from Hacker News

Don’t bail out the cruise industry

by nobita on 3/24/20, 6:00 AM with 198 comments

• by unwind on 3/24/20, 9:31 AM

  I'm not from the US, but I don't even understand the basic premise.

  If these companies avoid paying taxes by not being registered/incorporated in the US, how could they possibly be eligible for help from the US government?

  That just seems like a contradiction, like a huge case of having your cake and eating it.

• by edejong on 3/24/20, 9:49 AM

  The cruise industry is one of the most polluting and damaging industries in the world. It ruins cities worldwide. Their ships are petri-dishes for disease, spreading it directly into our vital cities. They are blocking perfect vistas of the sea. They are ruining local sea life and are spreading non-native species. Their exhaust fumes are extremely detrimental to local air quality in cities. The swarms of tourists are detrimental to local hotels and restaurants, since the swarms only buy souvenirs but lack incentive to spend big money on dining.

  And all of that without paying taxes.

  Let them go bust. Almost nobody is missing them.

• by ummwhat on 3/24/20, 9:55 AM

  Better idea. They want a bailout? Sure. Turn all your ships to hospital ships for the next year. You won't miss them anyway.

  One of these ships is basically a 10 floor high city block that can sustain itself off grid for over two weeks. Surely we have a good use for that.

• by echelon on 3/24/20, 10:49 AM

  I had a thought earlier today that might fix the economic situation, but it's extremely bold.

  If the world congregates and places blame on the CCP for asking us to keep our borders open while knowing all along how contagious and deadly this virus was, that's criminally negligent. Maybe even malicious.

  The behavior of the CCP after the virus spread internationally is equally alarming. They threatened to shut off access to medicines manufactured in China, placed blame on Italy and the US for the virus' origin, and shut down European and US travel to China.

  Defaulting on debt is bad. But what if every nation collectively "cancelled" their debt to China? China would protest, but given the circumstance it doesn't seem like a credit downgrade would be necessary if this were taken as repayment for damages caused.

  If we owe zero to China, we can then lend all of that money to businesses and individuals impacted. Pay off domestic debts.

  I really like the idea of "cancelling Chinese debt". Now someone please tell me how this couldn't work. Would they retaliate? Would they consider it an act of war?

  (I shouldn't have to say this, but I harbor no ill will towards the Chinese people. I love Chinese culture and studied Mandarin in college. I dislike the CCP and their actions.)

• by mulm on 3/24/20, 9:34 AM

  I don’t think we should bail out any bigger industry without requiring them to create buffers for the next crisis. We bailed them out in 2008, that’s fair, but if they sent all their profit to their shareholders instead of preparing for the next crisis then let their share holders bail them out.

  I’m European though, so I may be more of a social democrat than most Americans.

• by busterarm on 3/24/20, 9:39 AM

  The cruise ships send millions of dollars of US tourists' money every year to countries in the US sphere of influence that they would otherwise never fly and visit.

  It's not a bailout for the cruise industry. It's a bailout for nearly every island nation in this hemisphere. We keep the tourism money flowing and they'll keep flowing exported raw materials and food.

• by hannob on 3/24/20, 10:44 AM

  I think there should be a much bigger discussion about bailouts. There currently seems to be a feeling that an industry that struggles deserves a bailout by default.

  Why don't we have a discussion about which industry provides important services to society? And particularly how helpful it is likely to be in the larger crisis we have looming over us - climate change - and which won't go away? It seems like the absolute worst idea to bail out high carbon industries, and that's not just true for cruise ships, but also for airlines and many others.

• by WalterBright on 3/24/20, 9:57 AM

  I went on a cruise ship once. Was very bored. I was so bored I tried to wangle a tour of the engine room (after all, I'm an engineer) but no way said the captain. The food was nice. The captain avoided a big storm. I figured if I ever went on a cruise again it would be an a much smaller boat. After all, who doesn't want an oar thrust in their hands and have someone yell "ramming speed!" at them? "We keep you alive to serve this ship! Row well, and live!" and all. Much more fun than the gift shops and roulette wheels.

  When I was a kid we crossed the Atlantic in the SS United States. For a kid, that was a blast, especially when we steamed through a huge storm. Wowsa! I'm sad to see the rusty hulk it has become.

• by nojvek on 3/24/20, 5:07 PM

  Bailouts are very unfair and undemocratic. I can understand for Boeing where the military absolutely depends on them and if a war were to start, being able to build planes is essential.

