This site requires Javascript to function properly - please enable Javascript in your browser

If Things Go Well I Win, If Things Go Poorly You Lose.

community » Discussions » Category » Op/Ed » Discussion » If Things Go Well I Win, If Things Go Poorly You Lose.

Category: Op/Ed

By: john-russell • 4 years ago • 20 comments

If Things Go Well I Win, If Things Go Poorly You Lose.

If capitalism requires unemployment to protect profit for the business, why doesnt it require the cruise lines to go under? Not the cruise industry, which will come back, but these particular cruise lines. The ships won't disappear, they can be used by new companies that will go forward.

I was listening to Stephanie Ruhle show just now, and she had a guest , whose name unfortunately I did not catch, who was making an interesting point.

When millions of people lose their jobs, which will happen if the economy does not immediately bounce back once the virus ends and restrictions are lifted, the "business" community will say "there is nothing we can do", and that is how our economic system works.

Ruhle's guest wondered why cruise lines will be bailed out. If capitalism requires unemployment to protect profit for the business, why doesnt it require the cruise lines to go under? Not the cruise industry, which will come back, but these particular cruise lines. The ships won't disappear, they can be used by new companies that will go forward.

The guests larger point is that big business and it's investors want to be protected from dire consequences, but doesnt care if their workers are protected from dire consequences.

This is the "If Things Go Well I Win, If Things Go Poorly You Lose" way of doing things.

Why shouldnt wealthy investors lose their money for the same reason hourly workers often lose their jobs? - because it is the way capitalism works.

Tags

[]

Professor Principal

1 author JohnRussell 4 years ago

Some people are talking about a sea change coming about income inequality after this crisis.

Professor Principal

2 author JohnRussell 4 years ago

Nowhere to Turn but the Subway, and Its Risks.
Subway use has plummeted in recent weeks, but in poorer areas of New York City, many people are still riding.

As the coronavirus pandemic has all but shut down New York City, its subway -- an emblem of urban overcrowding -- has become almost unrecognizable, with overall ridership down 87 percent.

But even as officials crack down on gatherings in New York, removing hoops from basketball courts and sending the police to break up parties, subway stations in poorer neighborhoods are still bustling, as if almost nothing has changed.

It is a striking turnabout for a system that has long been the great equalizer, a space where hourly workers jostled alongside financial executives. Now the subway has become more of a symbol of the city's inequality, amplifying the divide between those with the means to safely shelter at home and those who must continue braving public transit to preserve meager livelihoods.

''This virus is very dangerous. I don't want to get sick, I don't want my family to get sick, but I still need to get to my job,'' said Yolanda Encanción, a home health aide, as she waited for her train in the Bronx.

The station she uses is one of two in the Bronx that have largely retained their ridership and serve neighborhoods with some of the highest poverty rates in the city, a Times analysis found.

The 170th Street station in the University Heights neighborhood and Burnside station in the Mount Eden area are surrounded by large Latin American and African immigrant communities where the median household income is about $22,000 -- one-third the median household income in the state, according to census data.

Many residents say they have no choice but to pile onto trains with strangers, potentially exposing themselves to the virus. Even worse, a reduction in service in response to plunging ridership has led, at times, to crowded conditions, making it impossible to maintain the social distancing that public health experts recommend.

Across New York, nearly 66,500 people have tested positive for the coronavirus and 1,218 people have died, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said on Monday. Most cases are concentrated in New York City, where over 36,000 people have tested positive.

Sitting on a bench at the 170th Street station, Ms. Encanción stretched a medical mask across her face and slipped her hands into latex gloves. The risk of exposure to the coronavirus on the subway is just part of the simmering anxiety that hangs like a backdrop to her everyday life.

Her two teenage children are desperate to see their friends, but she only allows them to leave the family's two-bedroom apartment for a walk with their aunt once a day.

Ms. Encanción's husband was a janitor at a private school until he was laid off after the school shut down, slashing her family's income in half. They have enough savings to cover this month's rent, but nothing more.

''Next month how will we pay? I can't even think about it,'' she said.

Ms. Encanción was one of the few passengers on her line on a recent weekday after ridership across the subway plunged nearly 90 percent compared with the same day last year, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs the subway and buses.

Put differently, before the crisis erupted more than five million people squeezed onto the system every day -- today, it carries fewer than 1 million.

