undefined | Better HN

0 pointsviklove5y ago0 comments

It's not a "logical error," it's an "ideological error," at least from your perspective. Banks are not parents, and small businesses are not "dependent children," so I'd say you're making a bigger logical fallacy called a false equivalence.

> Do you qualify for a larger helping hand than the 25 year old who lives alone?

No, because the "helping hand" you're getting is not helping the "children" eat in this situation. None of this $10B is going to small businesses, is it? It's literally just a payday for the bank. If you give a parent $400 extra a month, that is going towards daycare, food, etc. for their child. Your metaphor misses the mark completely.

0 comments

volak5y ago

His post is not addressing this issue of bank fees hes making a wider point about bailouts in general.

I am simply reminding him that airline companies who did nothing wrong have people depending on them for their paychecks. Exactly the same as a child depends on their parent.

And in this case the money given to AIRLINES helps a lot of parents feed their children

vikloveOP5y ago

...just give them money directly to those parents instead. When you give money to the airlines, those airlines like handing out bonuses to their execs, and initiating stock buybacks with the confidence that they'll get bailed out in case hard times hit. Airlines are not parents, and they are not invested in their employees wellbeing. It's a false equivalency because an employer-employee relation is nothing like a parent-child relation.

> airline companies who did nothing wrong

Airline companies did do something wrong. They didn't prepare for this situation when they had cash reserves, instead they initiated buybacks to enrich board members and executives. Greed should not be rewarded, wisdom and caution should.

volak5y ago

You are assuming this deal is the same as previous ones. Its not even close

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/united-airlines-details-it...

Grants for employee salaries and benefits like health insurance, low interest loan to be paid back, and a stake in the company in the form of equity. And all with strings attached so they can't hand out bonuses or lobby congress.

Businesses operate on revenue and margin and companies like airlines can't justify using even 1% of its revenue to "save" for rainy days. Their tickets have to be as cheap as possible and they have to market to as many people as possible. Its unreasonable to ask them to lay out millions on the chance an act of god rolls through.

As a company they have plenty of ways to raise capital to weather major events, including selling stock, which is what they are doing - to the government in exchange for favorable loans and a grant.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsviklove5y ago0 comments

> Do you qualify for a larger helping hand than the 25 year old who lives alone?

0 comments

volak5y ago

His post is not addressing this issue of bank fees hes making a wider point about bailouts in general.

I am simply reminding him that airline companies who did nothing wrong have people depending on them for their paychecks. Exactly the same as a child depends on their parent.

And in this case the money given to AIRLINES helps a lot of parents feed their children

vikloveOP5y ago

> airline companies who did nothing wrong

volak5y ago

You are assuming this deal is the same as previous ones. Its not even close

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/united-airlines-details-it...

As a company they have plenty of ways to raise capital to weather major events, including selling stock, which is what they are doing - to the government in exchange for favorable loans and a grant.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse