This is a socialist country. Airlines made out like bandits in 08. Gave checks to their shareholders. Now they come crying mommy and daddy with no rainy day fund. Capitalism says sorry, let someone else take over your rotting carcass. Let the shareholders take a hit. Instead we have heads I win, tails you lose. What is capitalism with no risk?
Corporate Socialism
- Thread starter toastedbread
- Start date
During a long period of record profits all these companies squandered their money on buybacks and such. Now they expect the taxpayers will bail them out.
Yet when an individual needs a bailout, they are called all kinds of names.
I would prefer to give the middle finger to these companies. When they fold a new better run, responsible company can take their place. Airlines want to charge people for their cancelled tickets and then take billions in bailout money.
Screw them. Why do some many have no problem flipping the bird to the average guy but are happy to bailout the irresponsible corps? If they fold won't the free market fill the void? Why did they buy too many avocados?
I'm sure in the end the corps will get their money and the average Joe will be told to bend over and grab their ankles.
I believe this time around a lot more restrictions are in place. Not enough for some but much better than '08/9
Why bail them out? Someone else would take over and do a better job.
What makes you think a new company would take the place of the dissolved company? History has shown that consolidations or asset purchases by private equity firms happen instead. The result is either a more monopolistic industry or one that doesn’t give a damn about product or service. Either way the consumer gets hosed.
It seems to me you are focused more on retaliation against Big Air than you are on public benefit.
IIUC, the airline bailouts come with an equity stake. Like the GM bailout did.
I’m not going to bury the lede here in this post: You, CoH, are the worst contributor on here.
Because you are articulate, and intelligent, and worthy of discussing a wide range of topics in detail.....yet I’ve finally realized you’re not here to exchange ideas. You’re just here to *argue*. To take your spot on “the other side” and give us your reflexive retort. I’ve been lurking here reading so much of what I call thought provoking takes, from all sides, trying to learn whats going on, and your post displays this well enough (although I’ll add you’ve probably been displaying this knuckleheadery long before this post). And I’ve spent plenty of time reading your takes on the various issues, and today, I realize, you’re nothing but what the Germans call a ‘Besserwisser’. But no more. You’re blocked.
If a person does a lazy search on ‘Besserwisser’, it simply reveals the word to be another term for a know-it-all. I think it’s more than that, which is literally “Better Knower”: You, CoH, know it better! Du bist ein Besserwisser.
This is all you are. You’re a know-it-better-than-you-do guy. Like the German word, its nuanced concept: its not just a know-it-all...its a person who may recognize the others in the room perhaps know the subject well enough, but that you *certainly* know it better. At this point, its not about exchanging ideas anymore. It’s about winning an argument, and thats it. It’s a competition, and you never relent on trying to win. To me, that is the epitome of not thinking. It’s just a practiced mental exercise where you take the opposite point of view and engage.
Well, congrats. Congrats to me anyway. You are not wasting any more of my time. You are blocked, and I’ll never have to read any of your dumb time-wasting shit again. (Don’t bother replying. I won’t see it)
yeah, no hanky panky this time. ZERO CHANCE!
Trump, and big banks/Burisma Joe, and Nancy, and Chuck, and Mitch, and Lindsey, and Diane, and Kevin, and Mnuchin, and Burr, and Kelly Loeffler, and Jared and Ivanka, and Bill Barr, will be all over this like stink on sht..
and right behind them will be Jamie Dimon, and Lloyd Blankfein, and Bezos, and the airline CEOS, and the NYT, and Jerome Powell, and Brian Roberts, and Randall Stephenson, with their anti corruption forensic microscopes scrutinizing every move the 2020 bailout lottery winners make.
Just stop. Every recession, socialists say: see, we need govt and without it, the country will fail. And during great times, free marketers say: see, if we just get rid of govt, then we can thrive.
Bottom line, we need both. Without govt, we don't have social and economic backstops. With capitalism, we don't have economic innovations.
The debate, which will never end, is how much of each is needed.
We can't say, let airlines fail, then gripe when flight are cancelled. We can't say, let banks fail, then gripe when we can't get loans, or our employer can't get a loan. We can't gripe about big pharma, but expect them to find a cure or vaccine for everything.
