
Stop the Coronavirus Corporate Coup - pseudolus
https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/stop-the-coronavirus-corporate-coup
======
tomerico
The UK proposal is a surprisingly effective way to handle this. By paying
paying workers a percentage of their wage directly, you are protecting both
the workers, and the companies that can now cut their costs by moving a large
portion of their workforce to “unpaid” leave guilt free. This method is
essentially designed to minimize damage and allow for a fast rebound once the
restrictions are removed.

~~~
the8472
In some countries this approach is part of existing work laws.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-
time_working](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-time_working)

~~~
yread
Yep, in the Netherlands government covers 90% of the salary

------
KarlKemp
I do share the author's scepticism. But it's a bit much to describe this as
something that "really looks less like a relief package and more a corporate
coup" when you admittedly have absolutely no idea of what it actually is.

One could argue the same case just as well without resorting to pre-emptive
hyperbole. This isn't a new problem for public advocacy groups, and they tend
to try to find a balance where you get people to sign up for your newsletter
or prepare to show up for a protest, but with the understanding that it may
not happen or that your actual message will be decided at short notice.

Honesty in such matters isn't just moral principle, but also serves your
cause. Because outrage overload such as this will only get you written off as
"cynics that would oppose everything". No politician will even consider to
change their behaviour if you publicly admit that you are going to oppose them
entirely independent of that behaviour.

If you don't appear willing to consider the actual facts, you have no power.

~~~
bsanr
Are you willing to stake your bets so, when the reason we're in this situation
is in the first place is an inversion of the "ounce of prevention" principle?

I think, at this point, it would be prudent to articulate exactly what we _do_
want, so that what gets handed to us on an up-or-down vote is not wholly
removed from our desires. The answer is to presume the worst and advocate for
the best.

~~~
KarlKemp
I'm not entirely sure what my preference would be if the choice is between a
bailout for both Boeing _and_ the newly unemployed, or neither. Yes, I'd be
angry. It would be an insult to my sense of justice. But in a choice between
my sense of fairness and some kid's warm lunch, maybe the kid should get some
food?

Which brings me to another criticism: This starts out as some appeal to
bipartisan outrage. But really the core position is entirely identical to the
Democrats' best-case scenario. The difference is just that the Democratic
Party is (presumably) willing to make the sort of compromise I describe above.

Irregardless of these difference on the morality of such a trade-off, it
appears just _wrong_ , somehow, to treat the two parties with the same brush
when the overlap with one of them is so large, and the entire problem is
created by the other party's willingness to take hostage.

~~~
bsanr
>I'm not entirely sure what my preference would be if the choice is between a
bailout for both Boeing and the newly unemployed, or neither.

I think that's a false choice. We can take the latter without the former.

I think the point of the essay is what the rest of your comment speaks about.
There's a clear distinction here between innocent parties and the groups who,
frankly, f __ked up. All that 's left is having the wherewithal to do what's
right.

------
raidicy
I am very inexperienced and uneducated in matters like these. Is what this
post is describing a real possibility?

~~~
kls
There have been may instances of politicians using a crisis or event to usher
in sociatal transformation. Two that come to mind are Kristallnacht and the
assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. There is no doubt a contingent
of government (on both sides) that would like to use a reset as a catalyst for
a fundamental change to the social contract of the US. The question is, are
they large enough and organized enough to pull it off. I would certainly
expect those not enamored with the constitution to see how far they can bend
it, in times like these, at the very least.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Au...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria)

~~~
KarlKemp
Kristallnacht is an odd example, considering it was (openly) organised by the
government.

The canonical example from that time would be the Reichstag Fire[0].

But in an effort to avoid Godwin's wrath, it might be advisable to find
examples a bit lower on <whatever scale such things are measured on>
(Millihitler?). 9/11 and all the anti-terror legislation and war powers would
be a more recent example.

[0[:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire)

~~~
kls
Sorry my intent was to show that some of these events are even orchestrated by
the government as was the case with Kristallnacht and while most assume the
Reichstag Fire was too it is not as clear cut. I also wanted to show that not
all of them are as with the case of the ArchDuke. I could have been more clear
in that intent. I also intentionally steered clear of US ones as I did not
want to invoke consprinoia discussions.

But the point being that a contingency in government live by the adage never
let a good crisis go to waste.

------
jorblumesea
America is a huge fan of socialism, and by that we mean socialism for large
corporations and the wealthy.

Hard to imagine we have anything close to a competitive free market if the
minute a business gets into trouble it's just bail outs.

------
fxj
Might this be the moment when the US gets a universal health insurance and a
complete reform of the medical sector?

Just my 2ct.

------
hermitcrab
As usual it is socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

------
righteous
I'm fine with a bailout of some companies as long as the shareholders bear the
burden and the taxpayers have a plausible scenario for upside.

Want $65B Boeing? Okay -- we'll give that you that as a capital injection
against your cap table. Preferred stock with preferences and at a discount.
Oh, your market capitalization is only $53B right now? I guess that makes the
US treasury your largest shareholder.

Existing shareholders get what's coming to them: Massive dilution. The
government gains an enviable equity position that they can eventually exit at
hopefully a large profit.

Over the next decade, the government responsibly liquidates these positions.
Those liquidation events can be spent servicing our ballooning national debt
and underfunded entitlements.

This is the exact same deal a startup would get if they were in a similar
position and went back to investors for cash from an unfavorable position.

------
vearwhershuh
_> if people on the populist left and people on the populist right work
together._

Yes.

------
fzeroracer
I mean I appreciate the attempt, but politics are in a vastly different state
compared to 2008. Republicans are essentially the populist far right party
now, shown by their willingness to hold the public hostage so that they can
get concessions in a time of crisis. Meanwhile, the liberals are in favor of
big business above all else and will gladly vote to bail out companies while
their attempts to help working class families is an utter joke.

I don't see an easy way out of this crisis becaus of our president, our
government and our representatives failing us at every step of the way.
Thankfully local governments are stepping in, but this is one of those times
where you need a strong governmental response in order to ramp up production,
provide guidance and prevent cities from getting destroyed due to the economic
ramifications.

~~~
gergi
> Meanwhile, the liberals are in favor of big business above all else and will
> gladly vote to bail out companies while their attempts to help working class
> families is an utter joke.

Your definition of liberal seems very different than the typical definition.

~~~
eranimo
Typical American definition maybe, but the word liberal is synonymous for big
business in the rest of the world. Neoliberals are not left-wing, and the
Democratic party is not left wing.

------
oroeo9
With a complete fiasco in charge and everyone stuck home, loaded up on
supplies it’s kind of like... could just stop replying to those slack dings
any time now.

Biden will drag it right back to emotionally efficient sweeping the growing
inequality issue under the rug once everyone thinks it’s safe to stop looking
again.

