←back to thread

335 points aspenmayer | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
GeekyBear ◴[] No.45008439[source]
Didn't we already cross this particular Rubicon during the auto bailout a decade ago?

Other examples:

> Since the 1950s, the federal government has stepped in as a backstop for railroads, farm credit, airlines (twice), automotive companies, savings and loan companies, banks, and farmers.

Every situation has its own idiosyncrasies, but in each, the federal government intervened to stabilize a critical industry, avoiding systemic collapse that surely would have left the average taxpayer much worse off. In some instances, the treasury guaranteed loans, meaning that creditors would not suffer if the relevant industry could not generate sufficient revenue to pay back the loans, leading to less onerous interest rates.

A second option was that the government would provide loans at relatively low interest rates to ensure that industries remained solvent.

In a third option, the United States Treasury would take an ownership stake in some of these companies in what amounts to an “at-the-market” offering, in which the companies involved issue more shares at their current market price to the government in exchange for cash to continue business operations.

https://chicagopolicyreview.org/2022/08/23/piece-of-the-acti...

replies(16): >>45008458 #>>45008466 #>>45008546 #>>45008710 #>>45008838 #>>45009730 #>>45009928 #>>45010439 #>>45010649 #>>45011116 #>>45011228 #>>45011332 #>>45012047 #>>45012973 #>>45014055 #>>45018837 #
themafia ◴[] No.45009730[source]
> the federal government intervened to stabilize a critical industry

They intervened to maintain the status quo. Industries are neither stable or unstable for a long period of time without external influences forcing that outcome. Short term turbulence is to be expected and is beneficial for the market as a whole.

They destroy markets and then lie to your face about it.

> industries remained solvent.

How does an _industry_ become insolvent? Only when it's nearly fully monopolized and when there is no difference between an industry and a single entity. This is where we are currently.

> more shares at their current market price to the government in exchange for cash to continue business operations.

Couldn't they just offer those shares to _any investor at all_? Why is the government special here?

> https://chicagopolicyreview.org/2022/08/23/piece-of-the-acti...

Of course. Chicago school thinking. It's infected our country for decades now. Certainly not to the benefit of it's citizens.

replies(3): >>45009902 #>>45012157 #>>45013208 #
stogot ◴[] No.45009902[source]
Could it be that Chicago school thinking has worked but greed & profiteering elsewhere have stolen benefits from the citizens?
replies(5): >>45009971 #>>45011461 #>>45011788 #>>45012175 #>>45012362 #
jabl ◴[] No.45012175[source]
Sounds a bit like all those no true Scotsman defenses of communism

- Communism is awesome!

- What about countries X, Y, and Z?

- Oh, that wasn't "real" communism!

replies(2): >>45013326 #>>45015824 #
1. 9rx ◴[] No.45015824[source]
Given that communism is a sci-fi imagining of what the world will look like in the age of post-scarcity, the last point is unquestionably true. We have never achieved post-scarcity. It remains science fiction.

Most imagine post-scarcity will be awesome. While one can never know for sure, for all intents and purposes, the first point is also true. To the best of our knowledge, achieving post-scarcity will be awesome. It is why everyone, even (and in particular!) the USA, is striving to get there someday.

Communism imagines that statehood will come to end, so "countries", in the context of communism, doesn't make sense. It is likely confusing "communism" with "Communist Party".