[nostromo]

First, this is nothing like 2008, to which it's being compared.

In 2008 you had misbehaving companies taking huge risks with the (correct) assumption that they were too big to fail.

But what we have now is the government forcing businesses closed. It only makes sense that the government provide some assistance to those companies.

It feels great to quote Chomsky and to feel morally pure, I've certainly done it. But the truth is you would not like the result of that purity should the government follow that advice. The Federal Government and Federal Reserve acted in a ideologically pure fashion in 1929, and it caused a depression and hurt working people the most.

Secondly, we do have assistance programs for workers that have been laid off.

[jessaustin]

...you would not like the result of that purity...

The marketing, at least, is exactly like 2008. With the benefit of hindsight, we find that we don't like the results of impurity. The logical response is to choose more purity this time.

[Proziam]

> But the truth is you would not like the result of that purity should the government follow that advice.

I would prefer companies that buy back stock, pay ridiculous salaries and bonuses to execs, have giant golden parachutes, and so forth use the capital to secure themselves for situations like these. I think bailing out companies that have demonstrated that the government bailout is their risk mitigation strategy should be allowed to die. Yes, that would suck more right now, but it would mean that from here on out companies have to act 'just a little bit more' responsibly.

[mistermann]

> First, this is nothing like 2008, to which it's being compared.

I could easily list off tens of similarities between now and 2008.

I think what you mean is this situation isn't identical to 2008?