I don't know what your last paragraph is supposed to imply. That there shouldn't be outlets for the Left? That there shouldn't be outlets with stated political positions at all? Or it's just a basic ad hominem?
Anyway, as for the substance: a bank had risky behaviour and lost out. Now everyone, including those who never did and never will benefit from that risk, are called to pick up the check. This is, objectively speaking, a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Now you may justify that with trickle-down economics, but I'm not arguing that point, and neither is the writer. He is merely pointing out how the "leave free enterprise alone" crowd is now suddenly in favour of handouts :)
> That there shouldn't be outlets with stated political positions at all?
What a wonderful concept, a news organization that just spits dry facts and doesn’t spin at all. Kinda like Axios. We really should use AI to write unbiased news articles and fire all the journalists who can’t get rid of their biases. The world would overnight be a better place.
> a news organization that just spits dry facts and doesn’t spin at all
There's no such thing. Even the paragons of neutral and factual reporting, like AP or Reuters, do at the very list have an editorial bias on what they do and do not report, and in what detail.
> Kinda like Axios
Lol
> We really should use AI to write unbiased news articles and fire all the journalists who can’t get rid of their biases. The world would overnight be a better place.
Outstanding idea. Let's get rid of the ability of humans to present thoughts and opinions, and delegate that to chatbots controlled by some tech-bro's definition of "acceptable speech". Truly an inspired idea.
> I don't know what your last paragraph is supposed to imply.
It's pointing out that the left hates libertarianism and Peter Thiel, leftism is literally the opposite of libertarianism, and so you would expect a left wing news outlet to try and trash Thiel and libertarians whether or not the argument makes any sense or whether it's actually their fault. It's a bias warning.
Yes, the only way someone could possibly disagree with the holy Word of Peter Thiel (swt) is because they're whatever caricature of a rabid communist you have in your mind.
> It's pointing out that the left hates libertarianism
It's worth pointing out that the word "libertarian" was coined for its namesake left-wing movement, what you might also call "anarcho-syndicalism", "mutualism", or similarly aligned ideologies. It's only since the 1960s that the word has been used as a synonym for ancap, and then mostly in the USA.
Not really though. It's worth pointing out that the original Liberartianism in the Sarte/French sense IS a left wing movement and closer to anarchism and would view the companies that American Libertarians love as another extension of authoritarian control that should be reduced or eliminated.
Corporate Libertarianism which seems to be the predominant modern one is very right wing though.
Anyway, as for the substance: a bank had risky behaviour and lost out. Now everyone, including those who never did and never will benefit from that risk, are called to pick up the check. This is, objectively speaking, a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Now you may justify that with trickle-down economics, but I'm not arguing that point, and neither is the writer. He is merely pointing out how the "leave free enterprise alone" crowd is now suddenly in favour of handouts :)