January 7, 2002

7:21 AM

WTC Victims say the government isn't giving them enough money. Some say the government is giving them too much, and any honest libertarian will tell you that the government shouldn't be giving them anything. What do you think?
posted by insomnyuk (48 comments total)

any honest libertarian will tell you that the government shouldn't be giving them anything

The government isn't giving the money as a humanitarian gesture. The payment is a sort of settlement to keep the victims from suing the airlines. Even the libertarians should see the difference.
posted by jpoulos at 7:38 AM on January 7, 2002

Oh come on. The government is already giving billions to the airlines to bail them out. I don't really think that's the issue. The government does not need to be giving these people welfare, millions in private charity has been raised for them.
posted by insomnyuk at 7:54 AM on January 7, 2002

The payment is a sort of settlement to keep the victims from suing the airlines.

Well, it isn't stopping them, at least one person has already entered a wrongful death suit. Offering to settle with the victims' families to keep them from suing is throwing blood in the water - it tells people that they can sue for a lot more.

So much for "united we stand" - we're already back to business as usual in the USA.
posted by RylandDotNet at 7:58 AM on January 7, 2002

``This is about fairness,'' Eckert said. ``We're here because the figure that Special Master Kenneth Feinberg selected for pain and suffering in no way represents what the people who died went through."

Well, agreed.. but what do you suppose that has to do with the people who are receiving the money, none of which, to my knowledge, died in the attacks? Shouldn't the real price tag be placed on what the victims' families had to suffer through?

And, as always, isn't it absurd and borderline despicable to put a price tag on pain and suffering?
posted by Hildago at 8:02 AM on January 7, 2002

If I had lost someone I loved in the WTC, I can't think of thing that I'd be able to spend that money on.

Monkey's paw, anyone?
posted by UncleFes at 8:03 AM on January 7, 2002

insomnyuk, what are you suggesting? What is "the issue"? That it's wrong for a society to compensate the particular victims of an attack by a foreign power? (Perhaps your "real libertarian" might think so, but it's not self-evident, certainly.) That it's unseemly for the families to ask for a particular amount, considering that they are waiving their legal right to sue? Maybe it is -- but why even think about sitting back on rendering a judgement on such a thing? It's miles away from the experience of most people here.

The government is already giving billions to the airlines to bail them out.

By this I suppose you mean that the aid given airlines was to cover legal costs in damages payouts. But I've read nothing to indicate that (anybody want to correct me on this?)

I see via preview that there are a number of responses here posted since I've been typing this. I'll just address UncleFes -- if I were the child-rearing spouse of a person killed in that attack, maybe I'd use the money to keep my house and car, buy food, pay for day care while I looked for work, buy health insurance, send kids to college...lots of the people killed were not wealthy, just ordinary working people, some of whom supported their families. I don't think this compensation is conceived of by anybody sane as a lottery payout.
posted by BT at 8:13 AM on January 7, 2002

BT: Society is already compensating the victims in the form of voluntary charitable giving, while government, on the other hand, is taking people's money (taxes) and giving it to a select group of victims.

People die unexpectedly all the time. Automobile accidents kill people frequently. Do you think the families of those lost in automoblie accidents are grieving any less than the people who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11th attacks? Why shouldn't the federal government compensate them too? Are they any less deserving? Perhaps the family of the Green Beret who was killed will want 1.6 million dollars too. The context of the victimization does little, in my mind, to affect what the government should or should not do. The fact is, private charity can take care of people with these needs, and the government has no right to spend tax dollars in this way.

And I'm fairly certain the money given to the airlines is in part for money lost by the airlines being shut down for several days, along with the costs and economic effects due to the plane crashes.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:24 AM on January 7, 2002

And, as always, isn't it absurd and borderline despicable to put a price tag on pain and suffering?

the people who are accepting the checks must not think it's absurd and despicable.
posted by suprfli at 8:26 AM on January 7, 2002

insomnyuk: You conveniently leave out the part about charitable giving being tax-deductible, a little fact that encourages it.
posted by raysmj at 8:29 AM on January 7, 2002

Raysmj: good point. I didn't leave that out on purpose though. So I guess the government then does then help society compensate victims by encouraging charitable giving, without actually writing checks. I have no problem with that.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:38 AM on January 7, 2002

insomnyuk, the money for the victims is not charity. it has nothing to do with what the Red Cross is doing It's not about "deserving" it. It's not about fairness. It's not really even about compensation for the victims loss. It's a pay-off to head off (the government hopes) economic disaster in the airline industry due to endless lawsuits.
posted by jpoulos at 8:39 AM on January 7, 2002

<tries to decide if his experience is analogous>
My mom died in a rather well known plane crash twenty years ago (I've come across the made-for-tv movie while flipping channels as recently as june, 2001)

In that particular case, there seems to be no question that the airline was negligent. The crash would have been avoided if they'd simply bothered to deice the wings. My father settled with the (now-defunct) Air Florida.

