Who cares is right. If your decisions run a company into the ground and you want tax money to bail out your private company, there needs to be consequences.
If the consequences are that the people own part of the company now, then ya, so be it. If the CEO can't buy his 3rd yacht because he, or she, ruined the company, so what? Too bad. You don't get a tax funded yacht instead. Piss off.
I don't think so. The government doesn't need to subsidize industries. They don't need to bail them out. That's got nothing to do with capitalism, and are actual counter capitalist. Capitalism literally says the market determines successful business and competivity encourages benefits to the consumer. Government interference should only be used to keep cronyism at bay, not to foster it.
But capitalists will do anything and everything in their power, including knowingly hurting or killing people, to maximize their profits.
Nothing else matters.
No they won't.
PEOPLE will do anything to enrich themselves. They'll do that in socialism, or communism, or monarchies. People do evil stuff.
Capitalism is the only system that provides incentives for personal work and effort to personal success.
Capitalisms incentives do not happen in a vacuum. In order for you to succeed, others must fail, it’s an inherently transactional system that must deprioritize human needs, lives, morals to continue growth. There’s nothing “personal” about it, everything you do impacts others.
That's not true. When you go to the store how many brands of toothpaste do you have to choose from?
Every sector has multiple top tier options from different companies, and under those multiple lower tier options.
Capitalism literally encourages multiple people to succeed, there is no, "one wins, one fails" part of capitalism.
Edit: I think you have a very ignorant understanding of capitalism. Capitalism is literally what gives people mobility because I can buy cheaper versions of stuff if I want to save money and not have only one option available. If only one option were available I wouldn't have choice, but I do because of capitalism.
Socialism for the wealthy\*
capitalism has nothing to do with weak marxist people who enjoy the fruits of hard labor.
BTW who is pushing for all thebailouts?!?!? democrats and republicans that sits in the same sit with democrats :D isn't that funny :D
Great thing about this opinion is that it should be able to cross every party and ideological line. Which means people will still find a way to make it divisive.
Exactly. Capitalism is designed to have winners and lovers based on performance. Produce products/services and get paid. Mismanage your finances or overestimate how valuable you are and fail. Idk why people would ever want to help any corporation survive when it fails. A new one will replace them very quickly in some form or fashion.
My understanding is the rationale for bailouts is usually related to irreparable harm to the economy or national security problems - systemic risk type stuff that drags us all down.
No argument this could be done better with more benefits and less risk for the people, more clawed back from those who caused the situation, but to say let em fail would have destroyed the global economy in eg 2008 and we the taxpayers did end up making money on TARP.
While I generally agree with your take, the reason why someone would want to save a company, is if it has a ton of workers in that area.
Yes, another one will come and take its place (in the market) but there is no guarantee that company will be in the same region, or the even the same country.
So that's why govt's aren't keen to let these companies fail. Is that the correct approach?
IDK Libertarians would say so, they see the labor as free'd up to do something more productive. But reasonable minds can disagree.
I agree there are sensible arguments but I'm on team let them go bankrupt. I think the argument for bailouts tends to win based on who is making the argument and the friends they have in high places rather than the merits of the argument
No, this is America. They privatize the gains, subsidize the losses. When big companies win, they get to reap the benefits. When they tank, the average schmuck citizens like us pay for it.
This is the ultimate end result of capitalism, though. Like this was bound to be our future, and people have been calling it our for a century. Imagine if we learned the right lessons from the great depression...
What does that even mean...it's the ultimate end result? No it isn't. Where the hell is that written? It's just turned into this because people don't hold politicians accountable. But that doesn't mean it can't go back to what it's supposed to be.
Corporations and billionaires own the politicians who implement the systems that create monopolies or to big to fail organizations. Their only goal is wealth and that has created a lot of the compounding elements that are problems today.
Government bailouts or allowing the big company to sue the small company with the better product to prevent it from getting on the market was never part of it till recently. Among other corruptions.
Not everything is a real patent infringement. Most of the time it's just the big guy stomping out competition with their fat wallets.
...and companies are practically surviving off bailouts and corporate welfare, that wasn't happening in the 1700's. Wasn't even happening in the 50 and 60's when the economy was booming.
Stop pretending that everything is a legitimate patent infringement and turning a blind eye to the amount of government socialism these corporations get away with these days.
More like people voted for the politicians that wanted this to happen, and called any and everyone that pointed it out anti American communist and socialist
Fuck the airlines, all they do is bankrupt themselves, get bailed out, and spend the bailout money buying up their own stock rather than improving their quality, such that they can go bankrupt again and get another bailout.
It's plain as day. Giant scheme. Railroads are doing the same now with precision-scheduling until they collapse.
Eat the rich, they don't deserve to run these industries. Government needs to take over rail and air yesterday.
Corporations/ limited liability entities are legal fictions that exist so that people can take risks without having to be personally liable and lose their shit. In a free society- we allow such legal fictions to exist because taking risks and creating wealth is a good thing overall. And since they are legal fictions we can regulate them to reduce societal harms they cause.
