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?
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.
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.
Which is exactly why you stop letting monopolies and duopolies pop up left and right, because they centralize risk and take down your country’s economy with them.
Risk is better spread out across the economy by having lots of small players taking small risks and either making a payday from them, or not.
Yep. When i look at big corporate, everyone want to be the biggest player in the country, yet every economist know in their heart it’s the micro, small and medium enterprise that really matter for the country. A lot of example in american small town, where the giant corporate come in and destroy the small business, then left the town when it’s no longer profitable. Everyone left unhappy other than the executives.
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?
deleted by creator
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.
yes, and in most sane countries that’s exactly what they do
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.
They have the money to be able to change the rules and the lack of morality to be willing to change them.
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.
Which is exactly why you stop letting monopolies and duopolies pop up left and right, because they centralize risk and take down your country’s economy with them.
Risk is better spread out across the economy by having lots of small players taking small risks and either making a payday from them, or not.
Yep. When i look at big corporate, everyone want to be the biggest player in the country, yet every economist know in their heart it’s the micro, small and medium enterprise that really matter for the country. A lot of example in american small town, where the giant corporate come in and destroy the small business, then left the town when it’s no longer profitable. Everyone left unhappy other than the executives.
Why does it matter what income level a person is at? No one cries about laying off the working class