[bogomipz]

>" There is a difference between a restaurant failing and an industry going under. It really isn't that ridiculous to help folks when their entire industry falls out from under them."

The "industry" is not failing. There are still 13,586 yellow taxis on the streets in NYC[1] picking up and dropping off fares. And there no shortage of New Yorkers on the street raising their right hand and intently scanning for the "on duty" lights of yellow cars.

The "industry" is not the valuation of metal medallions bolted to the hood of the cars. You seem to be conflating the too.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City

[bbeonx]

Semantics. What I should have said is "when the valuation of a wide percentage of peoples earnings and assets who belong to an industry suddenly decreases from unforeseen outside forces caused by rapid technological advances..."

Or how about "when about 18% of taxi drivers nest egg devaluates and their retirement evaporates..."

To claim there is no difference between a restaurant failing and all independent taxi cab drivers in NYC simultaneously taking a giant hit that they did not see coming based on an (admittedly bad) policy of protectionism, is intentionally missing the point and I would say is intellectually dishonest.

Is a bailout the best way to fix this? I have no idea, seems like a relatively low cost way to fix what the city did but these things are complicated. I'm open to that discussion.

Are failure rates of the restaurant industry totally incomparable to this singular situation? Most definitely, and any argument based on this is flawed IMO.