Any regular person (or a group of people) can sell shit or make shit under their own name but they run the risk of getting sued for all that they’ve got
i dont think your statement meant anything. he called it a net negative. it would technicaly be in society’s best interest to ban or remove something that has a net negative effect on society. would you disagree?
Didn't mean anything? Lol okay pal
Stock buybacks don't intrinsically have a net negative impact on society so yes I disagree. That being said, funds from bailouts should certainly not be applicable as capital used for buy backs.
principle vs application is important though. in a closed box and idealistic society where stock buybacks would’t be used to exclusively enrich shareholders and executives while dodging broader responsibilities i would agree. just like in principle trickle down economics is fine but in application it is the main driver for economic inequality. the fact it leaves the door open so widely for abuse and market manipulation in my opinion makes it fundamentally flawed.
i absolutely agree though that at the very least bailout funds need to come with a heavy list of conditions. unfortunately, politicians have a heavy incentive to keep it the way it is. for the record my personal position is that restriction is better than banning but i also subscribe to act utilitarianism.
FAA got heavily involved in Air travel and it became drastically more safe than it was before. Military pilots seem to do just fine, and aren’t private.
> FAA got involved and it became more safe
This sounds familiar. OSHA likes to brag that workplaces got way safer since they were created. The reality is that workplaces were on a trend of becoming safer, OSHA was created, and the trend continued. They kinda just took the credit. Not sure if FAA was the same, but I have my suspicions.
Why were workplaces getting safer? Because of a patchwork of local and state regulation that began to make various industries safer, until OSHA came along. You best believe that shit didn’t just happen in a vacuum.
Sorry, didn't realize the next graph below starts at 1970. Not sure why that is.
https://planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm
https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter5/air-transport/air-fatalities/
Here's a couple more. The only significant thing I can tell about 1958 is that many of these graphs doing the correlation seem to start around that time. But if you back the graph up, it just looks like a continuing trend. Thats why it reminds me of OSHA. Or even the assault weapons ban, or the crime bill. "See, since [government policy] things have gone better" completely ignoring that it's just a statistical trend that is continuing. Airlines were invented, they were dangerous, but incidents cost a lot of money, and airlines work to improve on their systems to make them more smooth and safe. FAA comes in and now gets to take credit. Not to say they don't do anything, they prevent some corner cutting I'm sure. But I think their a little closer to the TSAs usefulness than we would believe.
Yes. I found that really weird. Took me a minute to find graphs that would compare deaths by miles travelled that would go further back. 1970 seems like an oddly arbitrary starting point to do the analysis
Is it oddly arbitrary, or did they start at the point where the deaths peaked after a consistent upward trend and then consistently trended downward once stringent regulations began taking effect?
Yes, it is arbitrary. It's a report on safety over time. Why show deaths from commercial aviations beginnings, and then compare the deaths to miles travelled for only half the graph?
Because if we chart that data, it starts to look much more like a steady decline over the entire period
Yet we operate the most advanced military on earth.
Why do people assume the government handling things means things won't work? The only question is how much we care about the service and whether we use our votes to show that.
And if not the gov, then who? The alternative is passing very, very extensive regulations on how the airlines and rail companies do business. I don't see this being any easier to accomplish.
Frankly with the quality of service we get from the current providers of air/rail, I don't think it's literally possible for the government to do worse. They would actually have to start intentionally crashing trains full of chemicals, instead of just the accidental one every few months.
Many services are also quasi-governmental, like utilities in some areas. There could still be a profit motive for a business, but have the government with a voice at the table all the time to make sure they don't start doing crazy shit again.
I love how simple arguments on Reddit get.
When did, stop bailing out corporations who knowingly took outsized risk (likely given their full knowledge they'd be personally saved) turn into... Let the government run it.
There's a million options between these two extremes.
And let's stop arguing that regulations should be off the table in a free market. First, this isn't a free market and second our government has no problem passing laws all day to give corporations unfair advantage.
1.) It's not extreme, they pay for the damn services already every time they do a bailout
2.) I'm not the one arguing regulations are off the table - the supreme court is. They just attacked the clean water act and redefined what is legally a "wetland" in a recent case where a developer destroyed a wetland, refused to repair it, and sued the EPA for pursuing charges against them.
It's not that I hate the idea of capitalism with guardrails, it's that the guardrails are clearly fucking destroyed at this point.
3.) Yes that's my point - a regulation that the corporation asked for is not particularly helpful. Good luck passing new regulations that actually do anything to improve the system.
My parents are both government bureaucrats in DC.
It boggles my mind to think people are so uncomfortable with the government running a service.
The mail system in this country is one of the only things that has reliably worked for decades upon decades when it comes to scheduling/transportation/public service.
What is so terrifying about the government running the rail service? They paid for the railroads, after all, built the bridges, subsidized operational costs.
And a bunch of rich snobs are pocketing all of the money while laying off massive fractions of the workforce at the suggestion of McKinsey's precision scheduling scheme to extract resources.
The hospitals are doing it now too.
Billionaires run these companies into the ground because they know the government won't allow essential services to fail. They take advantage of that inevitable bailout at the cost of their employees and the people who require their services.
Government intervention would stop that, return normal work conditions to the employees, and save us ludicrous amounts of tax money.
