5 ms·

> Going directly to people does not maintain jobs for people to return to. Every one of the 16 million people who've lost jobs in the last month has some combi

> Going directly to people does not maintain jobs for people to return to. Every one of the 16 million people who've lost jobs in the last month has some combination of rent, mortgage, food, insurance, and other expenses that they spend money on. Receiving that money is how many companies need to stay in business. Giving the money to the companies doesn't necessarily provide people with their material needs. Money given to people gets spent in to the real economy. Money given to companies might trickle down in to the real economy, but it also winds up just pumping up the financial economy, inflating balance sheets and asset prices, not necessarily providing anything anyone needs.

malandrew 7y ago
I don't know why I'm replying but if you read my entire comment, you'd see that your concern is addressed: some of the bailout is going directly to the people to address those needs.
- salawat 7y ago
  Barely. As in, to the most insignificant drop in the bucket given the infiltration of rent extractors into the average American wallet. 1200 is easily pissing into the winds of a single month, and gets no one far enough out of immediate financial concern that they can start planning how to reorient their productive effort. Honestly, the more I look at the whole situation, the more it looks like two-thirds of the bail-out is going toward major actors in terms of the causative agents of the problem. The difference between a 1 time payment of 1,200, and a payment of 37000 is that: 37000 is 2 and change years worth of salary for someone making minimum wage ($7.50 an hour), a bit less two years for those at $10 an hour, and a year and change at $15 an hour. Given that level of infusion, you've bought people a significant amount of time to contribute to normal economic activity at a level they're already participating at, and in some cases increasing it. You're also, by routing that straight to citizen's, giving people the chance to organize into new business units more adapted to the times. There is also nothing keeping recipients from using said infusion to buy stocks or bonds propping up the Market in traditional ways, but also, by not bailing out companies directly, you give them a shot at dying, and for the price of assets to stabilize at a lower point via sell-off, also freeing up room in consolidated markets unfriendly to new entrants by taking out the least efficient yet too large to die actors. To be honest, I'm shocked more quote "Free Market aficionados" aren't livid about how this stimulus is going down. Instead of dropping the stimulus in the place most likely to do some good, you've given Corporate America yet another infusion with which to become that much more streamlined at wealth extraction, and divorced from the material reality of delivering immediate goods and services through the coordination of primary market actors instead of leaving the primary wealth allocation decisions to a bunch of bankers. I've met my fair share of cranks hung up on the Federal Reserve, but I'll be damned if I'm not starting to find myself aligning toward their general stance. The only difference between these two models of bailout is that one actually frees up and delegates economic power to everyday citizens to reshape the economic landscape as they desire (helicopter money) and one guarantees that entrenched players are in no way threatened in losing control of their systemically advantaged position in terms of controlling overall capital expenditure direction. Sorry man, but I just don't buy it. There is nothing in Free Market economics which states that once you get big enough, your survival takes precedence over the rest of the Market. Yet this policy has clearly demonstrated that our political system as a whole buys that. It is frankly ludicrous. The only message I'm getting out of this move is that legal fictions are more important in the grand scheme of things than actual citizens, which to be frank, has likely been written on the wall for the last 40 years.
  - malandrew 7y ago
    Let's say we let every business fail that would fail and the money goes to individuals only equitably. You honestly think 2 years is going to be enough to create what may end up being 47 million lost jobs as estimated by the Fed? Unemployment is likely to be over 32%. It's going to be very very ugly if we don't save those jobs. The higher the job losses, the longer it takes for the market to create jobs because everyone is forced to be frugal. The most jobs created under any president was under the two terms of Bill Clinton. That was 18.6 million (15.6%) increase. The greatest percentage increase was under the three terms of FDR, a 21.5% increase. You're arguing that we'll be able to creates jobs at a rate that is an order of magnitude greater than the fastest we've ever created jobs. You're honestly arguing that the economy will be able to add even close to 47 million jobs in 2 years? Giving money only to individuals instead of saving the jobs would be akin to condemning us to a recovery that will take at least a decade to recover from and that would be a very very dark decade for many of the 47 million that lose their job. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-job-losses-could-total-47-million-unemployment-rate-of-32percent-fed-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-job-losses-could... https://www.thebalance.com/job-creation-by-president-by-number-and-percent-3863218 https://www.thebalance.com/job-creation-by-president-by-numb...
    - pjmorris 7y ago
      > You honestly think 2 years is going to be enough to create what may end up being 47 million lost jobs as estimated by the Fed? I think he, and I, are arguing that if you give 47 million people the money they'd earn from their jobs (that's the magnitude of the bailout(s)), they could spend it in any number of ways, including keeping things they way they are. To your original analogy; the bailouts are currently structured to keep fishing poles and nets in place, but do very little to restock the river with fish. What the GP and I are arguing is that restocking the river with fish is a better way to keep the whole system running. EDIT: As a concrete example of this thinking, Nick Kokonas (twitter @nickkokonas), Grant Achatz' business partner in a number of restaurants in Chicago, has been arguing against buying gift cards to support restaurants, and in favor of buying takeout. Gift cards put money in the hands of empty restaurants and leaves them with future obligations. Selling takeout now not only puts current money in the hands of the restaurants, it lets them pay staff with current revenues, and keeps the entire supply chain back to the farm in business now.

