• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this hypocritical?

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
When businesses failed (for whatever reason) - and were given bailouts by the government to stay afloat - if they used that money to advertise to get more business, they were scolded.

In the gulf-states they're using the money given by BP to cover the cost of advertising. . . and people are supportive.

Why is one acceptable and the other not?

(My view: I think advertisement is equally necessary to keep, well, business going)
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,335
Reaction score
50,339
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
When businesses failed (for whatever reason) - and were given bailouts by the government to stay afloat - if they used that money to advertise to get more business, they were scolded.

In the gulf-states they're using the money given by BP to cover the cost of advertising. . . and people are supportive.

Why is one acceptable and the other not?

(My view: I think advertisement is equally necessary to keep, well, business going)
I do not remember any one bitching about bailed out businesses advertising. It probably did happen, but bitching about it is silly. The reason companies advertise is it makes money, which is what we want.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,102
Reaction score
8,145
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I do not remember any one bitching about bailed out businesses advertising. It probably did happen, but bitching about it is silly. The reason companies advertise is it makes money, which is what we want.
It was about the auto companies spending billions on advertizing, there was bitching about while they were begging the government for billions
 

German guy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
5,187
Reaction score
4,255
Location
Berlin, Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Interesting question.

I think "bailouts" are not really bailouts when they serve the purpose of correcting the market failure of externalities (when a private company creates damage they are not required to pay for, but the public has to pay for). Environmental damage is a good example for that: Often, companies use common goods like water, air and so on, and inflict damage on it, due to pollution -- but they don't have to pay for the costs others suffer due to this damage (at least it used to be that way). The free market is the best system to allocate resources, but in this case, it obviously fails, because those who use a certain good don't need to pay for it, because these goods are considered open, common goods. Yet the costs will have to be paid by someone else (usually the public, by using tax money to clean pollution), either by other businesses which suffer (like tourism industry due to pollution that lowers the value of their resource), or the common citizen who has to breathe polluted air and drink polluted water, which then results in higher degree of illnesses and thus higher doctor bills, yadda yadda.

So when this market failure of externalities takes place, I think it is not an unreasonable distortion of the market when the state/government takes measures to correct this mistake, by making the company responsible for the use of common goods pay for the damage they inflict. In free markets, everybody should have to pay for the resources he/she uses, and when that's not the case because of a lack of legal regulation, the government needs to step in to correct this error.

So when BP is forced to pay for the damage their business has inflicted on the common good of ocean water, this is not interference into the free market, but on the contrary enforcement of the basic free market principle that individual actors have to take the consequences of their actions and pay for the resources they use. That includes payments to businesses affected by the oil spill. How they then use this money is up to them, they are free businesses, after all.

Bailouts for rotten companies, on the other side, are not. When a company is no longer capable of competing on the market due to mismanagement or lack of demand, it would be extremely inefficient to buy it some more time with public money. This money then is missing in other places of the market where it would be used for more efficient purposes, and thus general welfare decreases.
 
Last edited:

Geo Patric

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
you might wanna clarify all those "they"s... they who. it makes a difference.

geo.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
What comes to mind specifically are the auto-companies advertising (though I doubt the auto-industry were the only ones to do so) and now various tourist areas around the coast.
 

lizzie

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
28,581
Reaction score
31,550
Location
between two worlds
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Bailouts for rotten companies, on the other side, are not. When a company is no longer capable of competing on the market due to mismanagement or lack of demand, it would be extremely inefficient to buy it some more time with public money. This money then is missing in other places of the market where it would be used for more efficient purposes, and thus general welfare decreases.
You've just earned my vote.:)
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
When businesses failed (for whatever reason) - and were given bailouts by the government to stay afloat - if they used that money to advertise to get more business, they were scolded.

In the gulf-states they're using the money given by BP to cover the cost of advertising. . . and people are supportive.

Why is one acceptable and the other not?

(My view: I think advertisement is equally necessary to keep, well, business going)
i'm confused. who bitched about a business using advertising to stay afloat?
 

The Uncola

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
718
Reaction score
255
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
When businesses failed (for whatever reason) - and were given bailouts by the government to stay afloat - if they used that money to advertise to get more business, they were scolded.

In the gulf-states they're using the money given by BP to cover the cost of advertising. . . and people are supportive.

Why is one acceptable and the other not?

(My view: I think advertisement is equally necessary to keep, well, business going)
I honestly don't remember hearing bitching specifically about advertising, not saying you are wrong, just don't recall it.

It does sort of chap my ass to see "save our image" BP ads like they are currently running here, however. If those bastards had spent 10% of what that advertising campaign is costing on making sure that well was being drilled properly and safely, there wouldn't be a environmental DISASTER for them to be apologising for. Scumbag criminals ALWAYS say they're sorry AFTER they get caught.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Fascinating . . . perhaps the complaints were primarily Conservative - and that was back at a time when I solely watched Fox News.
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,603
Reaction score
22,539
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Even if there was a huge outcry over the bailout money being used for advertising, the two situations aren't comparable, so there's really no chance for hypocrisy.

Here's the difference:

The bailouts were paid by people who didn't **** up (the taxpayer) to help out the groups that did **** up (banks, auto companies, etc) to alleviate the danger of failure caused by their own **** ups.

The BP money is being paid by the group that did **** up to help out the groups that didn't **** up to alleviate the danger of failure caused by BP's **** up.

That changes the whole dynamic. The only similarity is that money is going towards advertising. Where it comes from and why it is coming form there is a far more important part of the hypocrisy equation.

If public money was being spent by BP to run an advertising campaign to prevent BP from failing due to this **** up, then the situations would be comparable. And I'm sure there would be an outcry over that.
 

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Fascinating . . . perhaps the complaints were primarily Conservative - and that was back at a time when I solely watched Fox News.
A very good response LOL
 
Top Bottom