In this case it is not their fault. The government ordered people to stay home and shut the economy down. The government is merely compensating business for its own actions, so people may have jobs to go back to when the restrictions are lifted.

In other cases I would totally agree with you. GM never should have been bailed out, and most of the finance companies and banks should have been allowed to go bust in 2008.

Was GM bailed out? I don't think it was... the original company went bankrupt, the government effectively bought it in bankruptcy to preserve jobs (and US car manufacturing capacity), but I though the original shareholders were left with nothing, so not exactly a bailout.

True. The US government spent 51 billion dollars so the new GM could continue to operate without disruption and continue to pay employees and retirees and took a 61% stake that they eventually sold for 39 billion. So the government lost 12 billion plus the time value of money.

The retirees were lucky that the Democrats were in charge. While a republican may have also provided a bail out, they may have forced a true chapter 11 where the retirees’ pensions are reduced to the federal minimum. The new GM would have emerged without the pension liability.

That’s a clever folksy outlook but the real world doesn’t work like that. Businesses take inputs and produce outputs. They’re not in the business of having 6 months of savings.

Then I guess we shouldn't be in the business of bailing them out.

The only way a bailout is acceptable is if we transfer the ownership of the businesses to the workers who actually produce the value.

Laughs in Apple.

that dichotomy isn't helpful. most of us (bottom 80-90% or so), small businesses (~<$10MM in revenue, low-growth), startups (small-ish but high-growth, negative cash-flow businesses) and the like need leeway to take risks. fault or not, it's reasonable to band together to try to keep these consituents, society, culture and way of life afloat through economic arrest.

the wealthy, large businesses and transnational corporations like to play by ruthless financial rules (particularly against the less powerful) and should be allowed to die by those same rules (or at least sacrifice significantly in exchange for help).

I honestly don't care about small businesses. You want my empathy? Create a co-op.

You may not care about the businesses, but do you care about the people who work for them? Do you care about what they produce?

How is the economy going to continue to work when a huge fraction of the workforce is unemployed and a large chunk of production has stopped?

Maybe it's the push we need.

Workers should own the means of production.

To hear this from somebody who works for Microsoft of all companies. It's too good to be real.

You understand that participating in this system is a necessity for survival.

The fact that I HAVE to participate in it to live is why I'm also speaking out against it.

But sure, irony or whatever.

At most small businesses, owners work alongside their employees.

Then they would have no problem making it a coop.

I've removed my original reply as it was posted out of a place of incredulous anger.

It seems obvious to me, that companies and individuals have different needs, goals and options, as they are quite different entities.

> but when it happens to people everyone starts berating them for not saving/etc.

To me, that does not seem to be a universal truth. It also seems to depend on the situation, how expected the situation is, if it could have been avoided at all, and many more.

You seem to be complaining of a double standard while possibly engaging in one.

Many of my progressive friends have complained loudly when companies keep cash. After all, if they can save they can pay workers more or pay more taxes... after all, a company flush with cash must be putting profits ahead of people and damn those greedy capitalists and all that... The truth is many businesses live a pretty thin margins (mine included) and those that can keep large cash reserves (like Apple) are probably best positioned to weather this storm.

Having said that, even though I sympathize with these businesses, I certainly don't believe they should be bailed out either. The fact is there are many incentives to spend cash and not save. This is true for individuals and businesses.

I'm for bailing out if the govt gives ownership of the business to the workers.

If you're not letting the workers most impacted by this to own the means of their work, then your bailout is useless.

This is an opportunity to, peacefully, transfer ownership of the means of production that are getting destroyed right now back to the workers.

Of course.

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

A lot of big companies keeping cash do it for tax reasons. If they bring the cash to the US it is taxable in the US. They're really just waiting for the government to reduce the taxes on bringing that money back.

The government already did that (Google the "tax holiday"). And US companies promptly used the money to buy back stock instead of investing in US facilities or employees, which is why it is unlikely it will happen again.

The government has actually done it more than once. After the first time companies started saving up more cash in the expectation that it would happen again.

You must be one of those people who believe that "corporate bailout" is straight up cash, and not an equity-secured loan. Because this is exactly what medium and large companies are getting. How would you like it if federal government took, say, a decent chunk of your brokerage account until you pay back its loan with interest?

It's actually a forgivable loan up to $10 million dollars (capped at actual amount of payroll excluding payroll taxes and withholding, utilities, and rent/mortgage for March, April, and May) that is not backed by anything at all. Generally, as long as you adhere to the conditions of the loan, it will be forgiven.

Source: helped my company apply for one of these "loans."

I'm not sure I understand what your opposition is to at the same time keeping employees above water, and preserving their place of work. It'd seem to me that it's the _workers_ who are getting a bailout here, by design, not corporations. In fact companies with more than 500 employees or above certain revenue threshold aren't even eligible.

The OP is railing against corporations (such as e.g. Boeing) which he/she think are getting trillions for free on taxpayer's dime.

I'm not opposed to that idea. In simply saying that your understanding of the CARES Act loans is wrong.

My understanding is there are several different kinds of loans, which is what I've been trying to point out. So it's conceivable that _your_ understanding of CARES Act loans is wrong. Large companies do not get the kinds of loans that can be "forgiven", and government takes equity stake in them to ensure that the loans are paid back. This is particularly chafing to some since equity prices are in the shitter right now.

I'm aware that there are different types of loans in the CARES Act. But the OP was not referring to the large business loans, they were referring to small business loans. And the comment we were both replying to was mistakenly imputing issues with the large business loans to the OP's comments about small business loans. In your parent reply, you were doing the same--stating that large businesses do not qualify for CARES Act loans, which is wrong, but is also not relevant to any of my comments about the small business loans.

They're literally giving away $10,000 in grants to small businesses right now. Grants. Not loans.

But sure.

Small businesses, mom and pop shops. Not large ones you're presumably railing against.

A lot of businesses are very low margin and that’s ok.

Maybe these companies shouldn't have been having those $5 lattes or avocado toasts.

Socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor.