I still don’t (figuratively) understand why the government has to subsidise a capitalistic system. Risk is a part of it, so why not embrace it? Is it because they’re too rich to fail? Why is that reserved for the poors?
To put it simply, because it’s too big that the economy of the country is depend on it. If the company failed, massive amount of mid/high income people would lose their job, and this will affect the country’s economy so badly it could potentially crash it. That’s why country constantly bail out big company, its to protect basically everyone. Except when other country bailing out a company they nationalised it in some way.
When the rich say trickle down economy, this is the stuff that is being trickle down, not the good stuff that benefits everyone.
because all that talk of “risk” and “effort” is propaganda.
they’re just making up excuses to why they are on top and why we should stay at the bottom. they actually take no appreciable risk, while we have to if we want to make a real investment.
Because they are “too big to fail” because we have lack of regulation allowing for monopolies controlling vital infrastructure and aspects of society and government.
I still don’t (figuratively) understand why the government has to subsidise a capitalistic system. Risk is a part of it, so why not embrace it? Is it because they’re too rich to fail? Why is that reserved for the poors?
To put it simply, because it’s too big that the economy of the country is depend on it. If the company failed, massive amount of mid/high income people would lose their job, and this will affect the country’s economy so badly it could potentially crash it. That’s why country constantly bail out big company, its to protect basically everyone. Except when other country bailing out a company they nationalised it in some way.
When the rich say trickle down economy, this is the stuff that is being trickle down, not the good stuff that benefits everyone.
They have the money to be able to change the rules and the lack of morality to be willing to change them.
because all that talk of “risk” and “effort” is propaganda.
they’re just making up excuses to why they are on top and why we should stay at the bottom. they actually take no appreciable risk, while we have to if we want to make a real investment.
At the very least the government should then own part of the companies they bail out. If they are so essential and unable to stay afloat on their own…
The car manufacturer bank bailout was treated as a loan. They did technically pay the government back+interest.
Because they are “too big to fail” because we have lack of regulation allowing for monopolies controlling vital infrastructure and aspects of society and government.