malandrew 7y ago

I don't know why I'm replying but if you read my entire comment, you'd see that your concern is addressed: some of the bailout is going directly to the people to address those needs.

salawat 7y ago
Barely. As in, to the most insignificant drop in the bucket given the infiltration of rent extractors into the average American wallet. 1200 is easily pissing into the winds of a single month, and gets no one far enough out of immediate financial concern that they can start planning how to reorient their productive effort. Honestly, the more I look at the whole situation, the more it looks like two-thirds of the bail-out is going toward major actors in terms of the causative agents of the problem. The difference between a 1 time payment of 1,200, and a payment of 37000 is that: 37000 is 2 and change years worth of salary for someone making minimum wage ($7.50 an hour), a bit less two years for those at $10 an hour, and a year and change at $15 an hour. Given that level of infusion, you've bought people a significant amount of time to contribute to normal economic activity at a level they're already participating at, and in some cases increasing it. You're also, by routing that straight to citizen's, giving people the chance to organize into new business units more adapted to the times. There is also nothing keeping recipients from using said infusion to buy stocks or bonds propping up the Market in traditional ways, but also, by not bailing out companies directly, you give them a shot at dying, and for the price of assets to stabilize at a lower point via sell-off, also freeing up room in consolidated markets unfriendly to new entrants by taking out the least efficient yet too large to die actors. To be honest, I'm shocked more quote "Free Market aficionados" aren't livid about how this stimulus is going down. Instead of dropping the stimulus in the place most likely to do some good, you've given Corporate America yet another infusion with which to become that much more streamlined at wealth extraction, and divorced from the material reality of delivering immediate goods and services through the coordination of primary market actors instead of leaving the primary wealth allocation decisions to a bunch of bankers. I've met my fair share of cranks hung up on the Federal Reserve, but I'll be damned if I'm not starting to find myself aligning toward their general stance. The only difference between these two models of bailout is that one actually frees up and delegates economic power to everyday citizens to reshape the economic landscape as they desire (helicopter money) and one guarantees that entrenched players are in no way threatened in losing control of their systemically advantaged position in terms of controlling overall capital expenditure direction. Sorry man, but I just don't buy it. There is nothing in Free Market economics which states that once you get big enough, your survival takes precedence over the rest of the Market. Yet this policy has clearly demonstrated that our political system as a whole buys that. It is frankly ludicrous. The only message I'm getting out of this move is that legal fictions are more important in the grand scheme of things than actual citizens, which to be frank, has likely been written on the wall for the last 40 years.
- malandrew 7y ago
  Let's say we let every business fail that would fail and the money goes to individuals only equitably. You honestly think 2 years is going to be enough to create what may end up being 47 million lost jobs as estimated by the Fed? Unemployment is likely to be over 32%. It's going to be very very ugly if we don't save those jobs. The higher the job losses, the longer it takes for the market to create jobs because everyone is forced to be frugal. The most jobs created under any president was under the two terms of Bill Clinton. That was 18.6 million (15.6%) increase. The greatest percentage increase was under the three terms of FDR, a 21.5% increase. You're arguing that we'll be able to creates jobs at a rate that is an order of magnitude greater than the fastest we've ever created jobs. You're honestly arguing that the economy will be able to add even close to 47 million jobs in 2 years? Giving money only to individuals instead of saving the jobs would be akin to condemning us to a recovery that will take at least a decade to recover from and that would be a very very dark decade for many of the 47 million that lose their job. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-job-losses-could-total-47-million-unemployment-rate-of-32percent-fed-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-job-losses-could... https://www.thebalance.com/job-creation-by-president-by-number-and-percent-3863218 https://www.thebalance.com/job-creation-by-president-by-numb...
  - pjmorris 7y ago
    > You honestly think 2 years is going to be enough to create what may end up being 47 million lost jobs as estimated by the Fed? I think he, and I, are arguing that if you give 47 million people the money they'd earn from their jobs (that's the magnitude of the bailout(s)), they could spend it in any number of ways, including keeping things they way they are. To your original analogy; the bailouts are currently structured to keep fishing poles and nets in place, but do very little to restock the river with fish. What the GP and I are arguing is that restocking the river with fish is a better way to keep the whole system running. EDIT: As a concrete example of this thinking, Nick Kokonas (twitter @nickkokonas), Grant Achatz' business partner in a number of restaurants in Chicago, has been arguing against buying gift cards to support restaurants, and in favor of buying takeout. Gift cards put money in the hands of empty restaurants and leaves them with future obligations. Selling takeout now not only puts current money in the hands of the restaurants, it lets them pay staff with current revenues, and keeps the entire supply chain back to the farm in business now.