  But Carnival cruises, who cares if they go under? another one will prop up with a better business model that is sustainable.

  Every company should be able to weather a couple of months if they rode the bull for the best 11 years of stock rise in history. If your executives fucked it up, too bad. You can get a low interest loan, but no free bailout money.

• by rsynnott on 3/24/20, 10:42 AM

  I'm bemused that anyone would even _consider_ bailing out the cruise industry, of all things. Like, what is the "in favour of" argument?

• by UweSchmidt on 3/24/20, 9:59 AM

  A market based solution would be investors buying struggling companies at a discount, or companies using their reserves that they have built based on normal risk management.

  Bailout money should be used to help people during unemployment.

• by pippy on 3/24/20, 9:44 AM

  The article missed another point: they're competing with US based tourism. Every person who chose to go on a cruise didn't visit a US city and spend money there.

• by RivieraKid on 3/24/20, 10:37 AM

  Why do bailouts at all instead of letting them go bankrupt? Bankruptcy doesn't mean that people lose their jobs, it means that investors / lenders lose money.

• by xiphias2 on 3/24/20, 9:47 AM

  Tourists from cruise ships destroy nice vacactions.

  Many hundreds of people come on the streets in groups, go throught the streets loudly and fast to take photos, than go back to the ship.

  People who really go to these places and spend money for staying and try to blend in to have a peaceful vacation can't.

• by troydavis on 3/24/20, 11:49 AM

  Other threads debate the merits of cruises and/or bailouts, but this specific idea has a unique challenge: there may not be a viable market for cruises until COVID is at least treatable, if not preventable. The CDC’s guidance is to “defer all cruise travel worldwide”[1] and that may not change until treatment exists - particularly for those over 50-60. 51% of 2019 passengers were over 50[2].

  Cruise ships manage to contain norovirus[3], but we’ve seen how different the consequences are when NCoV is present on a cruise ship.

  [1]: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/notices/warning/coronavirus-cru... [2]: https://www.cruise1st.co.uk/blog/cruise-holidays/how-old-is-... [3]: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/vsp/pub/norovirus/norovirus.htm

• by timwaagh on 3/24/20, 12:02 PM

  If you guys are handing out bailouts I'd like one too. I don't pay any taxes in the US and I don't do anything particularly useful. I can guarantee that absolutely zero US jobs will be saved by bailing me out. I am not bankrupt and I don't need the money. I think I'd therefore be an excellent candidate to receive a bailout. Let's say five billion should be sufficient.

• by manigandham on 3/24/20, 6:20 PM

  There's no easy solution to a once in-a-century pandemic. The most important issue is economic continuity.

  It's better to prop up companies and industry for the short term if it means thousands of people continue receiving a paycheck and can afford to live.

  Suddenly laying off all those people while companies and vendors collapse will lead to major cascading effects that can be far more disastrous.

• by nhebb on 3/24/20, 9:50 AM

  In case anyone is not aware, the planned relief for companies in the private sector is in the form of loans, not cash giveaways

• by fulafel on 3/25/20, 2:02 PM

  Puzzling that the CO2 issue is buried far in the list of grievances. Does this reflect the reporter's priorities or more widely the Verge's or the readerships?

• by tobltobs on 3/24/20, 10:44 AM

  When the cruise industry gets a bailout, it is not to save the cruisers but the financial corporations, which have been financing this madness.

• by voisin on 3/25/20, 1:40 AM

  Why would you ever bail out an industry that is not essential to society?

• by LatteLazy on 3/24/20, 12:00 PM

  Bailouts not not won't effect the long term size of the industry.

• by battery_cowboy on 3/24/20, 10:23 AM

  What do you call a cruise ship full of lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

• by battery_cowboy on 3/24/20, 9:27 AM

  Fuck em, they flag in other countries so they don't pay taxes, but also because they can treat employees like slaves, pollute using bunker fuel, and generally fuck over the world.

  Fuck em.

• by better0uts1d3 on 3/24/20, 12:02 PM

  And of course, they avoid paying taxes by sailing under other countries' flags

• by blackrock on 3/24/20, 11:14 AM

  Let it die. They provide no useful service to society.

  Maybe the replacements will create an ethical, sustainable, and environmentally friendly business instead.

• by mynameishere on 3/24/20, 10:07 AM

  Man, I hate how people have all kinds of "reasons" why industry X shouldn't be bailed out. Uh, no. Nobody should be bailed out, as a general principle.