Moral hazard - Is it indolent contrivance, gratuitous profit, or just POV
The following editorial is really worth reading in it's entirety.
Star Tribune
Editorial Board
12/25/13/
Unemployment benefits are not a luxury for unemployed
Quote:
Even if it weren’t the day after Christmas, one word would spring to mind
to describe the congressional Republicans who are unwilling to extend
unemployment insurance benefits beyond 26 weeks to 1.3 million unlucky Americans.
They’re Scrooges.<snip>
Today’s Republicans in Congress appear to believe that the U.S. economy
will reliably provide a self-sustaining livelihood for anyone willing to work.
Unemployment benefits will invite idleness, they claim.
It’s a version of the “moral hazard” argument used in Minnesota in the 1870s
to deny government aid to starving victims of grasshopper plagues.
<snip>
|
I love juxtapositions...
NY Times
STEVE EDER
12/27/13
For ESPN, Millions to Remain in Connecticut
Quote:
ESPN is hardly needy. With nearly 100 million households paying
about $5.54 a month for ESPN, regardless of whether they watch it,
the network takes in more than $6 billion a year in subscriber fees alone.
Still, ESPN has received about $260 million in state tax breaks and credits
over the past 12 years, according to a New York Times analysis of public records.
That includes $84.7 million in development tax credits because of a film and digital media program,
as well as savings of about $15 million a year since the network
successfully lobbied the state for a tax code change in 2000.
|
As a country, we have come to accept the idea that businesses are
entitled government subsidies, and we proudly label it it capitalism.
Locally, carrot/stick tactics obscure it with promises/threats of job creation/job loss.
But is it ? Isn't it actually just
corporate moral hazard.
51305.