I remember a client of mine saying: "Nobody cared I slept on a cot in my office until they realized I no longer had to. Only then did I become the rich boss."
My point is capitalist need socialists and socialists need capitalists. During these times we should be thankful we have govt to help us stay afloat and capitalism to bring us out of the abyss.
You have a very narrow view of M&A and private equity and if anything, recent history has shown that monopolistic pressures have actually benefited consumers and caused much more harm to suppliers.
I'm actually a capitalist. The idea that someone won't take over these airlines or that they would do a worse job is utter bullshit. How can the average airline passenger get screwed worse than what's already taken place over the past decade? For fecks sake, nationalized airlines would be better than the current charade. The airlines are selling pure propaganda. Compare american air products with international counterparts. It's a god damn rigged game. And now they will be bailed out again. Let these losers take a hike. Screw them.
Can you give a couple of examples please? I can think of a couple that support your claim, but I'm not sure that the short and even long term benefits to consumers will outweigh the long term costs.
Have you flown in the past decade? The product gets worse on a monthly basis. Prices rise. Gas prices fall. They are making record profits. **** them.
Why should companies who make billions of dollars in profit have a couple weeks of money in rainy day funds? I'm sorry, but that's batshit insane and their own undoing. Reward the companies who didn't pay out every single dime to shareholders and were responsible corporate citizens. Oh wait, those companies aren't asking for bailouts.There is a stark divide. Let these losers fail and someone can buy their assets and run them more professionally. Why do we always reward the least competent executives?
If the airlines are not bailed out the pilots will still be there, the flight attendants will still be there. So will the aircraft and the maintenance workers and the airports. Who won’t be there, at least not in the same position is debt holders and equity. That’s why they get the higher returns. They take the most risk. Or at least that’s the way it supposed to work.
Because 1) they don't bury the billions in the ground. They expand operations, which adds jobs. And the rich? They buy 2nd and 3rd houses, and yachts, and cars. All of which are produced by workers. Why did Bernie by a 3rd house instead of donating his millions from the book?
2) Some businesses are essential to a functioning economy. Airlines are. Auto makers are. Oil companies are. Others, not so much. Govt makes the rules. Businesses follow them and find ways around them, legally. People like to blame banks for 2008. I say, the banks played by the parameters govt set. And we all do the same thing in looking for every deduction we can to reduce our taxes. As does everyone in any enterprise - whether it be sports, business, personal. All of us look to get around rules. Ever speed? You're looking to usurp the rules.
Tell me, what things are essential to you? Would you want gov't allow them to fail? Verizon or AT &T? Want a drug company to fail that makes your heart medication?
We need a populist revolt of the legal variety at rhe ballot box. We are being sold out by the pols. Who in their right mind could vote for these bailouts? Heads equity wins. Tails equity wins. Can i go play blackjack at the casino and get my losses bailed out? What's the difference?
Sorry but I'll stop you right there. That's total bull honkey. Do you call buybacks and dividends expanding operations?
Amazon, Walmart, Google
nobody know what the long term affects are and nobody can measure and isolate the countless variables to actually say whether these are good or bad for consumers
monopsony buyers do hurt suppliers.
monopoly sellers absolutely hurt consumers.
and duopolies and oligopolies behave much as monopolies through unstoppable collusion.
corporate behavior leverages monopoly positions the same both coming and going, on the buying and selling sides..
what alternate universe do you live in?
debating out and out liars gets exhausting, which i suppose is why liars lie.
the liar's premium, and it's effect on business and political everyday strategy, will become Trump's most impactful legacy of his presidency.
it's always existed, but was considered malevolent behavior.
Trump's political strategy has been to make lying so pervasive that all negative stigma to lying is lost, it becomes just accepted strategy, and out and out lying and cheating becomes accepted as mere "gamesmanship"..
it now pervades social media.