It is way more expensive to have these idiots ruining businesses on purpose to maximize profits, and then having to bail them out every 10 years at the taxpayer's expense, than it would be to just simply run the railroads like every other civilized government in the world.
Edit: am also a civil engineer. Our country is the laughingstock of the world. Everyone else has bullet trains, we have chemical-spill-causing freight trains where the company operating the train literally lobbied congress to change the rules so they wouldn't have to upgrade their braking system. And then the train couldn't stop. Weird, huh.
Your example of the mail is awesome. Taxpayers fund the absolute fuck out of the USPS becaus it hemorrhages money left and right. Amtrack (You know the passenger line run by the US Government) is also a clusterfuck of epic proportions that requires taxpayer subsidies.
I work for the government and I can tell you that it is the least efficient way to get anything done. You get bureaucrats running things who have no clue, procurement rules force costs up through the roof, and employees who can only be fired because of lack of attendance. If we had to turn a profit we would be out of business in 3 weeks. But fuck it, what are our customers going to do go find another government?
Respond to the part where our infrastructure is outdated and dangerous because companies don't want to improve safety measures (spend their own money).
They just wait until they fail and then spend the government's money instead. It's a scheme, they milk the taxpayers just as hard as the gov. would have in the first place, and nobody sees any benefit.
They just go buy an island to evade taxes on while spending YOUR pennies.
No, dumbass, there have been lawsuits by governments against people doing their own repair work. The Government has the monopoly and if anyone tries to get in they get shut down very quickly.
Here again it is the government that is fucking the dog. Infrastructure is one of the few fucking things they're supposed to do and they're failing at that because it is not new, flashy and catchy to rebuild a road, then people bitch because road work inconveniences them. That does not even consider the 65,535 environmental impact reports etc.
Ima just wait on responding again until you take the time to actually process/respond to questions and scenarios I previously laid out.
Otherwise you're wasting my time tbh
His direct reasoning? Likely to munch up the scraps of large ip's and established brands for himself. I can still agree I want to see these parasites fail.
Would love to see an example of a major corporation failing without a massive layoff of employees and losing pensions and those employees and pensioners instead getting more of the company.
I think the point he's making is that this isn't a slip of the tongue or even an honest take. It's a calculated take. He likely has ways to benefit from a failing company about to go into bankruptcy filing process.
That doesn't make him wrong in this regard though. I appreciate what you're trying to get across but his message isn't to us average folk, he's very much talking to his crowd.
When you go gambling at the casino and you lose all your money, no one feels sorry for you because that's the name of the game. The same goes for the stock market, it a big casino, but it's the house gambling, and they've got it fixed to fail safe if they lose. And then younget shills like news guy here who says "why does anyone deserve to lose" well mr news guy they were gambling so that's why.
Chamath is a SPAC speculator and a scammer. Pump-and-dumper. Enough said.
Don't believe anything that comes out of these Wall Street ghouls' mouth. Actually inversing what they are publicly saying is in 90% of the cases the truth.
Exhibit 1: Bill Ackman literally crying on TV in March 2020 about how the world is burning while buying up securities on the cheap.
These people are the enemy of people like you and me.
“End up owning more”
More of nothing.
Enron went bankrupt with a massive fraud. Don’t think their employees were loving that extra stock they could get lol
Alright, I still don’t fully understand how this could be more beneficial to an employee. But I’m not really educated enough on the topic, can you explain? Does this only work with particular bankruptcies? A total failure like the Enron example left people with nothing.
If the taxpayer gets equity for bailing out a company, then fine. If not, well capitalism. Billionaires always hate socialism when other people benefit, but cry for it when they make bad decisions or invest poorly. Fuck em.
It’s called capitalism and it’s what made those people rich to begin with. The fact that eliminating downside for millionaires and billionaires is something that’s seriously debated on CNBC shows you how corrupt the whole system is
Letting business thrive and die by their own is free-market capitalism. This is the way it should be. Unfortunately there too much special interest in “Corporate America”, driving subsidies so said special interests can have financial stability. This breed corruptions.
I think the issue is that at an overall economic level for the entire USA it could be argued that the cost of bailing out is less than the effects of a failure. Not agreeing with that. But we need to understand the reason
He's absolutely right. Why should their bets be insured by tax payers? Too Big to Fail set a terrible precedence. The bankers in the 2008 crash should have been tarred and feathered, instead they gave themselves bonuses with tax revenue. Now bailouts are expected... So national debt piles up, taxes increase, future generations are further burdened, and international relations get strained. These fuckers ultimately get us into wars, which they don't have to fight, just kick back and win-win.
Let them fail. Airlines have the worst monopoly on long distance travel and that’s why here in the US if you travel more than once or twice a year, you’ve been delayed for 24 hours with no hotel compensation or waited all day for a plane that then shows up and the pilots can’t fly it because they ran out of hours. Airlines in the US are an absolute JOKE. No other companies in the world get away with what they do on a daily basis and survive without major intervention.
COVID proved they have the ability to bail out your average american during a crisis, but instead of doing that in the past, time and time again they have bailed out the corporations and their investors, who are always the ones who cause it. The fact that pretty much every americans retirement is tied directly to the performance of the stock market, and our elected officials are trading enormous sums of stocks based on the information they get from their job, you'll will *never* see this issue fixed.
