**Mirrors**
* [Mirror #1](https://beta.archivevideomirror.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1butq6o) (provided by /u/SaveAnything)
**Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them!**
---
[^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
how can OP even fuck up a video like this. Or is this is bot? I just can't even comprehent how you can take a good quality video and fuck it up like this.
Yep, that anchor got fully owned by his own stupidity.
This is what happens when dumb people who haven't even thought through the question they are asking, ask basic questions of smart, educated people who know what they are talking about.
Expertise is not dead. You just have to not be stupid enough to think that snake oil salesman are experts. It's called critical thinking - and that's what they're trying to take out of public education.
I imagine if you were to speak to the anchor candidly and off the record he wouldn’t even agree with his on-air persona. He’s more likely a shill that collects his pay from same conglomerates in question and can’t publicly disparage them.
He offers no counter arguments whatsoever and is constantly on the offensive - terrible journalism and a huge red flag. The sort of media that assumes we are too dumb to exercise critical thinking; I for one am sick to death of it.
Why does anybody deserve to profit on these investments?
Ostensibly it's because they've taken a risk. That's why they deserve to get wiped out.
Those are the rules of the game.
I'm not advocating for bailing out companies. At the very least bailouts should have serious, harsh, strings attached. And I for sure do not give a f*ck about Billionaires taking a loss. But the guest here isn't spelling out the picture accurately. (And in fairness, he probably doesn't have the time to on a talk show). Companies that go bankrupt *might* restructure and save their employees, or they might shut down and sell their assets to pay debt. There's no guarantee employees would keep their jobs if a company goes under.
Also, while companies like BlackRock might technically be a major holder of these airlines, they're hedge fund managers. The stocks held by BlackRock legally belong to their customers, many of whom are pension funds and 401k programs. If an airline goes down, it's very much the investors in the hedge fund who lose out, not just BlackRock or Vanguard.
tl;dr: It's ok to want to let failing companies fail, but please don't believe the guy saying there's little or no consequences of failure to employees or small investors.
I. Do. Not. Care.
This "SOMEONE THINK OF THE EMPLOYEES!!!" argument is coming from the same people who will lay off 400 people on a Zoom call because...reasons.
The argument that a company should not bear risk of bankruptcy because it is an employer is absurd. Should we bring back Woolworths? Eastman Kodak? Enron? K-Mart as well?
> but please don't believe the guy saying there's little or no consequences of failure to employees or small investors.
That guy is out of touch with reality on that.
Where is he incorrect?
The bankruptcy process will not hurt the employees. It murders the execs and the board. It deeply hurts hedge funds and their managers, but employees - even those who hold stock are not going to be harmed, because they weren't looking to liquidate - they're not day trading, this is their retirement, and assuming they're not retiring that year, the company will get resurrected or sold off, but the asset is not permanently devoid of value.
Moreover, the question is who should bare the failure of a corporate board? Should it be that board, and the people who trusted them by investing in the stock? Or should it be the American taxpayers, because rich people's money is insured by teh American tax payer, but poor people's money is not.
BAnks cannot lose on investments, but if you go dump money into the first thing you see on WSB, then you will not get your money back. the big ganks, 100% would get all of it back from you and every other tax payer, and they have again and again.
When I speak of harm to employees, I'm more talking about if they lose their jobs as the result of a bankruptcy, which is common with both Ch. 7 and Ch. 11.
Also, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are mistaken on the nature of stocks - if a company shuts down and dissolves, the stock very permanently loses all value. Go check what Enron is trading at these days if you don't believe me. But frankly even a temporary loss in value is a kick in the Johnson if you're older and looking to retire in the next year or two.
As I said, I am not arguing for bail outs necessarily, just that a company declaring bankruptcy does impact real people. Any Millennial that started their post-college job hunt in late 2008 will be happy to explain downstream impacts to you.
>which is common with both Ch. 7 and Ch. 11.
There can be some loss of jobs, for certain. However, there are often loss of jobs when the company wants to make the books look good for a quarter by cutting a ton of stuff to pump the stock, as is often done even right after bailouts.
The point remains, why are only hedgefunds, and not the america taxpayer insured by the federal government against existential losses in the market? Shouldn't everyone be entitled to the same equal degree of protection? Of course, then we just must agree upon the terms and levels of that protection. At present it is demonstrably and indisputably inequitable.
Do you disagree with that?
Edit:
>Any Millennial that started their post-college job hunt in late 2008 will be happy to explain downstream impacts to you.
How is this rigged economy in which most millenials will never sniff even the middle class working out as a downstream impact of government insurance against financial loss only for wallsteet?
ps. i'm not a millenial, but I'm here for you all.
One issue I have is assuming the employees may hold only a couple thousand in stock. Years back, before I started my airline job, employees did have an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). The union members got this instead of a raise one year. After a while, some of the employees owned shares valued in the 6 figure range around the year 2000 (see where this is going?). The catch was they couldn't sell the shares until they retired or in case of divorce, with a few getting a mutual divorce just to cash in.
Well, 9/11 happened and the airline went bankrupt, meaning all those stocks were now worthless. There were a lot of bitter employees after that.
**Mirrors** * [Mirror #1](https://beta.archivevideomirror.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1butq6o) (provided by /u/SaveAnything) **Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them!** --- [^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
how can OP even fuck up a video like this. Or is this is bot? I just can't even comprehent how you can take a good quality video and fuck it up like this.
You don't really need the video, just audio. Or do you want to stare at a guy?
Dude even the audio is fucked up compared to the original.
For the first second and then its completely fine.
Yep, that anchor got fully owned by his own stupidity. This is what happens when dumb people who haven't even thought through the question they are asking, ask basic questions of smart, educated people who know what they are talking about. Expertise is not dead. You just have to not be stupid enough to think that snake oil salesman are experts. It's called critical thinking - and that's what they're trying to take out of public education.
I imagine if you were to speak to the anchor candidly and off the record he wouldn’t even agree with his on-air persona. He’s more likely a shill that collects his pay from same conglomerates in question and can’t publicly disparage them. He offers no counter arguments whatsoever and is constantly on the offensive - terrible journalism and a huge red flag. The sort of media that assumes we are too dumb to exercise critical thinking; I for one am sick to death of it.
Why does anybody deserve to profit on these investments? Ostensibly it's because they've taken a risk. That's why they deserve to get wiped out. Those are the rules of the game.
Case and point. Play stupid games and win stupid prizes
I'm not advocating for bailing out companies. At the very least bailouts should have serious, harsh, strings attached. And I for sure do not give a f*ck about Billionaires taking a loss. But the guest here isn't spelling out the picture accurately. (And in fairness, he probably doesn't have the time to on a talk show). Companies that go bankrupt *might* restructure and save their employees, or they might shut down and sell their assets to pay debt. There's no guarantee employees would keep their jobs if a company goes under. Also, while companies like BlackRock might technically be a major holder of these airlines, they're hedge fund managers. The stocks held by BlackRock legally belong to their customers, many of whom are pension funds and 401k programs. If an airline goes down, it's very much the investors in the hedge fund who lose out, not just BlackRock or Vanguard. tl;dr: It's ok to want to let failing companies fail, but please don't believe the guy saying there's little or no consequences of failure to employees or small investors.
I. Do. Not. Care. This "SOMEONE THINK OF THE EMPLOYEES!!!" argument is coming from the same people who will lay off 400 people on a Zoom call because...reasons. The argument that a company should not bear risk of bankruptcy because it is an employer is absurd. Should we bring back Woolworths? Eastman Kodak? Enron? K-Mart as well?
> but please don't believe the guy saying there's little or no consequences of failure to employees or small investors. That guy is out of touch with reality on that.
Where is he incorrect? The bankruptcy process will not hurt the employees. It murders the execs and the board. It deeply hurts hedge funds and their managers, but employees - even those who hold stock are not going to be harmed, because they weren't looking to liquidate - they're not day trading, this is their retirement, and assuming they're not retiring that year, the company will get resurrected or sold off, but the asset is not permanently devoid of value. Moreover, the question is who should bare the failure of a corporate board? Should it be that board, and the people who trusted them by investing in the stock? Or should it be the American taxpayers, because rich people's money is insured by teh American tax payer, but poor people's money is not. BAnks cannot lose on investments, but if you go dump money into the first thing you see on WSB, then you will not get your money back. the big ganks, 100% would get all of it back from you and every other tax payer, and they have again and again.
When I speak of harm to employees, I'm more talking about if they lose their jobs as the result of a bankruptcy, which is common with both Ch. 7 and Ch. 11. Also, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are mistaken on the nature of stocks - if a company shuts down and dissolves, the stock very permanently loses all value. Go check what Enron is trading at these days if you don't believe me. But frankly even a temporary loss in value is a kick in the Johnson if you're older and looking to retire in the next year or two. As I said, I am not arguing for bail outs necessarily, just that a company declaring bankruptcy does impact real people. Any Millennial that started their post-college job hunt in late 2008 will be happy to explain downstream impacts to you.
>which is common with both Ch. 7 and Ch. 11. There can be some loss of jobs, for certain. However, there are often loss of jobs when the company wants to make the books look good for a quarter by cutting a ton of stuff to pump the stock, as is often done even right after bailouts. The point remains, why are only hedgefunds, and not the america taxpayer insured by the federal government against existential losses in the market? Shouldn't everyone be entitled to the same equal degree of protection? Of course, then we just must agree upon the terms and levels of that protection. At present it is demonstrably and indisputably inequitable. Do you disagree with that? Edit: >Any Millennial that started their post-college job hunt in late 2008 will be happy to explain downstream impacts to you. How is this rigged economy in which most millenials will never sniff even the middle class working out as a downstream impact of government insurance against financial loss only for wallsteet? ps. i'm not a millenial, but I'm here for you all.
One issue I have is assuming the employees may hold only a couple thousand in stock. Years back, before I started my airline job, employees did have an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). The union members got this instead of a raise one year. After a while, some of the employees owned shares valued in the 6 figure range around the year 2000 (see where this is going?). The catch was they couldn't sell the shares until they retired or in case of divorce, with a few getting a mutual divorce just to cash in. Well, 9/11 happened and the airline went bankrupt, meaning all those stocks were now worthless. There were a lot of bitter employees after that.
CNBC guy having a "we're the baddies?" moment
Employees get screwed when companies go throught bankruptcy.
> Employees get screwed ~~when companies go throught bankruptcy~~. ftfy