This is the disabled guy who used to work for Twitter & Musk fired & made fun of him, right? The guy from Iceland who IIRC got a big payout & still paid the high Icelandic taxes when he didn’t have to because their epic socialized healthcare really helped him with his disability & he was thankful?
Yeah. That guy is awesome. We need more of that guy. Also, coming from the US, I envy the fuck out of any healthcare system that is that fucking good. It sounds like some crazy sorcery compared to the unaffordable and “insurance” bloated shit that can leave you bankrupt should you dare need too much of it.
He didn’t create the saying. It’s decades old.
Quit hating, the comment didn’t even imply that he invented the saying, he’s just a rad guy.
What saying, there is no reference to a saying in the comment you replied to.
It seems we have another lost redditor on lemmy
If you are “too big to fail”, as in you not operating is disaster for the nation, then you literally need to be nationalized. Some will complain that’s socialism, but it’s literally the market determining that X industry isn’t profitable.
It’s only evil socialism if tax money helps poor people, not executive bonuses.
For some of these companies, the only reason they are “too big to fail” is because they spent years buying out or otherwise crippling their competition.
Corporations even have a built-in currency for this. Any government money given to corporations should be in return for equity.
But think of the poor, starving CEOs! /s
I think about them being poor and starving all the time.
I used to, but the resulting priapism was beginning to cause problems.
The world would be a better place if CEOs were poor and starving and teachers were given 6 figure salaries to start
Guess we should eat them before they get too gamey
In the Netherlands the government does take ownership. However it tries to sell that back to the company as soon as possible because we love privatizing everything.
I don’t mind the idea of selling the company back. Depends on the company but there are some business that make no sense for the government to own.
A bad example, but imagine a payday loan company. It can give some bad incentives to be locked into these businesses.
I don’t mind the idea of selling the company back.
Well, that is basically what happens in the U.S. government bailouts are loans, and if they default on the loan, the government takes control of the company and auctions off whatever it can to recoup costs.
I think the KPN takeover threats, shell and Ahold leaving and the comment of the ASML CEO might have woken some of the government up to the fact that you need a golden share in Essential companies. But then… maybe not.
The US government made back more money than they gave to GM when they bailed them out.
So either the US government should get a return above a certain percentage or if not then the company should be nationalized.
Wrong. Let them fail. Well-run competitors will scoop up what’s left.
The problem is the consequences of certain companies failing. It’s sort of a threat, if I (company) fail the country’s economy/security/etc is going to fail/die.
It’s kind of like having your heater die in -50 degrees winter. Even if it’s a piece of shit, a new one is gonna take too long to ship and install, and you can’t survive long without it.
It sucks but it’s the reality of the situation. Companies that know that they have this position of necessity can abuse it to make risky investments.
Okay. So we rescue them and then split them up. Companies are not more important than people or a country.
Once we’ve paid for the essential company, why not keep it? The market has already demonstrated it can’t deliver this essential product/service.
What exactly is that essential?
That’s not the reality of the situation at all. That’s what the military industrial complex has paid out to get you to think that way
Depends on how competitive the industry is. The US only has two major auto makers left (I’m not counting tesla) and are mainly losing out to foreign car makers, which are also just a few that sell in the US. You cut out a significant chunk of competition in an area that you only have other large entities that will fill the roll (no one can start mass producing cars all of a sudden).
Then it’s like cell service. You only get 3 options and they’re all expensive. You don’t get a new one that comes in. Only the existing ones get bigger and have less competition.
Did GM, Ford, or Chevy stop making cars?
Edit: I see, GM bought Chevy. When the hell did that happen? I’m guessing 2008…
While we’re on it, Stellantis owns Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Jeep, and Maserati, now.
Generally speaking, everything they touch turns to crap quality, IMO. I’d never buy anything from them without counting on it being a money pit.
Really, only about a dozen or so auto manufacturers exist that own like 50 brands.
I’m not sure if you’re joking so i will answer your question.
1918
But you can install oversight and cycle out the top c-suite and board and require interest on the loan.
We can’t even put executives in prison when we find out they knowingly sold stuff that kills people. What hope do we have of stopping them from externalizing their costs?
As things get egregious enough, we (the market/externalities) start creating costs for them, which will be extracted in blood - if history is anything to go by, at least.
The most confusing about all these problems is
Why you didn’t get taught to share when children in USA
Like what part of society has failed when almost nobody understands that if we work together and help each other, we succeed? Like, kindergarten knowledge?