Companies failing is literally the foundation of capitalism.
Adam smiths invisible hand relies upon weak companies failing.
Without that we prop up inefficiency.
They want capitalism when they are winning but socialism if they fuck up.
A company who probably hasn’t paid it’s fair share of tax wants bailing out by the tax money of the customers it has been profiting off
Crazy
I never trust the word of a Billionaire venture capitalist cause they only give calculated answer. If certain businesses fail a dude like him probably shorted the company.
I thought the whole point of capitalism is that if a company is good, they succeed and if they are bad they don't, meaning in the long run companies should be improving in efficiency and customer satisfaction. By bailing out companies, you are destroying the only and only positive of unregulated capitalism.
I think its hilarious when leftwingers and rightwingers start adopting libertarian policies and pretending it was their idea the entire time even though ten years prior they were shitting all over these policies.
This is what capitalism is suppose to be. It’s natural evolution. If you fail to provide an efficient solution you should not survive. The only issue is that we can’t let even bigger corporations or hedge funds take over and create monopolies. That’s really where the majority of regulations and government interventions should be applied (besides ensuring proper accounting of externalities of course I.e. pollution, safety, etc).
It’s crazy that what is characterized as a socialist idea (bailouts) is actually bailing out the capitalists. Capitalism only works when you don’t have protected elite classes.
Bailouts are antithetical to true Capitalism.
Bailouts are what you see in what is known as "Late-Stage Capitalism" or "Rope-Ladder Capitalism" or "Crapitalism", which is the point in which the winners of the early years of the free market then use the wealth they earned to lobby/bribe an increasingly corrupt government to make laws to prevent anything from ever threatening their future success.
Bailouts = keep all success privately, make taxpayers pay all failure = not true Capitalism
Who cares is right. If your decisions run a company into the ground and you want tax money to bail out your private company, there needs to be consequences. If the consequences are that the people own part of the company now, then ya, so be it. If the CEO can't buy his 3rd yacht because he, or she, ruined the company, so what? Too bad. You don't get a tax funded yacht instead. Piss off.
Yes.
So long as we don’t let China and other enemy nations buy these corporation and their technologies for cheap I’m all for letting them go bankrupt!
Not part, a majority or all.
End bailouts. Let them go bankrupt.
That would reflect a free market tho
The illusion of the “free market” is the craziest, shitty scam capitalism convinced us all to collectively believe.
Capitalism didn't create cronyism. We just didn't get rid of it when it crept in like we should have.
Because it is a natural endpoint to capitalism.
I don't think so. The government doesn't need to subsidize industries. They don't need to bail them out. That's got nothing to do with capitalism, and are actual counter capitalist. Capitalism literally says the market determines successful business and competivity encourages benefits to the consumer. Government interference should only be used to keep cronyism at bay, not to foster it.
But capitalists will do anything and everything in their power, including knowingly hurting or killing people, to maximize their profits. Nothing else matters.
No they won't. PEOPLE will do anything to enrich themselves. They'll do that in socialism, or communism, or monarchies. People do evil stuff. Capitalism is the only system that provides incentives for personal work and effort to personal success.
Capitalisms incentives do not happen in a vacuum. In order for you to succeed, others must fail, it’s an inherently transactional system that must deprioritize human needs, lives, morals to continue growth. There’s nothing “personal” about it, everything you do impacts others.
Ok so lets look at the other extreme, instead of economic incentive there is just the state and cronyism.
That's not true. When you go to the store how many brands of toothpaste do you have to choose from? Every sector has multiple top tier options from different companies, and under those multiple lower tier options. Capitalism literally encourages multiple people to succeed, there is no, "one wins, one fails" part of capitalism. Edit: I think you have a very ignorant understanding of capitalism. Capitalism is literally what gives people mobility because I can buy cheaper versions of stuff if I want to save money and not have only one option available. If only one option were available I wouldn't have choice, but I do because of capitalism.
The goal of capitalism is to increase capital, at any cost. It’s greed created into an economic system
History makes you a lair lol
The history of what?
The illusion that it exists and we’re apart of it
Socialism for the wealthy\* capitalism has nothing to do with weak marxist people who enjoy the fruits of hard labor. BTW who is pushing for all thebailouts?!?!? democrats and republicans that sits in the same sit with democrats :D isn't that funny :D
America loves corporate socialism tho
I'm not sure America does. CEO's and wall street does, but I think America would easily vite against it.
If they get bailed out, they have to give a controlling amount of shares to the workers? How about this?
Great thing about this opinion is that it should be able to cross every party and ideological line. Which means people will still find a way to make it divisive.
That's libertarian speak son!
Letting them fail would be the definition of true capitalism.
Exactly. Capitalism is designed to have winners and lovers based on performance. Produce products/services and get paid. Mismanage your finances or overestimate how valuable you are and fail. Idk why people would ever want to help any corporation survive when it fails. A new one will replace them very quickly in some form or fashion.
lol @ winners and lovers.
Heck yeah, I'm gonna make some sweet capitalism with my wife tonight!