The money my siblings and I received has been useful; I had no qualms about things like paying my way through graduate school. Of course, I'd much rather have had my mother through those difficult teen years than a check.

While I have issues with things like idiots who build homes on flood plains looking for government handouts when their homes are destroyed, I think it's reasonable for the families of 9/11 to expect a settlement from the government; after all, I think that the primary responsibility for thwarting such terrorist attacks falls on the government.
posted by jburka at 8:46 AM on January 7, 2002

First of all, the families of the firemen and policemen who were killed, in my opinion, should not recieve anything, past normal insurance payouts. It is their job to protect the public, and the risk of death is more than a small factor to consider. It is something they face everyday. I feel sorry for the families, but that's the price they pay for the job they have taken.
The families of the victims who were in the building who were killed should also not be eligible for such monetary benefits from the Government either. This is something that could have not have been prevented, and should be considered an accident. If there is proof that the Government knew beforehand the exact details of the situation, and how many would be killed, and what time, and who it would be, etc, than I would disagree.
As for the people on the plane, I think if they didn't buy insurance to cover such events, than they should not be able to receive the money either. I hear a lot of sides to the "If I was driving a car and crashed" argument, but it pretty much stands true.
If I WAS driving a car, and some guy who called himself a terrorist crashed in to my vehicle while I was driving to work, I dont think the Government would pay off my family so we would not sue the manufacturer of the car I was driving because some nutcase decided to crash into me.
I understand that these people are facing a crisis in their normal lives, as far as paying the bills, and suddenly forced to consider the fact that a substantial amount of money that they would have received from their spouse's paycheck is about to be taken from them. But that happens every day, and you rarely hear of the government paying those people 1.5 million.
The terrorist attacks are unfortunate, and I feel for each and every family involved, but what I heard on the news last night pretty much enforces my feelings.
A woman whose family member was killed in the incident stated to the reporter, "It's just not fair compensation. If I fall in KMart, I could sue for 5 million."
What the hell is wrong with us?
posted by bradth27 at 8:46 AM on January 7, 2002

I expected the money to be directly given to the victims and victims' families. No dicking around with allocating amounts to people based on their needs or situation. There's a billion dollars. I want to see a bunch of new millionaires walking the streets to help compensate for their loss. Whether you were married to a stock broker or the busboy, whether you had life insurance or were a bum on the street... your family should now be millionaires.

I will never donate again to the Red Cross, United Way, etc. because of what I believe is their insatiable and inexcusable greed. In fact, sadly, I feel better about giving money to the bum on the street now because it's the only way I'm assured my money gets to the intended destination.

As for the federal fund, that is utterly ridiculous. There's no reason taxpayers should be compensating victims from federal money. We already did that with our donations that are not being fairly distributed to the victims.
posted by fleener at 8:49 AM on January 7, 2002

Oklahoma City victims - where's their share? Why didn't they get a big compensation offer?

This compensation package has nothing to do with justice and fairness - if so, we would have a national program in place for victim compensation. We don't.

The day 9/11 was singled out as a compensable day to die. Why?

Political expediency/glad-handing by folks who want to get elected? Or an attempt by our government to assuage a sense of guilt over failing to protect its citizens?

Regardless of motive, if I were personally impacted by the loss of a loved one through some major tragedy other than 9/11, I would be pretty pissed off about this.
posted by yesster at 8:55 AM on January 7, 2002

Here's the amazing thing: people die.

Now, I know that's surprising, but here's an even MORE amazing fact: people have always died, and people will always die.

People with families, who had plans for the future, who were nice folks, who never did anything particularly wrong. If the someone were going to make the argument that the payouts were to prevent some kind of societal damage (I dunno, economic impact from loss of wage-earner?) then the payouts are OK.