Last edited:
If you fly internationally much, it doesn't take long to find out. American airlines lag behind most of the airlines flying.
are you under some impression that Bloomberg or Buffett or Gates go out to eat or buy 500,000 times the number of pizzas Joe Blow does, or use 500,000 times the lawn care or plumbers or HVAC repairmen?
they don't, and effectively do bury their fortunes in the sand.
once money reaches the billionaire's hands, much of it leaves the normal economy.
a great percent of money plowed into the market then circulates only within the market, and no longer has any velocity/circulation throughout the non investor market economy.
a working man's paycheck immediately circulates to the auto repairman, then to the auto parts store, then the pizza shop, then the pizza delivery guy, then the corner restaurant, the waitress and cook, the farmer, the truck driver, and continually circulates benefiting everyone who it touches along the way, until it hits the rich man's hands, at which point a huge part of it is taken out of circulation.
pre the most recent money printing giveaway, the Fed had plowed maybe $17 trillion into the major banks and Wall St in the last 12 yrs..
the vast majority of that $17 trillion (maybe $150,000 per US family in giveaways to the rich), never touched the non "market" economy, but only circulated within the market, thus served only to artificially inflate stock valuations, and make the rich richer and richer, while never touching the working person.
Last edited:
Yeah, at some point it becomes elementary. You don't have to have much knowledge of politics, economics, or history. He could just ask himself, "if that's the way it works, why are we so busy trying to MAGA?"
And at some point you would think the obvious mistruths that the modern day Republican party has espoused for the last 40 years, would be recognized and called a bluff. But alas, the average Fox news Republican is too busy "winning" to be concerned with effective governance.
From a 10,000 ft view we don't have to wonder about the ultimate effect on the consumer, do we? We know that from the individual consumers perspective, that Walmart and Amazon keep the weekly grocery/necessities receipts lower, but from an aggregate perspective they ultimately lose in the long run with the loss of income from shrinking Main St. and labor demand.
It's akin to across the board tax cuts. The little and medium sized guy gets an extra $1k tax cut and feels like he's better off because he's paid less, but ultimately his tax cut gets swallowed up by the few that receive a $1m cut. Over the long run, there's no doubt the little guy is worse off.
Having said that, I'm not sure how the government can/should help. Breaking up Amazon into several smaller Amazon's defeats the abilities of the company that makes it so strong, i.e. distribution, speed, and efficiency. Another example: Facebook...the whole point is to have a single platform where everyone is connected. If 1/3 of my friends join Facebook 2, and 1/3 of my friends join Facebook 3, it ultimately defeats the purpose. In some instances, we might just have to tip our cap and admit a person like Zuckerberg won capitalism.
The public policy of the United States is to encourage companies to distribute profits by paying dividends to shareholders. If you think more corporations should build rainy day funds, then we need to start with repealing the retained earnings tax.
Besides, paying dividends is a good deal for the government. The IRS will levy a corporate tax on the dividend and the same dividend will be taxed again when the SH receives it.
Not quite poof. Those who sold received cash, which likely went into the bank. Others just see the value drop, no real loss of cash.
WRT to argument part--guilty as charged.
First, I think there are a lot of political and social paradigms that are wrongly applied in some posts or simply wrong period. I challenge those hoping to encourage a debate about some basic common assumptions.
Second, I believe that a healthy argument with a discussion of divergent views and opinions is a higher form of thinking than a simple "discussion". I try to provoke such here. With a few notable exceptions, the exchange of ideas and opinions quickly sinks to name-calling and other ad hominems. Your post is a perfect example. I'd be interested in discussing your views about the merits of what I said--which you totally ignored-- concerning a better corporation rising from the ashes of a bankrupt one. Instead you chose a several paragraph ad hominem.
BTW, I think the ignore button is very low form of thinking. I think telling somebody you use it is even lower.
What did you think of the forced break up of AT&T? At the time, I was against it believing that we had the best telecom industry in the world. AT&T produced the first transistors while it was a monopoly. Bell labs seemed like it advanced science as much as it advanced company interests. While I think present day competition has generally been in the consumer interest I also think R&D has become focused on company advantage.
Is Amazon analogous to AT&T before the breakup?
what is the question? I just see a statement from ribbon but not sure of the context.
Name an airline which makes billions in profits, or were you talking about the industry?
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Pacers take it to Milwaukee tonight tie the series 1-1
- Latest: TomEric4756
-
-
-