EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Bailouts

< Return to subforum
Page: 12Most Recent
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Dec 3 2016 10:37 AM
Should the state provide a bailout to a corporation in any circumstance?
Are bailouts good for the economy?
What about bailing out small businesses? or working individuals?

I am defining bailout as financial assistance to a business for suffering to save from collapse. It can also be done to working individuals. Like, the state can provide economic assistance to workers when the business they work for suffers financially.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Dec 3 2016 10:38 AM
Bi0Hazard: Bailouts also don't need to be done by the state. A corporation can bailout a group of workers or small business.
admin
By admin | Dec 3 2016 11:06 AM
Bi0Hazard: I'm actually thinking states should bailout individuals instead of corporations. Otherwise it creates perverse incentives for shareholders.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Dec 4 2016 6:32 AM
admin: and bailout small businesses like yours if it is about to collapse?
admin
By admin | Dec 4 2016 7:11 AM
Bi0Hazard: No. That would make significantly less sense because:
a) the collapse wouldn't effect anyone except me, and
b) if they really wanted to bail me out, why not give me a handout instead?
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Dec 4 2016 7:39 AM
admin: a) the collapse wouldn't effect anyone except me
But wouldn't you be thinking of yourself in such a situation?
b) if they really wanted to bail me out, why not give me a handout instead?
A bailout being financial assistance to your business is similar to a handout since it is financial assistance by the state either way.

Would you accept a bailout?
admin
By admin | Dec 4 2016 12:39 PM
Bi0Hazard: Hmmm ... me vs the whole economy. I think I know what's more important.

No. A bailout isn't to me, it's to my company. Who would actually need money in that scenario is not my company but me.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Dec 5 2016 10:31 AM
admin: Hmmm ... me vs the whole economy. I think I know what's more important.
So, you wouldn't be thinking of your business but the whole economy instead?
The business is your concern, the entire economy isn't.
No. A bailout isn't to me, it's to my company. Who would actually need money in that scenario is not my company but me.
I guess in your situation, but what if your business had 10 people hired? If it collapsed, your workers will lose their jobs. Should the state bailout your business in that case? or just provide assistance to the individuals to find new jobs and get money?
admin
By admin | Dec 5 2016 10:39 AM
Bi0Hazard: Of course the economy's my concern. Without the economy my business can't operate and I couldn't start another.

Why not bailout those workers? Assisting the individuals as opposed to the company.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Dec 5 2016 10:44 AM
admin: Of course the economy's my concern. Without the economy my business can't operate and I couldn't start another.
You are accepting a bailout from the state, the corporations that take them don't care, so why should you?
The entire economy won't collapse if you accept a bailout anyways.
Why not bailout those workers? Assisting the individuals as opposed to the company.
More pro-labor than pro-business I see. I guess you don't seem to care as much about the well being of corporations and small businesses.
admin
By admin | Dec 5 2016 10:45 AM
Bi0Hazard: Sometimes you have to stand up for what's right even if you think you're too small to make a difference.

Not really. I believe in a competitive market so of course I don't care for corporations.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Dec 5 2016 10:48 AM
admin: I believe in a competitive market so of course I don't care for corporations.
Then why give special attention to the workers? They are part of the market as well. Just leave them to it.
admin
By admin | Dec 5 2016 10:50 AM
Bi0Hazard: Free and equal playing field for companies, free and equal for workers. Not being able to eat is much more a barrier for a person than a company.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Dec 5 2016 10:55 AM
admin: Then it all comes down to your view that the free market is inefficient and the state needs to do more for workers.
If I told you "leave the market alone and everything will get better from there", you would just tell me that markets are inefficient, monopolies would certainly form, and the barriers of the market would certainly favor the top rather than workers.

"Just use the state as a tool to correct the inefficiency of the market."
admin
By admin | Dec 5 2016 10:59 AM
Bi0Hazard: Markets are efficient, monopolies are not. Monopolies are the result of exploitation that do not form an inherent part of a "free" market. This is why govts need to balance both forms of liberty.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Dec 5 2016 11:06 AM
admin: Just when I think I understand your views, I get confused again. It is probably just the way you phrase it. It is probably the words "free market".
I am pretty sure you think laissez faire capitalism (the unregulated free market) is inefficient for benefiting workers, right?
Monopolies are the result of exploitation that do not form an inherent part of a "free" market.
What about natural monopolies? Monopolies that don't come from the state, but the free market.

After all, you seem to blame the mass failure of businesses on the competitiveness of the market. As if the state needs to step in to correct this result of capitalism.
admin
By admin | Dec 5 2016 11:18 AM
Bi0Hazard: I understand a free market to be an economy with a lot of freedom, both positive and negative. So that's different from unregulated. Laissez faire is immoral, exploitative, unequal, not free, and certainly not fair.

I don't really believe in natural monopolies. Sorta like absolute advantage in trade. In theory, maybe. In practice, never seen it. Certainly some markets are naturally more oligopolistic than others and that's fine.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Dec 5 2016 11:39 AM
admin: I understand a free market to be an economy with a lot of freedom, both positive and negative.
That is where the confusion is. I see a free market as people voluntarily exchanging without a coercive force involved, and laissez faire falls under that.

I am surprised that you don't believe in natural monopolies.
admin
By admin | Dec 5 2016 11:42 AM
Bi0Hazard: Meh. I also don't believe in synergy or leadership. All useless concepts.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Dec 5 2016 11:45 AM
admin: So then, do you agree that monopolies in many cases come from the state?
Page: 12Most Recent