...but simple "pain and suffering" doesn't cut it. There's more pain and suffering going on every day (even in the US) than you or I can even imagine. The fact that someone died as a result of terrorism is secondary to the fact that they died. If I drop dead right now my loved ones (hey, there are a couple, ya know!) won't see a red cent from anyone.

Does that mean they're suffering less?
posted by aramaic at 9:00 AM on January 7, 2002

Jpoulos: That angle is interesting, but you can't prove it. No one in Congress, as far as I know, has hinted at such a reason behind the payments.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:09 AM on January 7, 2002

Lots of great arguements here. I guess I would finally say that a lot depends upon what you think governement is for, ought to do or not do, and in this many of us do differ.
in passing: what distinguishes an "honest libertarian" from the other kind?
posted by Postroad at 9:13 AM on January 7, 2002

[Here's the amazing thing: people die.]

So it goes...
posted by revbrian at 9:14 AM on January 7, 2002

aramaic, I'll go a step further ... everyone will die.

I think the point everyone's dancing around is that the money is the result of the high-profile nature of the accident. But it's an accident nonetheless, like so many other thousands of accidents that happen every day. As aramaic noted, those accidents go uncompensated except through normal means (insurance, lawsuits). There are no special "funds," no "charity drives," no government "allocations." So I guess it's a little distasteful to me to see the victims (and I'm not denying they've suffered) arguing that they're not getting "enough," or squabbling that some should get more and some less. The point is that they're all getting more than they would have if they had "just" died in a house fire or car crash.

Just my .022 Euros.
posted by pardonyou? at 9:18 AM on January 7, 2002

Me: It's not really even about compensation for the victims loss. It's a pay-off to head off (the government hopes) economic disaster in the airline industry due to endless lawsuits.

insomnyuk: That angle is interesting, but you can't prove it. No one in Congress, as far as I know, has hinted at such a reason behind the payments.


It's pretty much accepted as fact:


"The program was set up to serve as an alternative to filing lawsuits against the airlines and other entities. Those who receive awards will forfeit their right to sue." - Associated Press

"Drafted and passed by Congress in just 24 hours after the terrorist attacks, the Victim Compensation Fund was intended to streamline the legal process for those who lost loved ones, while capping the liability of the ailing airline industry." - The Boston Globe

"Congress, in an unprecedented move, has shielded most of the potential lawsuit targets from almost all liability. Those players include United and American airlines, the airports and Boeing, as well as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey that governs Newark International Airport and the World Trade Center." -- Orlando Sentitnel
posted by jpoulos at 9:37 AM on January 7, 2002

jpoulos: Well, if that's so, then it's too bad. I think the victims should sue the airlines, and put them out of business. The market would respond (in time) and there would still be airlines on their feet. This is assuming, of course, that the plaintiffs would win against the airlines (not a difficult assumption to make, probably).

Perhaps then, the airlines would have an incentive (if you fail with security, you go out of business) for implementing effective and expensive airline security, the kind that works for Israel's El Al airlines.

Instead, the government is rewarding itself, and the airlines, for screwing up. They already added a ticket "fee" (read: tax) to help pay for the new aviation security bill.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:50 AM on January 7, 2002

One rule for us and another for them, it seems.

If a member of my family (or, say, both of my parents) died in a car crash, I would get (or expect) jack shit. But if they were on a plane that smacked into the WTC, I'd get $1.6 million?

My sympathies go out to anyone who has lost loved ones in a tragic way, but my sympathies do not go out to people whining they aren't getting enough money when they don't deserve squat.

Of course, if the US government wants to give money to everyone who has relatives who died.. I'm all up for that.
posted by wackybrit at 9:57 AM on January 7, 2002

insomnyuk: El-Al is a state-owned airline. Pretty odd to bring such an operation up in the midst of a pro-libertarian argument.
posted by raysmj at 10:04 AM on January 7, 2002

Nice work, jpoulos. These people are waiving their right to pursue compensation from possibly liable parties -- and we are, collectively, paying them for that waiver.

my sympathies do not go out to people whining they aren't getting enough money when they don't deserve squat

Read jpoulos' post, wackybrit -- in a car crash, you haven't waived your right to sue. Moreover, this was an extraordinary event, a massive thing -- both emotionally but also economically massive for the victims and their families (who are also victims: if I had lost my wife I wouldn't hesitate to think of myself in this category). Perhaps it's uncomfortable to hear about those people who are arguing for a larger amount. I can see how it doesn't look pretty. But it's even more unseemly to sit around and sniff about how wrong it is for us to give them a penny of compensation. I think this whole thing is just unnecessarily negative: why are so many of us here so ready to criticize these people in their still very recent grief? Our tax dollars are routinely wasted in ways which are much more important to focus on.

insomnyuk: The market would respond (in time) and there would still be airlines on their feet.