But a Times analysis of M.T.A. data shows that ridership declines in each of the four boroughs served by the subway vary significantly and largely along socioeconomic lines.

Over the last two weeks, the steepest ridership declines have occurred in Manhattan, where the median household income is $80,000 -- the highest of any of the city's five boroughs.

Subway ridership in Manhattan fell around 75 percent, while ridership in the Bronx, which has the highest poverty rate of any of the boroughs and the lowest median income at $38,000, dropped by around 55 percent, according to an analysis of data of Friday morning commutes through March 20.

The Burnside Avenue and 170th Street stations serve some of the people most vulnerable to the economic and public health threats sweeping New York.

In areas bordering the stations, roughly half the children live in poverty, 40 percent of the population was born outside the United States and one in four residents does not have a high school diploma.

At the 170th Street station, riders still come in waves every morning: Men tend to arrive first, swiping into the station before dawn. Wearing paint-splattered jeans and carrying battered hard hats, they board trains to construction sites.

Later, many women trickle onto the platform, mostly nurses and home health aides who have been deemed essential workers.

Others are home cooks and nannies for the well-to-do, hoping to keep their jobs as long as possible in an unraveling economy.

Sulay Liriano, 40, was at the 170th Street station, starting her commute to Queens. A personal care aide, she had received an email from her employer the day before instructing her and her colleagues in bold, red letters that they were considered ''ESSENTIAL'' and must show up for work.

On the one hand, Ms. Liriano is grateful to still have an income: Her husband, who had worked at a restaurant helping with deliveries and odd jobs in the kitchen, had been let go.

But Ms. Liriano is anxious about the two and a half hours she spends every day huddling with strangers in an enclosed subway car. For years, she made her work commute without giving it much thought.

Now she scans every pole, every seat, every person, as if looking for signs of an invisible enemy. She is hyper-aware of where she keeps her hands, resisting the urge to fix a fallen strand of hair or wipe a stray lash from her eyelids.

''I am worried, really,'' said Ms. Liriano, who has not been able to find a face mask since panicked shoppers emptied neighborhood store shelves. ''There are still many people here, people I don't know, I don't know what precautions they are taking, if they are sick.

''It's the riskiest part of my day, taking the train,'' she added.

The M.T.A. has tried to protect its diminished ridership: It has deployed cleaners to disinfect train cars and buses every three days with the same disinfectants used in hospitals and nursing homes.

But hobbled by a growing number of workers falling sick and the free fall in ridership, the agency has cut subway service by 25 percent.

''Service is constrained by the number of crews we have available during this crisis -- not surprisingly, absences are in the thousands,'' said Sarah Feinberg, interim president of New York City Transit.

As of Monday, seven M.T.A. workers had died from the coronavirus while at least another 333 workers had tested positive and 2,700 were quarantined, officials said. The chairman of the M.T.A., Patrick J. Foye, also has the infection.

Outside the 170th Street station, the streets are nearly empty. Most stores have shuttered, their metal security gates pulled closed. The only places open were two pharmacies, where lines of customers curled out the front doors.

A short ride on the No. 4 train is the Burnside Avenue station. Every morning riders still stream onto its outdoor platforms.

Cindy Garcia, a caseworker at a homeless shelter in Manhattan, kept her hands tucked deep inside her pockets. Her disinfecting regimen at work is meticulous: Every pen a client touches, every doorknob she grabs, every chair she sits on she wipes down with Lysol.

When she meets with a client, they sit on opposite ends of the room.

But on the train, Ms. Garcia has no illusion about having that kind of control. She can keep her hands covered, she can wear a mask, but it is impossible to stay the recommended six feet away from other riders.

''Just look at these subway cars, they're still crowded,'' she said.

The No. 4 train was among the lines where service was reduced, a policy that health officials warn could lead to packed trains and increase health risks for the essential workers, including health care employees, who need to ride them.

Still, for other riders, the possibility of contracting the coronavirus was the least of their concerns.

Daouda Ba, a 43-year-old immigrant from Senegal, sat hands tucked between his knees at the Burnside Avenue station.

Mr. Ba lives in a nearby shelter, where he says more than 50 men share three bathrooms. The idea of disinfecting doorknobs or even having hand sanitizer is laughable. Just getting time at the sink to wash his hands is hard enough.

''I'm already stuck in a crowded box in the shelter, I can't do anything for my health,'' he said, looking at the other people standing nearby. ''The only thing I'm worried about is the economic stuff.''

Mr. Ba was laid off from his job working for a sightseeing bus tour company at the end of December. His boss said they would hire him back by the end of March, but now his job prospects are as uncertain as ever.

On a recent morning, a friend had called with a small, paying job: Someone was moving out of their apartment and needed a hand. He sat waiting for the train to take him to Brooklyn, the rin-tin-tin of light rain hitting the metal awning.

''If I die, I die,'' he said.

Professor Principal

4 Vic Eldred 4 years ago

Why shouldnt wealthy investors lose their money for the same reason hourly workers often lose their jobs?

The answer to that question is investors DO lose their money when things go bad! Exhibit A : $6 Trillion was lost in the Stock Market in one week!

Basic Economics, John.

Professor Principal

5 author JohnRussell 4 years ago

What message would it send to Americans being furloughed from their jobs to see the government issuing interest-free loans to ensure that 180,000-ton pleasure palaces stay afloat? Before Congress rushes to save any corporation that comes begging, it should consider if it’s right to bail out companies while Americans will be still expected to pay their mortgages, car loans, and credit-card debt. It’s looking increasingly likely that Americans may get a check in the mail, but that’s hardly the same as a loan to cover all their debts. Why should corporations get different treatment?

Junior Silent

5.1 zuksam replied to JohnRussell @5 4 years ago

I doubt the cruise industry will need to be bailed out. Their investors and any lenders will just have to write this one off and weather the storm. What are they going to do repossess the ships, who are they going to sell them to? The cruise industry knows how to run that business and there's nobody else who can get it back up and running and making profits faster that the people who are in charge right now. It's not like they ran it into the ground or it was unprofitable it's all because of this Virus so there's no reason to liquidate an industry that is viable so once this is over they'll restart and rebuild their business. I'll bet there'll be some real good deals on cruises when they first restart so if anyone has ever wanted to go on a cruise it might just be the best time to do it at a fantastic price (not to mention the boats might not be full at first so less crowds).

Masters Guide

5.2 It Is ME replied to JohnRussell @5 4 years ago

loans

Operative "Word".

loan
[lōn]

NOUN
1. a thing that is borrowed, especially a sum of money that is expected to be paid back.

Professor Expert

6 Nerm_L 4 years ago

Everyone seems to be thinking that normal economics are valid during extraordinary circumstances. What has happened wasn't caused by any sort economic change. The financial experts are attempting to use a playbook that addresses the wrong problems. And politicians are attempting to use a playbook that doesn't address reality. What we have are expert profiteers and pirates trying desperately to enrich themselves.

The United States has not been a capitalist economy since before World War I. The United States is a monetarist economy. The problem with 19th century capitalism was that the natural counterbalance to inflation was deflation. Panics (recessions) caused deflation; prices fell and the value of money (buying power) increased. The value of money was pegged to a gold standard so it wasn't possible to expand the money supply without increasing the supply of gold. Scarce dollars chasing abundant resources caused prices to fall (deflation) which made existing debt more expensive. In modern terms, lenders took a haircut by depreciation of collateral; lenders couldn't get their money back. People aren't going to repay loans when the price of their collateral is falling.

Monetary economics protects prices and inflation. While that does protect profits to some extent, an economic contraction will reduce consumption and consequent profits. Businesses are not as profitable during a recession which results in labor force reductions. But prices remain unchanged and lenders are protected because collateral underwriting loans maintains its price. Monetary economics protects the value of debt.

During the pandemic we have seen middlemen profiteers in action. Profiteers have introduced exorbitant inflation into the marketplace. But that inflated price isn't sustainable. Monetarists would flood the economy with money to make those inflated prices the new normal and protect the value of debt created to pay those inflated prices. The suppliers being exploited by profiteers would eventually be required to increase their wholesale prices because the buying power of money has decreased. Abundant dollars (pumped into the money supply) chasing scarce resources causes inflation and reduces the buying power of money.

Don't blame capitalism for the problems caused by monetary economics. And don't blame profit seeking businesses for the exploitation by profiteers. The United States is not a capitalist economy any longer. The United States is an economy that favors pirates, not capitalists.

You must be logged in to post a comment

Who is online

467 visitors