I think the government should own SVB's assets, which is what is actually happening here, as the government is going to eat the cost of retaining SVB's assets while insuring them at full face value despite that being 15B over market value right now. > we have income taxes. Alas the investors and companies being bailed out are not known for being very good at paying those.