I'm glad you have such an all-powerful faith in the market which created a shoddy airline industry in the first place.
posted by BT at 10:11 AM on January 7, 2002

Raysmj: correction. El-Al WAS a state owned airline, they have privatized in the last 3 years.
posted by insomnyuk at 10:23 AM on January 7, 2002

insomnyuk: In Israel, or elsewhere? Plenty of Israeli sites still call El-Al state owned or "government-controlled." The Jerusalem Post article is from (blankety-blank) Nov. 2001! I thought the Swissair problems delayed any privatization. If you can point to sources which say otherwise, please do. Also, how much does the Israeli government spend on security, and how much has it spent in the airline's history - in comparison with U.S. money spent on same?
posted by raysmj at 10:46 AM on January 7, 2002

lots of the people killed were not wealthy, just ordinary working people, some of whom supported their families.

I know. I just think I'd personally be a little reluctant to take it. Not sure I could wash the psychological blood off it.
posted by UncleFes at 11:02 AM on January 7, 2002

Allan Sloan had an article about distributing money to the attack victims and families in a December issue of Newsweek (sorry, couldn't find the article on their website). Sloan basically said, yes, it's horrible that we have to make these kind of decisions... but given that we do, the guidelines that were created are as fair as possible. He also said that if cases went to court, the differences between the highest and lowest payouts would be significantly larger than they are under the guidelines.
posted by pmurray63 at 11:03 AM on January 7, 2002

implementing effective and expensive airline security, the kind that works for Israel's El Al airlines.

Have you flown El Al airlines? I've heard first-hand reports about friends being interrogated and having tracking devices secretly implanted on their personal items. It's also said that El Al, on occassion, use shock devices during interrogation.
posted by jennak at 11:05 AM on January 7, 2002

Whoops, sorry, it was Steven Brill, not Allan Sloan. And here's the article. Relevant excerpt:
"As much as Patrick Cartier resents those charts, Feinberg has made the gaps between the lowest and highest awards far more egalitarian than they would be in any court. The real-world courtroom spread in New York is closer to zero to $30 million, not the $500,000 floor and the $3 million to $6 million upper reaches that his rules envision..."
posted by pmurray63 at 11:18 AM on January 7, 2002

Raysmj: you may be right. I know that El Al had attempted to privatize, it could have been delayed. And yes, El Al spends a lot, one would assume (they don't make public how much, for security reasons), but so do we. The FAA has been regulating and spending millions every year for the last three decades. I think private industry could still foot the bill.

jennak: I'm not endorsing their tactics, I'm just citing a successful example. The last known threat (bombing threat, it was prevented) on an El Al plane was in 1985, the last successful attempt was in 1972, until an air marshal shot the would be hijacker (she survived).

Our tax dollars are routinely wasted in ways which are much more important to focus on.

You have to start somewhere, and it might as well be with the most visible and blatant wastes first. I hear that argument all the time "well the government wastes billions, what's a few million more here or there?" With that kind of attitude, no government waste will ever be curtailed. And what about parents who lost children? (a few children died in the attack) Should they get money, it's not like their source of income has been eliminated... and no amount of money will ease their pain. A good friend of mine was killed in a hit and run a few months ago. His family is still devastated. They will never see a single red cent from the government. Neither should the families of the WTC victims.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:21 AM on January 7, 2002

Postroad,

what distinguishes an "honest libertarian" from the other kind?

I think I can answer that for you (in a relatively smart ass way.)
Libertarian- a right wing nut who smokes dope and thus favors decriminalization.
honest Libertarian- an idealogue who thinks there are Simple Answers for a Complex World.
posted by nofundy at 11:53 AM on January 7, 2002

(in a relatively smart ass way.)
I think you are giving yourself too much credit.
posted by thirteen at 12:22 PM on January 7, 2002

jburka, condolences on the loss of your mother.

I don't think the two situations are analagous. If I read you correctly, in your situation the airline paid out X amount of dollars to victims' families. Here, the government is offering up X amount of dollars and saying, "oh and by the way would the families please also sign this paper agreeing to not sue the airlines". Imagine three thousand multi-million dollar claims against American Airlines. They'd end up just like Air Florida, as you said "now-defunct". I don't know if that's a good or bad thing.