What the actual, in the mother fucking fuck is bad about helping someone who hurt their leg or that was born with disability? Mind boggling shit honestly, you think you will feel better if you have more money but a worse shittier trustless cutthroat society? I really don’t understand this. You all want to benefit only 0.01% that has money, the rest must suffer because someday you might be that 0.01%? But even those that are that rich feel like shit because they live in a country wtihot care or protection or community? Like wtf is honestly wrong with so many spanning almost an entire continent, that they can’t share their billionaires profits but has to hide it in Panama?
I’ve thought about this a lot lately, especially since having kids. It really hit me how much non-verbal and indirect communication they pick up on. I want my kids to be good people, better than me, and I worry they are picking up on my short comings.
I think society is like that. We say sharing is good and we teach sharing, but a disproportionate group that takes everything, that is selfish, that puts there priorities above others… that behavior is rewarded, intentionally or not. And generations go by and the behavior is normalized.
I like (and shudder) to think alot of history is a series of these little oversteps that the masters of the universe are laughing about at the time… “trickle down economics, can you believe they are buying this shit?!” And 50 years later, after 2 generations the supporters forgot it was all a scam and are genuinely believers.
In the US it’s often racism.
If you have nice things, then those people might use them
Honestly yes, plus the government should get board seats and the company can mortgage their way out.
When people poo poo socialism I just think that really all the socialism we would need would be fair and sensible decisions like this.
It’s only indoctrination. Socialism just requires a tiny bit of thought beyond “what’s mine is my own!” To get there.
There a parables going back the beginning of civilisation that outline the benefits of cooperation.
Sad that so few are capable of a tiny bit of critical thinking it seems
That’s not socialism, that’s capitalism. When some entity, be it a private person, another company or government, buys out your company, it’s not your company anymore. But there’s no capitalism in the US, so you get what you get.
Any …ism is a fantasy and an gross oversimplification. We need to ditch them all.
I think that’s exactly how outside USA works - much like any other player on the market, if you buy a company it’s yours, in this case taxpayers with dividends going to taxpayers (ie state budget). It can still be sold at any point, just not for free.
Private companies/funds “bail out” companies all the time in exchange for various financial assets that can usually be converted into capital if the distressed company can’t hold up to the terms.
What about if the govt just pay them 51% of the stocks of the company and nothing else? They keep the 49% but the govt will be at charge…
This is a brilliant idea
I got into an argument with someone on here the other day w/r/t the US bailouts of GM and Stellantis a few years ago.
Got into argument on Lemmy, noooo impossible. It must have been a very fruitful argument in which educated people exchanged opinions and learned something new.
And yet they keep doing it— Signature Bank, Silicone Valley Bank, First Republic, etc…
Powell and Yellen should be in prison.
Why would everyone here want government to own failed business??
As oppose to giving free money to the same failed business?
It’s because you (as a government of a private entity) dont bail out companies who’s business can’t work. Classic private equity funds buying distressed equity (or assets convertible to equity) take over management & set strategy, and overhaul the company or just wait a few years providing operating capital, then resell at a profit.
USA government just gives free cash to giant companies that sometimes even operate at a profit already (but had like paid out to much dividends & aren’t liquid enough to sustain themselves for 2 bad months, lul). That’s just direct transfers of taxpayers money to individual not-as-much-taxpayers.
No one does - that’s not what’s being said here .
They are saying the government should not give money to loss making private companies (that keep profit when things are going well).
If something cannot be done profitably but provides an important service to a society, it should be owned by the government on behalf of the people .
Water supply is the most obvious example. Trains is another . As many companies are finding - it’s not easy to do this profitably - without big subsidies - because the infrastructure development and maintenance is capital intensive.
Private companies driven by a profit motive, start to cut corners resulting in a degradation of service. If it’s a TV, people get more re-runs and grumble. If it’s a water company- people get sick. If it’s a train company - people can’t get around and the economy is hurt.
So the argument is, a lot of the stuff essential to society, should be protected from ‘the profit motive’. To ensure widespread availability and quality.
The citizenry is then taxed appropriately to fund it.
For the same reason big companies buy out smaller and failing companies.
They already do, except for the “in-title” part, because the money used to keep them afloat is government money, which means it’s taxpayer money, which means taxpayers actually own them, except for the “in-title” part.
