• Lemminary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 day ago

    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
      ·
      15 hours ago

      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.

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        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.

        • Annoyed_🦀 @lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          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.

    • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      24 hours ago

      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.

    • kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      20 hours ago

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

    • Hudell@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      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
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.