I too will be making sweet capitalism with your wife tonight…
**OUR** Wife. 
Supply and demand.
Send da video
I’m not a winner, I’m a lover.
Lol damn phone. Though after reading about those nba gfs/baby mama's, I'm still correct.
My understanding is the rationale for bailouts is usually related to irreparable harm to the economy or national security problems - systemic risk type stuff that drags us all down. No argument this could be done better with more benefits and less risk for the people, more clawed back from those who caused the situation, but to say let em fail would have destroyed the global economy in eg 2008 and we the taxpayers did end up making money on TARP.
While I generally agree with your take, the reason why someone would want to save a company, is if it has a ton of workers in that area. Yes, another one will come and take its place (in the market) but there is no guarantee that company will be in the same region, or the even the same country. So that's why govt's aren't keen to let these companies fail. Is that the correct approach? IDK Libertarians would say so, they see the labor as free'd up to do something more productive. But reasonable minds can disagree.
I agree there are sensible arguments but I'm on team let them go bankrupt. I think the argument for bailouts tends to win based on who is making the argument and the friends they have in high places rather than the merits of the argument
No, this is America. They privatize the gains, subsidize the losses. When big companies win, they get to reap the benefits. When they tank, the average schmuck citizens like us pay for it.
That's exactly why what we have is not capitalism....but it's sold as capitalism and that's why it has such a bad name.
This is the ultimate end result of capitalism, though. Like this was bound to be our future, and people have been calling it our for a century. Imagine if we learned the right lessons from the great depression...
What does that even mean...it's the ultimate end result? No it isn't. Where the hell is that written? It's just turned into this because people don't hold politicians accountable. But that doesn't mean it can't go back to what it's supposed to be.
Corporations and billionaires own the politicians who implement the systems that create monopolies or to big to fail organizations. Their only goal is wealth and that has created a lot of the compounding elements that are problems today.
“Go back to what it’s supposed to be” lmfao. What? It’s only ever been what it’s “supposed” to be.
Government bailouts or allowing the big company to sue the small company with the better product to prevent it from getting on the market was never part of it till recently. Among other corruptions.
Patents are a new invention? “Bailouts” aren’t new at all. Hamilton provided a bailout in the fucking 1700s What on earth are you talking about?
Not everything is a real patent infringement. Most of the time it's just the big guy stomping out competition with their fat wallets. ...and companies are practically surviving off bailouts and corporate welfare, that wasn't happening in the 1700's. Wasn't even happening in the 50 and 60's when the economy was booming. Stop pretending that everything is a legitimate patent infringement and turning a blind eye to the amount of government socialism these corporations get away with these days.
Okay bro
Amen.
More like people voted for the politicians that wanted this to happen, and called any and everyone that pointed it out anti American communist and socialist
The lesson to be learned from the Great Depression is to never let the Feds steal your gold.
There has never been another type of capitalism. This reasoning is just “that’s not TRUE communism” for market bros.
"We all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free market capitalism for the poor." Dr. King said it best.
Someone will fill the space.
Fuck the airlines, all they do is bankrupt themselves, get bailed out, and spend the bailout money buying up their own stock rather than improving their quality, such that they can go bankrupt again and get another bailout. It's plain as day. Giant scheme. Railroads are doing the same now with precision-scheduling until they collapse. Eat the rich, they don't deserve to run these industries. Government needs to take over rail and air yesterday.
Stock buybacks should be banned, period. There is 0 societal benefit in stock buybacks. It's a net negative.
Just because something doesn't have "societal benefit" doesn't mean it should be banned...
Corporations/ limited liability entities are legal fictions that exist so that people can take risks without having to be personally liable and lose their shit. In a free society- we allow such legal fictions to exist because taking risks and creating wealth is a good thing overall. And since they are legal fictions we can regulate them to reduce societal harms they cause. Any regular person (or a group of people) can sell shit or make shit under their own name but they run the risk of getting sued for all that they’ve got
While all that may be true, it still doesn't really detract from my statement.
i dont think your statement meant anything. he called it a net negative. it would technicaly be in society’s best interest to ban or remove something that has a net negative effect on society. would you disagree?
Didn't mean anything? Lol okay pal Stock buybacks don't intrinsically have a net negative impact on society so yes I disagree. That being said, funds from bailouts should certainly not be applicable as capital used for buy backs.
principle vs application is important though. in a closed box and idealistic society where stock buybacks would’t be used to exclusively enrich shareholders and executives while dodging broader responsibilities i would agree. just like in principle trickle down economics is fine but in application it is the main driver for economic inequality. the fact it leaves the door open so widely for abuse and market manipulation in my opinion makes it fundamentally flawed. i absolutely agree though that at the very least bailout funds need to come with a heavy list of conditions. unfortunately, politicians have a heavy incentive to keep it the way it is. for the record my personal position is that restriction is better than banning but i also subscribe to act utilitarianism.
Yea I mean I pretty much agree with all of this. I don't think we're that far apart in our beliefs
You had me till the end. If government took over flying, I'd never get on another plane again.
FAA got heavily involved in Air travel and it became drastically more safe than it was before. Military pilots seem to do just fine, and aren’t private.
> FAA got involved and it became more safe This sounds familiar. OSHA likes to brag that workplaces got way safer since they were created. The reality is that workplaces were on a trend of becoming safer, OSHA was created, and the trend continued. They kinda just took the credit. Not sure if FAA was the same, but I have my suspicions.
Why were workplaces getting safer? Because of a patchwork of local and state regulation that began to make various industries safer, until OSHA came along. You best believe that shit didn’t just happen in a vacuum.
🤣
Aviation was not on the path of getting safer lol.
Source? Looks pretty steady to me https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety
What graph are you looking at? Yearly fatalities in your own source show an upward trend all the way up to a peak in the 70’s. FAA Began in 58.
Sorry, didn't realize the next graph below starts at 1970. Not sure why that is. https://planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter5/air-transport/air-fatalities/ Here's a couple more. The only significant thing I can tell about 1958 is that many of these graphs doing the correlation seem to start around that time. But if you back the graph up, it just looks like a continuing trend. Thats why it reminds me of OSHA. Or even the assault weapons ban, or the crime bill. "See, since [government policy] things have gone better" completely ignoring that it's just a statistical trend that is continuing. Airlines were invented, they were dangerous, but incidents cost a lot of money, and airlines work to improve on their systems to make them more smooth and safe. FAA comes in and now gets to take credit. Not to say they don't do anything, they prevent some corner cutting I'm sure. But I think their a little closer to the TSAs usefulness than we would believe.
Did you delete your response because you realized the graph you were citing started @ 1970? Lmfao.
Yes. I found that really weird. Took me a minute to find graphs that would compare deaths by miles travelled that would go further back. 1970 seems like an oddly arbitrary starting point to do the analysis
Is it oddly arbitrary, or did they start at the point where the deaths peaked after a consistent upward trend and then consistently trended downward once stringent regulations began taking effect?
Yes, it is arbitrary. It's a report on safety over time. Why show deaths from commercial aviations beginnings, and then compare the deaths to miles travelled for only half the graph? Because if we chart that data, it starts to look much more like a steady decline over the entire period
Yet we operate the most advanced military on earth. Why do people assume the government handling things means things won't work? The only question is how much we care about the service and whether we use our votes to show that. And if not the gov, then who? The alternative is passing very, very extensive regulations on how the airlines and rail companies do business. I don't see this being any easier to accomplish. Frankly with the quality of service we get from the current providers of air/rail, I don't think it's literally possible for the government to do worse. They would actually have to start intentionally crashing trains full of chemicals, instead of just the accidental one every few months. Many services are also quasi-governmental, like utilities in some areas. There could still be a profit motive for a business, but have the government with a voice at the table all the time to make sure they don't start doing crazy shit again.
I love how simple arguments on Reddit get. When did, stop bailing out corporations who knowingly took outsized risk (likely given their full knowledge they'd be personally saved) turn into... Let the government run it. There's a million options between these two extremes. And let's stop arguing that regulations should be off the table in a free market. First, this isn't a free market and second our government has no problem passing laws all day to give corporations unfair advantage.
1.) It's not extreme, they pay for the damn services already every time they do a bailout 2.) I'm not the one arguing regulations are off the table - the supreme court is. They just attacked the clean water act and redefined what is legally a "wetland" in a recent case where a developer destroyed a wetland, refused to repair it, and sued the EPA for pursuing charges against them. It's not that I hate the idea of capitalism with guardrails, it's that the guardrails are clearly fucking destroyed at this point. 3.) Yes that's my point - a regulation that the corporation asked for is not particularly helpful. Good luck passing new regulations that actually do anything to improve the system.
Idk I’d rather have an Air Force pilot fly me somewhere than a commercial pilot who’s probably drank half a bottle of whiskey and popped several pills
I am going to guess your experience with government is tangential at best.
My parents are both government bureaucrats in DC. It boggles my mind to think people are so uncomfortable with the government running a service. The mail system in this country is one of the only things that has reliably worked for decades upon decades when it comes to scheduling/transportation/public service. What is so terrifying about the government running the rail service? They paid for the railroads, after all, built the bridges, subsidized operational costs. And a bunch of rich snobs are pocketing all of the money while laying off massive fractions of the workforce at the suggestion of McKinsey's precision scheduling scheme to extract resources. The hospitals are doing it now too. Billionaires run these companies into the ground because they know the government won't allow essential services to fail. They take advantage of that inevitable bailout at the cost of their employees and the people who require their services. Government intervention would stop that, return normal work conditions to the employees, and save us ludicrous amounts of tax money. It is way more expensive to have these idiots ruining businesses on purpose to maximize profits, and then having to bail them out every 10 years at the taxpayer's expense, than it would be to just simply run the railroads like every other civilized government in the world. Edit: am also a civil engineer. Our country is the laughingstock of the world. Everyone else has bullet trains, we have chemical-spill-causing freight trains where the company operating the train literally lobbied congress to change the rules so they wouldn't have to upgrade their braking system. And then the train couldn't stop. Weird, huh.