BTW, I followed your link over to Blockbuster. I think they need to revisit their banner strategy. The ad at the top of the page was for "What's the Worst that Could Happen?"
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:11 PM on January 7, 2002

The payouts are also about denial: denying that terrorists have the ability to interupt, much less change, the status quo.
posted by Mack Twain at 1:31 PM on January 7, 2002

I have problems with the payoffs for a few reasons.

I have a problem with the "valuation" of human life by weight of what they earned alive. In other words, because the stock brokers made more money, their widows are entitled to more money than the widows of the chef or dishwasher. That's just creepy in an almost indefinable way.

It bothers me that there are widows who are comparing the loss of their husbands to falling in a store. This makes me think that those women are primarily your trophy-wife variety who think they are too old to catch another up and coming stock broker. The words gold-digger spring quickly to mind. Note that the widows and families of the janitors, waitrons, and all the other people who keep a building that size running, are not the ones complaining.

I have a huge problem with the sense of "entitlement" people seem to feel when something goes wrong. (Obvious egregious corporate behaviour excepted.)


I have a real problem that the "government", which means you and I, are paying to shield corporations from lawsuits. The same corporations that we've already subsidized with tax dollars since their inception.

I have a problem with the fact that we're going to be paying off these people and yet the widows of veterans get virtually nothing.

I'm bothered that we as tax payers are willing to send a dead stockbroker's kid to college, but we can't raise enough money to put computers in poor neighborhood schools.

I'm bothered that the survivors and victims of OK City weren't compensated, apparently only because there wasn't a clear corporate target they could sue.


I'm bothered by the fact that our military men and women risk their lives every day and are paid so little that many enlisted families need food stamps to survive, yet we can raise 1.6 million dollars for the families of the WTC.

Frankly, I think this is a huge mismanagement of public funds. I say, let them sue and let the chips fall where they may.
posted by dejah420 at 1:39 PM on January 7, 2002

Could someone please explain to me why 1.6 million is not enouph money? That sounds like a lot of money to me. Even enouph to give up one's (couph*) God given right to sue.

A lot of the arguments above are advocating the victim's right to get money... but they are getting money. Isn't the real issue figuring out whether or not these people's desire for MORE money crossing the line from compensation to greed?

If I received 1.6 million. I wouldn't dream of asking for more. I'd put it in a bank and live off the interest for the rest of my life. 160,000 dollars a year would be good enouph for me.

This is a national tragedy. Isn't there something sickening about quibbling over getting more money right now, particularly when the amount they are getting is already so large? Or am I missing something?
posted by xammerboy at 1:51 PM on January 7, 2002

I had an argument about this recently and thought someone was crazy. Now I know a lot of people are crazy. I don't give a flying fuck, these people do not deserve millions of dollars b/c their loved ones worked in a big building that got destroyed. People die everyday. It's hard. It sucks. There is no payoff. It's part of life.
Obviously I understand the legal aspect of this is different with the corporations involved, etc., but the idea that these people are entitled to millions b/c of the WTC based on the horror of it is beyond plausibility. Red Cross should just give people their money back rather than make everyone rich, as that is just plain sick. Giving help is one thing, that much money is ridiculous.
I thought fleener's post was a joke at first, but then I read further and couldn't believe it. This kind of thing makes me sad to be a human being.
posted by dig_duggler at 6:54 PM on January 7, 2002

About the people who are complaining about the size of the 1.6 million dollar settlement: I'm guessing that these are the ones who stand to not improve their economic situation by the benefit package, and think that it should take into account future lost earnings. (Question: Normally, in court cases where compensation is discussed (as the fed deal seems to be a substitute for a wrongful death suit), how is money awarded?) Wouldn't rich people already have life insurance to cover such things? As for the Red Cross, I think even the "honest libertarian" mentioned in the thread would have no trouble passing on the money, as the donators have a right to do what they want with it, eh?
posted by Charmian at 7:17 PM on January 7, 2002

Charmian: of course. It's completely voluntary, people have a right to give away as much as they want.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:08 PM on January 7, 2002

Libertarian- a right wing nut who smokes dope and thus favors decriminalization.

Um, excuse me. I consider myself a Libertarian, and I have never smoked dope, nor do I consider myself right-wing. Thank you very much.
posted by hitsman at 10:56 PM on January 7, 2002

Now shut up and go buy yourself some life insurance. :)
posted by hitsman at 10:57 PM on January 7, 2002

I say, let them sue and let the chips fall where they may.

