![]() |
Originally Posted by Slaphappy
(Post 3038623)
Socialism is the nationalization of industries. Like healthcare for example and it's bad.
Interesting idea |
Originally Posted by Generic Pilot
(Post 3038709)
So you're saying that if we give money to the corporations, then we should nationalize them?
Interesting idea |
Originally Posted by Slaphappy
(Post 3038855)
No, just correcting your ignorance.
ok buddy |
Originally Posted by Generic Pilot
(Post 3038709)
So you're saying that if we give money to the corporations, then we should nationalize them?
Interesting idea Politicians need to keep the economic golden goose alive. Government bureaucrats need to keep the tax base goose alive. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3039610)
Cold, hard reality: some industries are so critical to the economy (like us for example) that the cascading costs of not bailing them out are far worse than the bailouts. There's nothing fair or equitable about it, it just comes down to what can we not live without.
Politicians need to keep the economic golden goose alive. Not to mention that the basic law of economics explain why what you have described is a horrible idea. |
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 3039647)
Nope, the Constitution disagrees.
Not to mention that the basic law of economics explain why what you have described is a horrible idea. what part of the constitution was infringed? what laws of economics? |
Originally Posted by captive apple
(Post 3039650)
what?
what part of the constitution was infringed? what laws of economics? As far as economics, it is a bad idea to do so because it is paid for by either borrowed or printed money, both of which are harmful to the economy. And it creates what is known as a moral hazard. -- https://fee.org/articles/the-moral-h...of-government/ |
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 3039919)
Bailing out business (or people for that matter) isn't authorized in the Constitution.
|
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 3039919)
Bailing out business (or people for that matter) isn't authorized in the Constitution.
As far as economics, it is a bad idea to do so because it is paid for by either borrowed or printed money, both of which are harmful to the economy. And it creates what is known as a moral hazard. -- https://fee.org/articles/the-moral-h...of-government/ I'd give the airlines a pass on moral hazard on this one, because they were mostly positioned to weather a 9/11 type event or other typical downturn. Loss of essentially all revenue for 4-8 months was not what anyone would have considered a plausible scenario two months ago. There's no precedent for this. And the airlines are a very key economic pillar... the economy will not come back without them, or at least not as anything recognizable and certainly not within a decade. Too many other sectors would have to completely collapse and then re-invent themselves, or be replaced by something new. That would take 10-30+ years and result in global human misery beyond reckoning. And war, don't forget that part... plague and famine don't tend to ride very far without their two brothers. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3040334)
Promote the general welfare...?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:21 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands