18 ms·

This might not add that much to the conversation, but the only thing I can think to say here is; Of course. The large institutions are more savvy, have staff

This might not add that much to the conversation, but the only thing I can think to say here is; Of course. The large institutions are more savvy, have staff they can devote to finding this money, and have more connections to the banks. The small businesses who actually need this money are run by the owner, and may have an accountant, but certainly don't have someone who can jump through the arbitrary hoops put in place by banks. Also, >More than 300,000 customers [. . .] applied for loans through the Paycheck Protection Program[. . .]. About 18,000 were funded, for a 6% success rate. Are you fucking kidding with this? I feel actually insulted by this number. And finally: >The bank is among four lenders now facing accusations in a lawsuit that they prioritized the biggest loans in order to earn higher fees. Of course. I am upset at myself for hoping anyone in this process would act like a decent human being. I don't know what to do with the anger I'm feeling. Any thoughts on where this energy should go?

zapita 7y ago
> Any thoughts on where this energy should go? Voting, and making sure everyone you know votes too.
- jdironman 7y ago
  Voting doesn't do sh.. if the system is inherently broken.
  - HorizonXP 7y ago
    It also doesn't help those businesses today. Voting won't happen in time to effect the emergency measures needed today.
  - donarb 7y ago
    The system is broken because people don't vote. There are plenty of votes out there to override the powerful, but people who give up and say it's hopeless are part of the problem.
    - erentz 7y ago
      There are two parties and they both represent the interests of the large corporations that fund them. The media are all large corporations that benefit from this system, and get funding from those same large corporations in ad revenue. The over 45 demographic only watches that media and so only hears what that media wants them to hear so are extremely low information voters. The PACs and committees of the respective parties are insanely powerful and run by people who are mostly grifters there to get their paycheck. They don’t care about policy. And if you step out of line too far against them they’ll throw millions against you in a primary to get rid of you. The system is broken because at the moment in most districts you just can’t compete against who has the money.
      - ralston3 7y ago
        +1 here
    - alpha_squared 7y ago
      While you're not wrong, there are plenty of inactive voters, I sincerely doubt they'd vote in any way that isn't already highly consistent with how votes are already allotted. Say there are 40% of inactive voters (the number is much higher in the US) and you get them all to vote somehow. I'm willing to bet those votes don't dramatically shift election outcomes in any significant way (beyond ~1%). Sure, that'd help in close races, but not much else.
    - hi_im_miles 7y ago
      I don't buy this. Even if everyone voted, you'd still end up with policies that continue to advantage whichever voting blocs have the largest influence. The system is broken because it's a zero-sum game; privileging those who are represented by the system at the expense of those who aren't is a feature of democracy, not a bug.
- 317070 7y ago
  I mean, if there ever was a point where you take a step back and ask yourself "will voting actually solve this" this surely must be it? How on earth would voting actually solve something like this? I'm not advocating for "not voting", I'm advocating for not letting yourself getting paralyzed by the idea that you are represented already anyway. You are only represented in the most superficial of ways. Start acting instead. Make JP Morgan feel your anger. Make people see your anger to JP Morgan. You don't have to keep taking the hits. Acting helps psychologically and emotionally and on the best of days even might change things.
  - test1235 7y ago
    What are you suggesting, specifically?
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      I'd assume not supporting JPMC as a customer (as well as the businesses that use JPMC for commercial and investment banking services), perhaps protests next. Are we in an era when JPMC senior leadership would be doxxed online? I would be surprised if we weren't. Lots of actions available besides the political process where you can still remain firmly on the right side of the law but cause discomfort to the other party. Don't break the law.
    - 317070 7y ago
      Possible actions: - If you had a JP Morgan account. Cancel it. - Evaluate if they did something illegal, organise a group and go to court over it. - If you live close to a JP Morgan office, go there and do something. Try to not attract police, as they have more important things to do, but as a rule, the people that work there should have an unusual day. Something as simple as distributing leaflets can for example be really effective to get the office productivity down, especially when maintained. - Push politicians (maybe on a local level) to apply pressure where they can. Overall: Don't be nice and agreeable. Be MOAR: mad, organised, angry and relentless.
      - munk-a 7y ago
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
  Who do we vote for? The only standout here is Rep Thomas Massie who tried to force a recorded vote by requiring people to return to the capital. He was dragged by both sides and the president. Google his name and look how the media treated him.
  - hcknwscommenter 7y ago
    Massie's stunt was an obvious and dangerous troll. You want all of Congress to come down with COVID? What nonsense is that. Massie was rightfully pilloried. THe obvious answer is to vote for the party that actually believes in sound government. The one that is not constantly dismantling important institutions. I have a lot of issues with the Democratic party positions on a number of matters, but they would not have been so entirely inept at every step of the way as team trump and his corrupt cronies. I mean, what the heck is Mnuchin even doing? Kudlow? THese are the people in the executive branch who should be working day and night to craft the regulations as Congress passes the law. The law states the rule, the regulations state how those rules will be implemented. That is how it is supposed to work. This administration is completely incapable of anything requiring competence. These crooks need to get voted out. They are literally killing us and destroying lives and careers.
    - pythonaut_16 7y ago
      These bailout bills have been passed with broad bipartisan support, of which you will never see who voted for or against the bill because it was only a voice vote. So how is voting for either party going to help a problem that both parties equally passed?
      - ardy42 7y ago
        > These bailout bills have been passed with broad bipartisan support... > So how is voting for either party going to help a problem that both parties equally passed? I think that's misunderstanding politics. Broad bipartisan support doesn't mean both parties were happy with each and every provision, it means that they found the overall compromise acceptable enough to vote for (given the circumstances). For instance: IIRC, the Democrats actually wanted to add a permanent, general paid sick-leave benefit to one of these relief bills, but after Republican objections they compromised and settled for a temporary COVID-specific benefit to achieve "broad bipartisan support" for the overall bill. That doesn't mean they changed their position, and if more people had voted for Democrats in the last election, the outcome would have been different.
- ken 7y ago
  Which ballot is for JP Morgan loan officers? Or do you mean voting in my non-battleground state for US president (D for the past 30 years), or perhaps senator (D for the past 20 years)? What effect, exactly, are we hoping for? ‘Voting for financial policy change‘ is like ‘participating in a moment of silence for those we’ve lost to the pandemic‘. The act is something a reasonable person should do because they are a member of society but it is not a solution to that particular problem.
  - zapita 7y ago
    Are you certain that none of your mayor, governor, senators, representatives, state senate, state representatives, local democratic council members etc. have accepted JPM’s money? Perhaps you can research that point, and act accordingly. In “all blue” seats you can do this in primary elections. You can also donate your time and money to battleground campaigns elsewhere in the US if you are a citizen. There are also plenty of ways to get more people to vote, including in battleground states. If you care, there are plenty of things you can do.
- _curious_ 7y ago
  I think we're past that point...don't get me wrong, it can help and is part of the answer but very clear it is not the solution. It's naive in this day and age to rely on such an archaic method and expect permanent or fundamental change.
- spaceprison 7y ago
  At some point I feel like we moved from 'deregulation and open markets' to a federal plutocrat enshrinment and oligarch protection program. This behavior will not change because of a single election for a handful of seats 6 months away. There was talk of a constitutional convention back in 2016 and I think it's time to think about how regular folks can recapture the direction of the nation.
k3oni 7y ago
Came here to say this but you put it better. It's laughable that with all the changes that went in and voting on that bill they left the loophole open for big players to get access to this funding which was directed at small businesses/mom-and-pops shops. But business and shitty politics as usual.
- jlmorton 7y ago
  To be clear, this was not a loophole, it was a carve out. They specifically and intentionally excepted restaurants and hotels from the affiliation rule. It wasn't a drafting error, it was a clear and purposeful choice. Personally, I don't have any huge problem with that, I think it makes sense to protect workers at both Ruth's Chris Steak House and a local family-run steak shop, and we should fund the program at the levels necessary to do that. But I keep hearing the word loophole, including from Congress members. It is not that. This was by design, and it wasn't buried in some dense text. It was an unambiguous exemption in a two page rule. [1] [1] It may not be perfectly clear to the average reader, but it certainly was clear for the rulemakers at Treasury. "Waiver. The affiliation rules described above are waived for (1) any business concern with not more than 500 employees that, as of the date on which the loan is disbursed, is assigned a North American Industry Classification System code beginning with 72;" Businesses with an industry classification code beginning with 72 include all restaurants and hotels. https://www.sba.gov/document/support--affiliation-rules-paycheck-protection-program https://www.sba.gov/document/support--affiliation-rules-payc...
  - dd36 7y ago
    I think it’s because many (most?) people would prefer Ruth’s Chris failing over their local mom and pop. I think I’m in that boat and I like Ruth’s Chris, except the one in SF - was not impressed.
    - arkanciscan 7y ago
      I can put a stick of butter on a New York Strip at home for less than $100. Who needs Ruth's Chris.
dannyw 7y ago
Do you think we can change these outcomes within our current for of capitalism? If not, maybe it's time to think about alternatives. Maybe you think things would be better in a more socialist world, or maybe you think worlds would be better in a world with less government intervention. Maybe something else. The point though is: we need to advocate for a systems change.
ralston3 7y ago
I agree with your general sentiment. But at some point you have to start looking at this type of thing as a feature, not a bug. I read all of this terrible news and I think "Wow, things seem to be going as planned for the small few that have been given (i.e., are ordained with) the ability to plan things"
- Zelphyr 7y ago
  Explain to me how our government failing the people at a massive scale is a feature, not a bug.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    Since when are small business owners "the people"? As of 2012, only 21.5% of small businesses even employed anyone; 73.5% of them were sole proprietorships.[0] Most Americans don't work for these companies. I'm a little bit playing devil's advocate, but why is it a given that "small business owners" are a special class that the government should take extra pains bailing out? [0] https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf
  - cultus 7y ago
    It's a feature for the people whom the government serves.
  - ralston3 7y ago
    Devil's advocate (again, I agree with you but just for the sake of hearing you out) -- What makes you think the govt is suppose to support the people at massive scale? Last time I checked most (or at least the great majority of those that dominate and survive) organized governments were put together for the purposes of serving a few elite. ;) again, I agree with you
Eridrus 7y ago
Honestly, this was foreseen by everybody writing commentary. All the coverage of the paycheck protection program mentioned that the loan terms were extremely generous, and the money was not enough to cover everyone who was eligible, so it was going to run out really quickly. The only answers here are political: to hold legislators to account for passing laws knowing they have not provided adequate funding and basically running a government-sponsored lottery.
- BFatts 7y ago
  I heard estimates it was near $2T to fund it properly.
- elliekelly 7y ago
  What the program needed was for applicants to demonstrate they had exhausted other lines of credit available or at least had been turned down for a loan since their state implemented business closures. The same way unemployment checks are contingent on making some effort to find gainful employment these forgivable “loans” should only be given to those who (1) truly need assistance and (2) have made a good-faith effort not to need assistance.
clairity 7y ago
move to a small bank/credit union and tell everyone you know to do the same. BofA, jpmorgan chase, wells fargo, goldman, etc. are plutocratic rent-seekers at best.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
avgDev 7y ago
What makes me really angry is the way Trump/Mnuchin talked about this issue. This is not about politics. When I listened to them talk about how they want the big businesses to give the money back I laughed out loud. I mean have we not learned anything from the past? Does the administration NOT know that if there are no strict rules and oversight the bigger players have more resources to secure these loans. What a complete failure this program has been.
- MR4D 7y ago
  Congress wrote the rules on this behemoth of legislation, not the President. Second, Shake Shack actually gave back their $10 million. Whether that was due to Trump or just bad press, I haven't looked to see, but it can't hurt. Finally, if there is one thing that Trump is good at, it is using the podium as a bully pullpit. So yeah, I want him calling out companies to give money back. Even if he's only 1/2 successful, it's a lot better than not doing at all. Am I frustrated like you? Sure, but legislation like this is always messy. Always.
  - stevenbedrick 7y ago
    Congress wrote the bill, yes, but in this case did so in very close coordination with the Treasury, specifically the Secretary, who presumably had a lot of input on the specifics. So it’s definitely not just on Congress, here... plenty of blame to go around.
    - MR4D 7y ago
      Agreed, but that’s only so the administration gets to check its list of stuff. Congress never delivers just that. But I agree that there is plenty of blame. I still think it was amazing that a relief act got passed so quickly that at least worked somewhat given the disparity in politics these days.
sharadov 7y ago
Planet Money has an excellent podcast on this https://www.npr.org/2020/04/10/832149266/episode-990-the-big-small-business-rescue https://www.npr.org/2020/04/10/832149266/episode-990-the-big...
mochomocha 7y ago
> I don't know what to do with the anger I'm feeling. Any thoughts on where this energy should go? I'd personally direct it towards the realization that the US in these difficult times looks more like a plutocracy than a healthy society (I live here). Socialism for the rich, "capitalism" for everyone else. Thinking of creative ways to convince your fellow citizens that this is nowhere near "the best" a society can offer to its constituents would be a good use of extra anger / energy.
stevens32 7y ago
The energy should probably go towards voting and trying to get others to vote as well
BFatts 7y ago
I'm glad that there are better controls in the extension being made to provide for mom&pop shops over big companies.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
inerte 7y ago
Run for elections or get a job in government. There are 90 thousand government agencies. Local, city, county, state, etc... There are people out there who wants you to think they are all like the DMV or dysfunctional like the Senate and Congress. Or worse, that the private sector somehow is where the challenge is. Maybe where you can get richer, but look at the department of agriculture or any other major government institution. $150b in budget and 100k employees. You find me a private company with similar size and a mission to feed 380M people. The US needs a renaissance of the importance and virtue of public service. Our best minds are selling ads or consulting to shave off 0.001% of sub-prime derivatives in nanoseconds. The government is us, and it’s huge and slow and careful and conservative and complex. But it needs us inside to change. PS: I got inspired by words from Anand Giridharadas, so bonus points if you recognized any from his interviews.
- kelvin0 7y ago
  Not to sound too cynic, but unless you have a powerful lobby on your side you won't get much done in government (US, CAN). Moving higher up in the government to have any position of power means that you necessarily 'played' the game and most likely are restrained by the powerful interests who help you along the way. Aside from any type of revolution or catastrophe (none I which I personally advocate), I can't see how you can make deep and lasting changes in the current system of entrenched interests. This is my opinion from observation. I am not an expert. Quite willing to read opposing views.
- chosenbreed37 7y ago
  > Or worse, that the private sector somehow is where the challenge is. Maybe where you can get richer, but look at the department of agriculture or any other major government institution. $150b in budget and 100k employees. You find me a private company with similar size and a mission to feed 380M people. I'm off on a tangent here...but is it really the responsibility of the department of agriculture to feed 380 million people? What did people do before the creation of the department of agriculture? :-)
  - bdavis__ 7y ago
seph-reed 7y ago
> Any thoughts on where this energy should go? Join the pact: I solemnly swear to stand by those who fight corruption. Should they go too far, I will not fail to recognize the heroism in their intent. As they are expunged from social consciousness, I will not forget. I will not let their sacrifices be completely in vain.
- jannes 7y ago
  What do you mean with going "too far"? Sounds a bit scary.
malandrew 7y ago
> jump through the arbitrary hoops put in place by banks. To be fair, in most industries, arbitrary hoops are the result of government regulation. Yes, they might have been implemented by staff at the banks, but oftentimes at the behest of regulators. In every business I've worked on, every single friction point I've seen us add has been due to regulations, often in patchwork form since they would differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The product managers then are tasked with trying to mitigate the added friction.
erentz 7y ago
To all those who are simply saying voting is the answer, no that’s too simplistic and ignores the root of the problem. When the real difference between both parties is down to nothing and they’re both representing the monied and corporate interests, and when their immense power (funded by those interests) prevents alternatives you don’t really have anyone you can vote for who represents you, instead of the money. That’s the core of our issue in this country. If you don’t understand this just look deeper at the bailout and how they voted for it when they could’ve changed it. It contains all kinds of loot for those interests and things that are easy to say no to. It was drafted by the Republicans who control the Senate and the Democrats who control the house could’ve stripped out the controversial parts like the Mnuchin slush fund and passed the uncontroversial parts like the paycheck protection program. They could’ve stripped out the $170 billion real estate tax break. Etc. and passed those in the house that they control. Then forced the Republicans to go on the record as refusing to pass paycheck protection unless they get a slush fund and billionaire tax break. That’s politics. But they didn’t because the powers in the Democrat party wanted those things too. Which is also why they didn’t do an on the record vote for it. Another simple recent example is to look at the funding in the Democrat primary. Over $1 billion was spent in a panic against a social democrat who wants people to have health care. It’s an incredible figure. That wasn’t money from people that was money from the extremely wealthy and corporate interests. The solutions are: 1. Abolish the senate. It’s wholly undemocratic. This is the hardest but in time it may be whittled down to more of a ceremonial function like in most other countries that have two chambers. Meanwhile implement instant run off voting for Senators. 2. Implement STV with multi member districts for the House so that we have more proportional representation and voting for other outsider candidates becomes feasible. 3. Increase the size of the house to 650 members to improve representation. 4. Solve the money in politics problem. Perhaps public financing of elections is right. Perhaps tighter controls of campaign financing are possible and other anti corruption measures to prevent lobbyists passing money to officials. 5. Instant run off for election of the president. Two organizations that you may find good places to start are: https://www.fairvote.org/ https://www.fairvote.org/ https://represent.us/ https://represent.us/ PS: I will also add you do need to let your feelings be known to your representative. Call your local representative to express it. More people should do this because it can have an impact and tells them that people are watching. (We all like to complain about our representatives but how many of us ever express our issues to them?) And at some point later there may be more protests and demonstrations after what has happened. Be prepared to join them. Big change has always required this.
_curious_ 7y ago
"Any thoughts on where this energy should go?" Good question. What are you working on? Can you channel your negativity into a positive starting today - however small? Bigger picture/longer term: can you re-calibrate your time, energy, and emotions into a 'be the change' model? It can be done deliberately!
dustingetz 7y ago
"Sufficiently Powerful Optimization Of Any Known Target Destroys All Value" https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/12/31/does-big-business-hate-your-family/ https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/12/31/does-big-business-ha... Once recognized as emergent phenomenon we can stop getting emotional about it and learn to build more resilient systems that scale to the next level
xenospn 7y ago
This is by design. The entire program was built and designed to benefit them, and I would not be surprised if it turned out that they were instrumental in writing the legislation and were given details ahead of time, so they could get a leg up on the "competition".
jjmorrison 7y ago
> I am upset at myself for hoping anyone in this process would act like a decent human being. I hear you that you were hoping these big institutions would do what was best for people and the country in a time like this and they didn't deliver on that. If helpful, this is how I thought of it. If the fees are higher on bigger loans, and the company's goal is to make money, this was the right decision for them. These banks are as successful as they are because they are the best at optimizing for the goals the system we've created has set. Maybe in a special case like this, they could've chosen to go against this incentive. But that would probably be worse in the long term. The real problem at hand is that the incentives we've set aren't the ones that we want anymore. We know it needs to be fixed, but it's really hard because our economy is this tightly coupled web. No one really knows what will happen if we start changing incentives. So we've decided not to change much yet. In a way, if banks had gone against their incentives in this moment of acute need, it really would've been a lie. A red herring that might make us delay changing the incentives even longer. I guess the way I'm holding this is without righteousness. There's no single individuals in these banks that are the evil ones to blame. We've just created a system of incentives that ensures whoever is making certain decisions will keep making the ones that are made. It doesn't matter who, they'll always be made. It's like darwinism. So let's really spend time thinking about what change we want to make that would reward people for making the choices we want to see.
akira2501 7y ago
> The large institutions are more savvy, have staff they can devote to finding this money, and have more connections to the banks. Except, when they aren't. Wells Fargo got completely eclipsed by a much smaller regional bank. Per the LA Times: "Small businesses that rushed in vain to tap $349 billion in emergency U.S. loans to survive the coronavirus crisis are facing a harsh reality: Some of the nation’s top banks lagged behind relatively tiny rivals in handling applications. As banking giants tried to automate the process, hundreds of employees at Texas lender Cullen/Frost Bankers Inc. volunteered to fill out forms manually, working late into the night in homes to set up $3 billion in loans. That contrasts with Wells Fargo & Co., which arranged only about $120 million by the time the program was depleted this week, according to people briefed on its progress." From: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-04-18/small-business-loans-coronavirus-unemployment https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-04-18/small-busi...
- Loughla 7y ago
  I meant large businesses, not large banks. Large businesses are more apt to have folks dedicated to working through that kind of red-tape.
bsanr2 7y ago
If you're the kind of person I think you are, then it's going to take all of the energy you can muster to convince yourself to vote for leftists/American democratic socialists in the next election. But I promise you, those are the only people who are going to help you in this situation. Not necessarily because they'll get what they want, or because their ideas are good, but because the threat of them coming into power will force banks et al. to reassess just how much they want to push it.

zapita 7y ago

> Any thoughts on where this energy should go? Voting, and making sure everyone you know votes too.

jdironman 7y ago
Voting doesn't do sh.. if the system is inherently broken.
- HorizonXP 7y ago
  It also doesn't help those businesses today. Voting won't happen in time to effect the emergency measures needed today.
- donarb 7y ago
  The system is broken because people don't vote. There are plenty of votes out there to override the powerful, but people who give up and say it's hopeless are part of the problem.
  - erentz 7y ago
    There are two parties and they both represent the interests of the large corporations that fund them. The media are all large corporations that benefit from this system, and get funding from those same large corporations in ad revenue. The over 45 demographic only watches that media and so only hears what that media wants them to hear so are extremely low information voters. The PACs and committees of the respective parties are insanely powerful and run by people who are mostly grifters there to get their paycheck. They don’t care about policy. And if you step out of line too far against them they’ll throw millions against you in a primary to get rid of you. The system is broken because at the moment in most districts you just can’t compete against who has the money.
    - ralston3 7y ago
      +1 here
  - alpha_squared 7y ago
    While you're not wrong, there are plenty of inactive voters, I sincerely doubt they'd vote in any way that isn't already highly consistent with how votes are already allotted. Say there are 40% of inactive voters (the number is much higher in the US) and you get them all to vote somehow. I'm willing to bet those votes don't dramatically shift election outcomes in any significant way (beyond ~1%). Sure, that'd help in close races, but not much else.
  - hi_im_miles 7y ago
    I don't buy this. Even if everyone voted, you'd still end up with policies that continue to advantage whichever voting blocs have the largest influence. The system is broken because it's a zero-sum game; privileging those who are represented by the system at the expense of those who aren't is a feature of democracy, not a bug.
317070 7y ago
I mean, if there ever was a point where you take a step back and ask yourself "will voting actually solve this" this surely must be it? How on earth would voting actually solve something like this? I'm not advocating for "not voting", I'm advocating for not letting yourself getting paralyzed by the idea that you are represented already anyway. You are only represented in the most superficial of ways. Start acting instead. Make JP Morgan feel your anger. Make people see your anger to JP Morgan. You don't have to keep taking the hits. Acting helps psychologically and emotionally and on the best of days even might change things.
- test1235 7y ago
  What are you suggesting, specifically?
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    I'd assume not supporting JPMC as a customer (as well as the businesses that use JPMC for commercial and investment banking services), perhaps protests next. Are we in an era when JPMC senior leadership would be doxxed online? I would be surprised if we weren't. Lots of actions available besides the political process where you can still remain firmly on the right side of the law but cause discomfort to the other party. Don't break the law.
  - 317070 7y ago
    Possible actions: - If you had a JP Morgan account. Cancel it. - Evaluate if they did something illegal, organise a group and go to court over it. - If you live close to a JP Morgan office, go there and do something. Try to not attract police, as they have more important things to do, but as a rule, the people that work there should have an unusual day. Something as simple as distributing leaflets can for example be really effective to get the office productivity down, especially when maintained. - Push politicians (maybe on a local level) to apply pressure where they can. Overall: Don't be nice and agreeable. Be MOAR: mad, organised, angry and relentless.
    - munk-a 7y ago
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
Who do we vote for? The only standout here is Rep Thomas Massie who tried to force a recorded vote by requiring people to return to the capital. He was dragged by both sides and the president. Google his name and look how the media treated him.
- hcknwscommenter 7y ago
  Massie's stunt was an obvious and dangerous troll. You want all of Congress to come down with COVID? What nonsense is that. Massie was rightfully pilloried. THe obvious answer is to vote for the party that actually believes in sound government. The one that is not constantly dismantling important institutions. I have a lot of issues with the Democratic party positions on a number of matters, but they would not have been so entirely inept at every step of the way as team trump and his corrupt cronies. I mean, what the heck is Mnuchin even doing? Kudlow? THese are the people in the executive branch who should be working day and night to craft the regulations as Congress passes the law. The law states the rule, the regulations state how those rules will be implemented. That is how it is supposed to work. This administration is completely incapable of anything requiring competence. These crooks need to get voted out. They are literally killing us and destroying lives and careers.
  - pythonaut_16 7y ago
    These bailout bills have been passed with broad bipartisan support, of which you will never see who voted for or against the bill because it was only a voice vote. So how is voting for either party going to help a problem that both parties equally passed?
    - ardy42 7y ago
      > These bailout bills have been passed with broad bipartisan support... > So how is voting for either party going to help a problem that both parties equally passed? I think that's misunderstanding politics. Broad bipartisan support doesn't mean both parties were happy with each and every provision, it means that they found the overall compromise acceptable enough to vote for (given the circumstances). For instance: IIRC, the Democrats actually wanted to add a permanent, general paid sick-leave benefit to one of these relief bills, but after Republican objections they compromised and settled for a temporary COVID-specific benefit to achieve "broad bipartisan support" for the overall bill. That doesn't mean they changed their position, and if more people had voted for Democrats in the last election, the outcome would have been different.
ken 7y ago
Which ballot is for JP Morgan loan officers? Or do you mean voting in my non-battleground state for US president (D for the past 30 years), or perhaps senator (D for the past 20 years)? What effect, exactly, are we hoping for? ‘Voting for financial policy change‘ is like ‘participating in a moment of silence for those we’ve lost to the pandemic‘. The act is something a reasonable person should do because they are a member of society but it is not a solution to that particular problem.
- zapita 7y ago
  Are you certain that none of your mayor, governor, senators, representatives, state senate, state representatives, local democratic council members etc. have accepted JPM’s money? Perhaps you can research that point, and act accordingly. In “all blue” seats you can do this in primary elections. You can also donate your time and money to battleground campaigns elsewhere in the US if you are a citizen. There are also plenty of ways to get more people to vote, including in battleground states. If you care, there are plenty of things you can do.
_curious_ 7y ago
I think we're past that point...don't get me wrong, it can help and is part of the answer but very clear it is not the solution. It's naive in this day and age to rely on such an archaic method and expect permanent or fundamental change.
spaceprison 7y ago
At some point I feel like we moved from 'deregulation and open markets' to a federal plutocrat enshrinment and oligarch protection program. This behavior will not change because of a single election for a handful of seats 6 months away. There was talk of a constitutional convention back in 2016 and I think it's time to think about how regular folks can recapture the direction of the nation.

