4 ms·

> perhaps a loss when adjusted for inflation How is that profit?

by johnnyworker 3y ago

satvikpendem 3y ago
It's a profit if you don't count inflation, if you do it's a small loss, just as the article says.
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  So, a a small loss, profit if you don't count inflation, and giant profit if you count it in 1950 money, got it.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    Well you can choose to understand it however you want, including comparing it to 1950s money for some reason, but that's on you.
    - johnnyworker 3y ago
      Well, if you "don't count inflation", why stop there? Might as well count it in even more favorable ways. I wondered if there might be a good reason for it, but you just snarkily rephrasing what I quoted tells me there probably isn't -- so it's a loss. Because inflation is not something you can just ignore, when I buy something with money I don't get asked if I want the money to be counted as 1980 money or whatever, it's always "now" money. If by the time the loans get paid back inflation ate up the profit, there is no profit, and the criticism of it socializing loss while keeping profits private remains valid.
      - satvikpendem 3y ago
        My point is that it doesn't matter if it's a profit or a small loss, because people think companies were simply given billions of dollars of free money. The fact that the US government was close to or did break even from bailouts dispels this notion. So there is no socialization of loss while keeping profits private, as the companies had to pay out what they took.
        johnnyworker 3y ago
        > My point is that it doesn't matter if it's a profit or a small loss, because people think companies were simply given billions of dollars of free money. You stated "The US government made a profit". You claimed that, in direct contradiction to what you quoted. Now you're shifting goalposts.
        satvikpendem 3y ago
        I just quoted the article. You're right, I should have quoted it fully but I didn't think it would get to this level of pedantry for a point that is not even necessarily related to the profit or loss of a bailout.

> perhaps a loss when adjusted for inflation How is that profit?

satvikpendem 3y ago

It's a profit if you don't count inflation, if you do it's a small loss, just as the article says.

johnnyworker 3y ago
So, a a small loss, profit if you don't count inflation, and giant profit if you count it in 1950 money, got it.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  Well you can choose to understand it however you want, including comparing it to 1950s money for some reason, but that's on you.
  - johnnyworker 3y ago
    Well, if you "don't count inflation", why stop there? Might as well count it in even more favorable ways. I wondered if there might be a good reason for it, but you just snarkily rephrasing what I quoted tells me there probably isn't -- so it's a loss. Because inflation is not something you can just ignore, when I buy something with money I don't get asked if I want the money to be counted as 1980 money or whatever, it's always "now" money. If by the time the loans get paid back inflation ate up the profit, there is no profit, and the criticism of it socializing loss while keeping profits private remains valid.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      My point is that it doesn't matter if it's a profit or a small loss, because people think companies were simply given billions of dollars of free money. The fact that the US government was close to or did break even from bailouts dispels this notion. So there is no socialization of loss while keeping profits private, as the companies had to pay out what they took.
      - johnnyworker 3y ago
        > My point is that it doesn't matter if it's a profit or a small loss, because people think companies were simply given billions of dollars of free money. You stated "The US government made a profit". You claimed that, in direct contradiction to what you quoted. Now you're shifting goalposts.
        satvikpendem 3y ago
        I just quoted the article. You're right, I should have quoted it fully but I didn't think it would get to this level of pedantry for a point that is not even necessarily related to the profit or loss of a bailout.