And hopefully they'd get a really wise judge who'd fine their greedy asses 1.6 million dollars, which would be poetic justice, I say. Monkey's paw, indeed.

Some lawyer please explain to me how the airlines are liable in the first place. What truck rental company did Timothy McVeigh use? Was it sued by any of the OK City bombing victims' relatives? I can't remember...

Um, excuse me. I consider myself blah blah blah...

And it's all about you, buddy.
posted by David Dark at 2:12 AM on January 8, 2002

I think the victims should sue the airlines, and put them out of business. The market would respond (in time) and there would still be airlines on their feet. This is assuming, of course, that the plaintiffs would win against the airlines (not a difficult assumption to make, probably).

The market would respond in time, but you're talking about a huge loss for those who are employed by the airlines, the support and supplies companies which serve them, and the airports which the airlines serve. The resulting loss of tax revenue, new unemployment compensation claims and the inevitable further erosion of consumer confidence would be far, far more devastating to the national financial picture than this ridiculous payoff package. Yes, a part of this payoff is to protect the airline industry from bankruptcy via lawsuit, but another part is to protect the national economy as well, which is extremely important, moreso now than had 9/11 not happened.

So as much as it bothers me that the government is taking it upon itself to dole out free money to these people, validating the obscenity that their loved ones' murders are more horrible than anyone else's murder in American history, I'm afraid that it may be a necessity in these overlawyered, overvictimised times.

Some lawyer please explain to me how the airlines are liable in the first place.

Well, liability would be a finding of fact for a jury, but the presumed argument would be that the airlines had a responsibility to ensure that no one was able to bring a weapon on board a flight, and should have realised long ago that box cutters could and would be used as weapons. The presumed defense would be that a lot of things can be used as weapons and had box cutters been banned pre-9/11, determined hijackers would have found another means of subduing cabin crews -- and nothing in air travel history worldwide would have indicated the use of anything like a box cutter as a hijacking weapon.

But no matter what, the chances of the airlines getting away without billions of dollars of verdicts against them are slim to none, and slim's on a train out of town. The plaintiff's attorneys would play on the emotional impact of the violent deaths, and undoubtedly push their issue by showing lots of pictures of the victims with their families, at their kids' birthday parties and on vacations, and point out how little Jimmy would never introduce his intended bride to his mom, and little Susie wouldn't have a dad to teach her to drive, and all bets would be off. The juries would be stuck -- without any means of getting remuneration from the terrorists themselves, even though there are vast amounts of money bankrolling the al-Qaeda network -- they'd feel no choice but to sock it to the airlines because they're "deep pockets" and well, someone ought to pay, dammit.

It seems to me that if bin Laden has billions of dollars in the bank somewhere, we've got a good reason to do our damnedest to capture him alive. Find him, and pull out his toenails, fingernails, and eyebrows and eyelashes one by one until he tells us where his cash is, then get it and use it to pay off his victims!
posted by Dreama at 3:38 AM on January 8, 2002

the chances ... are slim to none, and slim's on a train out of town.

I like that expression, Dreama. I'm going to use that.
posted by jpoulos at 3:19 PM on January 8, 2002

Credit where credit's due -- Darrell Hammond, Saturday Night Live, parodying Dan Rather's down home folksy-isms in the recent "CBS Now Predicts... Anthrax!" sketch.
posted by Dreama at 3:24 PM on January 8, 2002

The market would respond in time, but you're talking about a huge loss for those who are employed by the airlines, the support and supplies companies which serve them, and the airports which the airlines serve. The resulting loss of tax revenue, new unemployment compensation claims and the inevitable further erosion of consumer confidence would be far, far more devastating to the national financial picture than this ridiculous payoff package. Yes, a part of this payoff is to protect the airline industry from bankruptcy via lawsuit, but another part is to protect the national economy as well, which is extremely important, moreso now than had 9/11 not happened.

Um, so what? I thought the point of free market capitalism was that the most economically "fit" companies survive, not rely on fed handouts. Oh wait, I forgot. Capitalism doesn't apply to huge multinational corporations, only to Ma and Pa Kettle running their local small business.

You can't have it both ways.

The U.S. is far more socialist than most people want to believe.
posted by mark13 at 5:11 PM on January 8, 2002