Tweet of the Day

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
28,447
32,978
1,743
oklahoma city
I am a capitalist and I have no issues with this. Do not give money without control over how it is spent. Not just in this case, but any government assistant plan.
Yea, I have mixed feelings as I would not want the option of flying Government Air vs Southwest. But, I fully get the sentiment. These companies need to operate without the assumption that we are going to save them. The management teams who make a lot of money need to pay the price for not being ready for a crisis.
 
Last edited:

OSUCowboy787

Territorial Marshal
Dec 31, 2008
6,958
5,993
1,743
32
Keller, Texas
Yea, I have mixed feelings as I would not want the option of flying Government Air vs Southwest. But, I fully get the sentiment. These companies need to operate without the assumption that we are going to save them. The management teams who make a lot of money need to pay the price for not being ready for a crisis.
I agree with you to a point, however, this would have required doomsday prepper type forethought. It's not practical for a company to have that much liquid assets on hand else risk being bought by a bigger company etc.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
28,447
32,978
1,743
oklahoma city
I agree with you to a point, however, this would have required doomsday prepper type forethought. It's not practical for a company to have that much liquid assets on hand else risk being bought by a bigger company etc.
We have had two episodes of black swan events in the past 12 years that have caused massive companies to beg for welfare from the government. If you want to get paid 500 times what the average worker gets, you figure it out without the taxpayer covering your risk for you. If you don't have the ability, someone else can buy up those assets. Everyone complains about "socialism" when discussing benefits to individuals like health care, welfare etc. But, collectively covering the risk of the means of production of society is definitely socialism. The issue is it is just really bad socialism where the rewards of the production go to the very few, but the risk is shared by all.

As the post above says, if you need to beg the government for money to save your company from bankruptcy, you are not private anymore, you are a goverment sponsored utility. The goverment should set your pay at the level of any other public servant. Why should a government-sponsored airline CEO make more than the head of the Dept of Transportation?
 

State

Russian Bot
Mar 15, 2007
13,920
8,142
1,743
TX
We have had two episodes of black swan events in the past 12 years that have caused massive companies to beg for welfare from the government. If you want to get paid 500 times what the average worker gets, you figure it out without the taxpayer covering your risk for you. If you don't have the ability, someone else can buy up those assets. Everyone complains about "socialism" when discussing benefits to individuals like health care, welfare etc. But, collectively covering the risk of the means of production of society is definitely socialism. The issue is it is just really bad socialism where the rewards of the production go to the very few, but the risk is shared by all.

As the post above says, if you need to beg the government for money to save your company from bankruptcy, you are not private anymore, you are a goverment sponsored utility. The goverment should set your pay at the level of any other public servant. Why should a government-sponsored airline CEO make more than the head of the Dept of Transportation?
Sure but they're asking the government to save them from the government. The government has ordered the airlines not to fly to Asia or Europe and simultaneously requiring new benefits at additional costs. Obviously the government has reason for doing so, but if government decree is causing your business to fail then the government should bear some responsibility for keeping it afloat. This is a different situation from 2008 where while some of it had to do with Fannie/Freddie lending rules, the banks also brought the crisis on themselves through derivatives trading. Saying CEOs should just be smart enough to survive anything or it's an open invitation to socialism isn't a realistic way to look at it. Look to who's most culpable and they should bear the brunt.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
28,447
32,978
1,743
oklahoma city
Sure but they're asking the government to save them from the government. The government has ordered the airlines not to fly to Asia or Europe and simultaneously requiring new benefits at additional costs. Obviously the government has reason for doing so, but if government decree is causing your business to fail then the government should bear some responsibility for keeping it afloat. This is a different situation from 2008 where while some of it had to do with Fannie/Freddie lending rules, the banks also brought the crisis on themselves through derivatives trading. Saying CEOs should just be smart enough to survive anything or it's an open invitation to socialism isn't a realistic way to look at it. Look to who's most culpable and they should bear the brunt.

The government is responding to the virus. Are you trying to claim that what is occurring to the airlines is the fault of the government? That governments should have kept quiet about it to let people fly and spread a pandemic to keep ticket sales going? Would governments therefore be culpable for all natural disasters also? It isn't like there haven't been warnings about a possible pandemic for years. How frequent does the disaster have to be to fault the goverment? 50-year flood, 100-year flood? What would be expected and what would be the fault of the government?

Goverment dictating the maximum executive salary of government-backed companies is no more socialist than government covering the risk for government-backed companies. That is an odd place to put your line in the sand.