• technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      12 小时前

      Who is “we”?

      It seems like this is the usual ultra privileged people who violently control society under a fundamentally evil system.

      That’s not me and I doubt it’s you.

    • defunct_punk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      12 小时前

      Came here to said the same thing. I get what she’s going for but no, there shouldn’t be a bailout at all.

      • drzoidberg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        12 小时前

        If a government ever needs to bail out a company, that company should be rolled into the government as a utility or service, and its CEO/board should be released with no compensation, and barred from holding similar positions for 10 years.

        The bank bailout, airline bailout, automotive bailout, mortgage bailout, etc., should have all been rolled into the federal government, or been completely shut down. If you run your business so shittily that you cannot function without a government bailout, then that business shouldn’t exist.

        • defunct_punk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          9 小时前

          You’re overcomplicating things. There’s no reason for a bailout in an ostensibly capitalist economy, period. I appreciate your comment but bailouts shouldn’t exist at all

          • kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 小时前

            There are legitimate negative economic consequences to letting large enough businesses fail. Nationalizing them with no compensation to their executives is a better plan than golden parachutes or inaction, and it’s easier to do than fully-automated luxury gay space communism.

            • defunct_punk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 小时前

              Nope there aren’t :) Ford, Wall Street, and Perplexity should all fail because… they failed.

              That’s kind of how this whole thing works and the worst kind of PPP youre advocating for is what got us in this shithole in the first place

  • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    9 小时前

    Remember that these CEO’s are the ones (along with their pay-for talking heads in the media) that will, with the zeal and energy of a pentecostal minister on crack, tell us all that socialism will destroy innovation, reward the lazy, and put a bigger burden on the middle class tax payer. All while doing everything their bank accounts can do to build a system where they get more and more of our tax money - because of reasons.

  • ceenote@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    11 小时前

    I can feel myself being radicalized in real-time by the shamelessness with which they engineer the system to rob everyone not in their country club.

    And by the video I watched this morning about who Jay Gould was and who Andrew Carnegie REALLY was.

  • Lemminary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    12 小时前

    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?

    • Annoyed_🦀 @lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 小时前

      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.

    • kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 小时前

      They have the money to be able to change the rules and the lack of morality to be willing to change them.

    • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      10 小时前

      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.

    • Hudell@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 小时前

      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…

    • jaybone@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 小时前

      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.

    • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      12 小时前

      exactly what i was thinking. no one will stop a possible bailout except the us people.

      and the us people doesn’t seem interested in this effort.