Do you really think so? These stores all have insurance. The deductibles will hurt a little but I don't think it's going to be game changing, especially for any national or international chains.
Yes. I don't think it's a problem for them financially, it's just it's a a powerful symbol of the control that they have lost.
That's why they'll pull out all of the stops including heavy handed propaganda, agent provocateurs, sending in the army (if it gets much worse) and even (finally, with gritted teeth), appeasement.
Historically riots have often presaged regime change as it can uncover how dangerously exposed the elites are and how little support the elites have. Unlikely in this case, but it's still the same process that scares the bejesus out of most regimes.
We're already seeing agent provocateurs in the current protests. White nationalists are purposely trying to incite violent riots throughout the U.S. as part of their "accelerationist" plans. The regrettably widespread opinion that the original, peaceful protest against police brutality is per se violent and thus to be opposed is very much a false and racist claim.
> We're already seeing agent provocateurs in the current protests. White nationalists are purposely trying to incite violent riots throughout the U.S. as part of their "accelerationist" plans.
The amount that this is actually happening is vastly overstated. I've watched this narrative blow up within 48 hours, but the reality is that a lot of the "looting" is from frustrated, angry, low-income people.
In no way is that a racist claim - poverty and extreme inequality breeds desperation and anger and you can't pretend that away.
Angry and frustrated people will always be vulnerable to provocation. We can't pretend that away, but we can't wish that away either. So both claims could be true in some sense, but agent provocateurs (acting under fictitious monikers such as "Antifa", "Anonymous/4chan" or the like) are clearly playing a key role.
The big chains won't run risky or unprofitable stores. It's the communities that will be hurt by this. Despite interest-free loans and over $100 million in federal funding, Baltimore still hasn't recovered from the 2015 Freddie Gray riots.[1] Moreover: government funding is a rather blunt tool, and directing it at a city tends to cause most of the money to flow to the nicer parts of town. That's what happened in Ferguson.[2]
Riots tend to widen the disparities, not reduce them.
The big chains were suffering outside of a handful of affluent neighborhoods in all cities even in good times, I don’t see why this wouldn’t be a problem. Margins are low, and consumers’ ability to spend is low, so raising prices might not be possible leaving closing down as the only option.
If you don't run a viable business, should your business continue to exist? Which one do you want, socialism or capitalism? In a capitalist system, failed businesses are allowed to fail and don't get free money from the government.
