[mekael]

> If there is any long-term profit to be made, a wealthy investor will come in, buy up the assets at a low price, hire the employees who are now jobless, and pick up the torch where the previous ownership left off.

This makes the assumption that at least one of the following is true: 1. There are wealthy investors to fund the purchase 2. There are wealthy investors who realize there is a long term profit to be made 3. That wealthy investors care about long term profit

> A government bailout is bad for every other American, because it introduces an incentive to making poor decisions and not planning for market downturns.

There are events which no company can plan for, either because they are once in a several lifetime events or because they are so cataclysmic that they shake the foundations of a global economy.

[chii]

> 1. There are wealthy investors to fund the purchase 2. There are wealthy investors who realize there is a long term profit to be made 3. That wealthy investors care about long term profit

all of those are true. Not just one.

> no company can plan for

and yet, in the filings for american arline, they have mentioned pandemics as one of the risks. No company wanted to plan for this, because they perceive the cost to not be commensurate with the reward - perhaps because they, after seeing 2008, know that the gov't bailout is a possibility, and that's cheaper for them than to save for a rainy day.

AKA, moral hazard. It needs to stop.

[creato]

What would "planning for a pandemic" look like for an airline? And if they did that, would they have survived for decades competing with airlines that did "riskier" planning for a pandemic?