this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
1847 points (99.0% liked)

Political Memes

5433 readers
3306 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Album@lemmy.ca 147 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Look I'm fine if the govt wants to say a particular corporation is too big to fail. But trying to let that company remain private is not how too big to fail works. If you want a bailout, the govt owns your company, and the govt is obliged to maintain ownership for as long as it's deemed too big to fail...e.g. critical to national interests.

[–] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 23 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Personally I think all publicly traded companies should be partly owned by the people... Like sure you can have an IPO, and still make a zillion dollars... But society automatically owns a large enough share that you have to check with us before doing anything drastic

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Lots of decisions are made with our taxes and we aren't consulted.

[–] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

So maybe tax megacorps so much that they have to pay with shares?

[–] Frog@lemmy.ca -4 points 3 months ago

That's why the government owns us.

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

While I don't disagree with you in principle, this begs definitions of what "us" and "anything drastic" means, which could vary to such an extent as to prove whatever law you're proposing meaningless or to be so draconian as to stifle all technological progress.

[–] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Yeah... It would need to be fleshed out for sure

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

To big to fail should mean splitting up the company. At the very least when bailed out. Intresstingly the US actually made a profit bailing out banks in the 2008 crisis.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If I remember it correctly, that "profit" was nominal, i.e. without including the devaluation of that money due to Inflation, much less doing the proper investment accounting (as the Finance types do) were profit is a yield above a risk free investment (which, curiously, is normally Treasuries) and if it's below that it's not a good investment and beyond this the risk of losing your money also determines if the yield is worth.

Pretty much by definition the yield wasn't worth it in helping the banks at the interest rate the Government got, as why nobody else was willing to lend them the money at that interest rate.