@Groth said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Socializing losses is a direct transfer of wealth from the tax payers to those who own assets. In essence you're telling asset owners that they should feel free to pursue maximum risk strategies with no concerns whatsoever because if anything ever goes wrong, that will be paid by the tax payers.
I'm not telling anyone anything. You are adding words to contort the plain meaning of what I wrote to suit your polemic; to-wit, I did not write the word "asset" or "asset owner" in the paragraph you quoted. Regardless, the vast majority of tax payers in the United States own assets or an interest in an asset, be it a house, a retirement account, or a vehicle.
What I did write, however, was that the fundamental principle of socialism is to enact policy to benefit the most people rather than favor a smaller group. If you read what you wrote, which I will quote below, you will see we agree:
However I happen to think that a good government should be trying to make the people as a whole prosperous rather then a wealthy minority pursuing high risk strategies.
Even so, we already have laws that benefit a wealthy minority pursuing high risk strategies; for example, Donald Trump has taken advantage of bankruptcy proceedings to shield his personal assets from his business failures. These laws, however, may also be used by others, even those who own no assets.
Let's look at some of the other non-adversarial things you wrote:
If we're looking at the US specifically. A lot of companies used the low interest rate as an opportunity to take very large loans which they then used to buyback stocks to the benefit of senior executives who get paid in stocks. Now that there is a crisis, those companies have a huge debt and no revenue. Without intervention those companies are looking at a stock value of 0 dollars and a complete asset liquidation.
I am aware of this, and agree neither with the strategy nor the proposal to bail out these companies, notably those in the airline industry. The next thing to be considered is the economic effect of letting them fail. While it is completely just to let the creditors and executives fall as a result of their recklessness, there would undoubtedly be further economic fallout as large players in the airline industry fall. Their assets may thereafter be acquired by one or two larger firms, who will then be able to lock-up market power and engage in anti-competitive behavior, as is often the case when there is a large-scale market failure (like the Great Recession).
I will not overstate the fallout, though, because the Pandemic is forcing people to consider virtual and online meetings, which will make up for the inability to meet in person. It may push the nation to innovate further, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But while we're on the topic, let's also implement universal healthcare, state-run insurance, and other "socialist" policies. There may be economic damage, yes, but economies actually recover fastest from disaster.