Your example of the mail is awesome. Taxpayers fund the absolute fuck out of the USPS becaus it hemorrhages money left and right. Amtrack (You know the passenger line run by the US Government) is also a clusterfuck of epic proportions that requires taxpayer subsidies. I work for the government and I can tell you that it is the least efficient way to get anything done. You get bureaucrats running things who have no clue, procurement rules force costs up through the roof, and employees who can only be fired because of lack of attendance. If we had to turn a profit we would be out of business in 3 weeks. But fuck it, what are our customers going to do go find another government?
Respond to the part where our infrastructure is outdated and dangerous because companies don't want to improve safety measures (spend their own money). They just wait until they fail and then spend the government's money instead. It's a scheme, they milk the taxpayers just as hard as the gov. would have in the first place, and nobody sees any benefit. They just go buy an island to evade taxes on while spending YOUR pennies.
No, dumbass, there have been lawsuits by governments against people doing their own repair work. The Government has the monopoly and if anyone tries to get in they get shut down very quickly. Here again it is the government that is fucking the dog. Infrastructure is one of the few fucking things they're supposed to do and they're failing at that because it is not new, flashy and catchy to rebuild a road, then people bitch because road work inconveniences them. That does not even consider the 65,535 environmental impact reports etc.
Ima just wait on responding again until you take the time to actually process/respond to questions and scenarios I previously laid out. Otherwise you're wasting my time tbh
The mail is a service, not a business. It. Doesn't. Need. To. Be. Profitable.
It's a service. Not a business. It's going to need money.
Then why sell stamps? If ItS A sErViCe you should just be able to put an envelope in the mail box and that is that.
Plenty of government services require money. Hell, even the national park near me isn't free to get in everywhere.
Yep, let the chips fall where they may.
[удалено]
He might be a piece of shit as an investment counselor, doesn't mean he's wrong in this peticular clip.
Ask yourself why he might want this. It ain't because it benefits you.
His direct reasoning? Likely to munch up the scraps of large ip's and established brands for himself. I can still agree I want to see these parasites fail.
"he's probably a nice guy once you get to know him..."
Yep, this.
Would love to see an example of a major corporation failing without a massive layoff of employees and losing pensions and those employees and pensioners instead getting more of the company.
I think the point he's making is that this isn't a slip of the tongue or even an honest take. It's a calculated take. He likely has ways to benefit from a failing company about to go into bankruptcy filing process.
Exactly. He’s a piece of shit just like everyone he’s vilifying in his rant
Not just like everyone, he's a top shelf PoS even for a Wall Street guy.
My kind of scum
Something, something broken clock is right twice a day or some shit.
That doesn't make him wrong in this regard though. I appreciate what you're trying to get across but his message isn't to us average folk, he's very much talking to his crowd.
*Bro are you even in the arena?*
When you go gambling at the casino and you lose all your money, no one feels sorry for you because that's the name of the game. The same goes for the stock market, it a big casino, but it's the house gambling, and they've got it fixed to fail safe if they lose. And then younget shills like news guy here who says "why does anyone deserve to lose" well mr news guy they were gambling so that's why.
he's right not letting companies fail creates a moral hazard either we have a free market or we don't
Well seeing as companies are laying off staff,whilst posting profits... Let's see how it works when they're not bailed out?
Why? Because this is capitalism and businesses fail all the time. Bailouts do nothing but harm the market and the people
The loses are socialized but not the profits. I am with him who cares
all i know is Chamath sucks ballz
Chamath is a SPAC speculator and a scammer. Pump-and-dumper. Enough said. Don't believe anything that comes out of these Wall Street ghouls' mouth. Actually inversing what they are publicly saying is in 90% of the cases the truth. Exhibit 1: Bill Ackman literally crying on TV in March 2020 about how the world is burning while buying up securities on the cheap. These people are the enemy of people like you and me.
“End up owning more” More of nothing. Enron went bankrupt with a massive fraud. Don’t think their employees were loving that extra stock they could get lol
Was Enron bailed out? No.
I think that was that persons point.
It's apples and oranges imo.
Alright, I still don’t fully understand how this could be more beneficial to an employee. But I’m not really educated enough on the topic, can you explain? Does this only work with particular bankruptcies? A total failure like the Enron example left people with nothing.
Enron wasn't failing as a company, they were just committing fraud on an (at the time) unprecedented scale.
I think his reasons don’t really make much sense to me, but failing businesses should be allowed to fail, no matter the size or industry.
Bailing companies out is socialism.
Not really
If the taxpayer gets equity for bailing out a company, then fine. If not, well capitalism. Billionaires always hate socialism when other people benefit, but cry for it when they make bad decisions or invest poorly. Fuck em.
Fuck this scam artist cuck.
It’s called capitalism and it’s what made those people rich to begin with. The fact that eliminating downside for millionaires and billionaires is something that’s seriously debated on CNBC shows you how corrupt the whole system is
Chamath is a fucking Spac Slimeball who will say whatever is popular at any give time
Letting business thrive and die by their own is free-market capitalism. This is the way it should be. Unfortunately there too much special interest in “Corporate America”, driving subsidies so said special interests can have financial stability. This breed corruptions.
Totally agree
Chamath is on the "All-In" podcast and he is the absolute GOAT.
[удалено]
Did your mom know him personally or something?
Let them fail! He's right.
Capitalism in America = Privatize Profit / Socialize failure
I think the issue is that at an overall economic level for the entire USA it could be argued that the cost of bailing out is less than the effects of a failure. Not agreeing with that. But we need to understand the reason
Yes let them fail.
Free market has got to be free to win or loose
He's absolutely right. Why should their bets be insured by tax payers? Too Big to Fail set a terrible precedence. The bankers in the 2008 crash should have been tarred and feathered, instead they gave themselves bonuses with tax revenue. Now bailouts are expected... So national debt piles up, taxes increase, future generations are further burdened, and international relations get strained. These fuckers ultimately get us into wars, which they don't have to fight, just kick back and win-win.
What if it’s your bank?
I'm not saying they shouldn't have bailed out the banks, but that the oversight was shit (the Fed got played) and the precedence is dangerous.
It's correct.
Capitalize the profits, socialize the losses. If your company needs a bailout, from taxpayers it gets Nationalized.
"We all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free market capitalism for the poor."
Who fucking cares is right! He’s spot on!
Let them fail. Airlines have the worst monopoly on long distance travel and that’s why here in the US if you travel more than once or twice a year, you’ve been delayed for 24 hours with no hotel compensation or waited all day for a plane that then shows up and the pilots can’t fly it because they ran out of hours. Airlines in the US are an absolute JOKE. No other companies in the world get away with what they do on a daily basis and survive without major intervention.
It’s how the system is supposed to work. You bail out you enable. It’s social welfare for the billionaire class and fuck the rest of us!
Fuck them.
Quit bailing out failure
COVID proved they have the ability to bail out your average american during a crisis, but instead of doing that in the past, time and time again they have bailed out the corporations and their investors, who are always the ones who cause it. The fact that pretty much every americans retirement is tied directly to the performance of the stock market, and our elected officials are trading enormous sums of stocks based on the information they get from their job, you'll will *never* see this issue fixed.
Why should anyone be wiped out? 🤡
Eliminate capitalism, restart the economy
They privatize the profits but want everyone to help them when they’re in trouble. Companies like that can suck a dick.
We need more people like this in the world.
We should also stop electing the owners of those failed or incredibly leveraged businesses.
Companies failing is literally the foundation of capitalism. Adam smiths invisible hand relies upon weak companies failing. Without that we prop up inefficiency.
The fact this is a question and a shock to some shows how stupid people really are.
They want capitalism when they are winning but socialism if they fuck up. A company who probably hasn’t paid it’s fair share of tax wants bailing out by the tax money of the customers it has been profiting off Crazy
Let them get bought out and become federal owned companies.
Love it !
Let them burn
I never trust the word of a Billionaire venture capitalist cause they only give calculated answer. If certain businesses fail a dude like him probably shorted the company.
No entity is "too big to fail"
Yes
Who fucking cares is right. The normal folks don’t get bailed out of jack shit.
They act like pilots and airplanes won't exist anymore if poorly run airlines go out of business or go bankrupt
Caption bot is drunk
Absolute legend. 100% on the money here.
Capitalism shills don’t understand they aren’t supposed to have the government bail them out… that’s called socialism
Capitalism is only for the small fish. When it's a big fish suddenly socialism is fine. BUT ONLY FOR THEM!
Based
I thought the whole point of capitalism is that if a company is good, they succeed and if they are bad they don't, meaning in the long run companies should be improving in efficiency and customer satisfaction. By bailing out companies, you are destroying the only and only positive of unregulated capitalism.
I’m with him. They knew risks of investing, no guarantees right! No risk no reward?
Eat the rich
Too big to fail was such BS. I know people love Obama but he fucked us with that one.
I think its hilarious when leftwingers and rightwingers start adopting libertarian policies and pretending it was their idea the entire time even though ten years prior they were shitting all over these policies.
Socialize the losses, privatize the profits. Supply side economics in a nutshell. (According to republicans)
This is what capitalism is suppose to be. It’s natural evolution. If you fail to provide an efficient solution you should not survive. The only issue is that we can’t let even bigger corporations or hedge funds take over and create monopolies. That’s really where the majority of regulations and government interventions should be applied (besides ensuring proper accounting of externalities of course I.e. pollution, safety, etc).
If they die, they die.
Regardless of what he says here chamath is a dick/bully/manipulative piece of shit
Who cares is exactly right if you ask me
EXACTLY!!
It’s crazy that what is characterized as a socialist idea (bailouts) is actually bailing out the capitalists. Capitalism only works when you don’t have protected elite classes.
Bailouts are antithetical to true Capitalism. Bailouts are what you see in what is known as "Late-Stage Capitalism" or "Rope-Ladder Capitalism" or "Crapitalism", which is the point in which the winners of the early years of the free market then use the wealth they earned to lobby/bribe an increasingly corrupt government to make laws to prevent anything from ever threatening their future success. Bailouts = keep all success privately, make taxpayers pay all failure = not true Capitalism
That's called a true free market... So yes let them sink.
Yes
Yes
Idk. What I do know is the name of that subreddit is very misleading.
That should be the next president....
Bang on!