Because ineffective corporations continuing to exist is less bad in terms of human suffering than major economic collapse.
Raising the spectre of “major economic collapse” at the notion that big corporations might have to operate under the same market conditions and risks as everyone else seems like an argument straight from a corporate lobbyist.
Don’t government rescues reward poor management and incentivise excessive risk, thus leading to economic troubles which necessitate them in the first place? It is not at all clear to me that the hypothetical world in which bailouts don’t happen and corporations know it and act accordingly contains more suffering.
Especially after you consider the costs imposed on the competent to rescue the failures, and the cost to the economy from uneven competition (between those who can afford to take bigger risks, or simply manage themselves sloppier, knowing that they are “too big to fail”, and those who cannot).
Raising the spectre of “major economic collapse” at the notion that big corporations might have to operate under the same market conditions and risks as everyone else seems like an argument straight from a corporate lobbyist.
Calling it a spectre makes it sound mythical, but it has been known to happen. The fallacy lies in not having sufficient evidence it will happen in any particular case.
Don’t government rescues reward poor management and incentivise excessive risk, thus leading to economic troubles which necessitate them in the first place?
You can reduce risky behaviour by regulation. Baillouts without regulation is the worst possible word.
Especially after you consider the costs imposed on the competent to rescue the failures, and the cost to the economy from uneven competition (between those who can afford to take bigger risks, or simply manage themselves sloppier, knowing that they are “too big to fail”, and those who cannot).
Bailouts involve disutility. My argument is that by spreading the costs over more people and more time, they entail less suffering.
Because I didn’t see a point, just a bunch of straw.
Because ineffective corporations continuing to exist is less bad in terms of human suffering than major economic collapse.
First, I don’t think that is true. Second, there was a bit of sleight of hand—you replaced the failure of large corporations with “major economic collapse”. That’s, um, not exactly the same thing :-/
Because I didn’t see a point, just a bunch of straw.
Free free to specify the non straw versions.
Because ineffective corporations continuing to exist is less bad in terms of human suffering than major economic collapse.
First, I don’t think that is true.
Feel free to support that claim with an argument. There are good reasons for thinking that the collapse of a large financial institution, in particular can cause a domino affect. It’s happened before. And it’s hardly debatable that recessions cause suffering...the suicide rate goes up, for one thing.
Second, there was a bit of sleight of hand—you replaced the failure of large corporations with “major economic collapse”. That’s, um, not exactly the same thing :-/
Larger government gives more and invests more...governments don’t just burn money.
Large government doesn’t automatically mean less freedom...the average person in mediaeval Europe was not particularly free.
Large government can rescue large corporations when they fail....
You seem to be well on the roads towards the “if you want a small government why don’t you GO AND LIVE IN SOMALIA” argument....
And why in the world would that be a good thing?
Why not answer the points I actually made?
Because ineffective corporations continuing to exist is less bad in terms of human suffering than major economic collapse.
Raising the spectre of “major economic collapse” at the notion that big corporations might have to operate under the same market conditions and risks as everyone else seems like an argument straight from a corporate lobbyist.
Don’t government rescues reward poor management and incentivise excessive risk, thus leading to economic troubles which necessitate them in the first place? It is not at all clear to me that the hypothetical world in which bailouts don’t happen and corporations know it and act accordingly contains more suffering.
Especially after you consider the costs imposed on the competent to rescue the failures, and the cost to the economy from uneven competition (between those who can afford to take bigger risks, or simply manage themselves sloppier, knowing that they are “too big to fail”, and those who cannot).
Calling it a spectre makes it sound mythical, but it has been known to happen. The fallacy lies in not having sufficient evidence it will happen in any particular case.
You can reduce risky behaviour by regulation. Baillouts without regulation is the worst possible word.
Bailouts involve disutility. My argument is that by spreading the costs over more people and more time, they entail less suffering.
Because I didn’t see a point, just a bunch of straw.
First, I don’t think that is true. Second, there was a bit of sleight of hand—you replaced the failure of large corporations with “major economic collapse”. That’s, um, not exactly the same thing :-/
Free free to specify the non straw versions.
Feel free to support that claim with an argument. There are good reasons for thinking that the collapse of a large financial institution, in particular can cause a domino affect. It’s happened before. And it’s hardly debatable that recessions cause suffering...the suicide rate goes up, for one thing.
No, and it’s not completely disjoint , neither.