k3oni 7y ago

Came here to say this but you put it better. It's laughable that with all the changes that went in and voting on that bill they left the loophole open for big players to get access to this funding which was directed at small businesses/mom-and-pops shops. But business and shitty politics as usual.

jlmorton 7y ago
To be clear, this was not a loophole, it was a carve out. They specifically and intentionally excepted restaurants and hotels from the affiliation rule. It wasn't a drafting error, it was a clear and purposeful choice. Personally, I don't have any huge problem with that, I think it makes sense to protect workers at both Ruth's Chris Steak House and a local family-run steak shop, and we should fund the program at the levels necessary to do that. But I keep hearing the word loophole, including from Congress members. It is not that. This was by design, and it wasn't buried in some dense text. It was an unambiguous exemption in a two page rule. [1] [1] It may not be perfectly clear to the average reader, but it certainly was clear for the rulemakers at Treasury. "Waiver. The affiliation rules described above are waived for (1) any business concern with not more than 500 employees that, as of the date on which the loan is disbursed, is assigned a North American Industry Classification System code beginning with 72;" Businesses with an industry classification code beginning with 72 include all restaurants and hotels. https://www.sba.gov/document/support--affiliation-rules-paycheck-protection-program https://www.sba.gov/document/support--affiliation-rules-payc...
- dd36 7y ago
  I think it’s because many (most?) people would prefer Ruth’s Chris failing over their local mom and pop. I think I’m in that boat and I like Ruth’s Chris, except the one in SF - was not impressed.
  - arkanciscan 7y ago
    I can put a stick of butter on a New York Strip at home for less than $100. Who needs Ruth's Chris.

dannyw 7y ago

Do you think we can change these outcomes within our current for of capitalism? If not, maybe it's time to think about alternatives. Maybe you think things would be better in a more socialist world, or maybe you think worlds would be better in a world with less government intervention. Maybe something else. The point though is: we need to advocate for a systems change.

ralston3 7y ago

I agree with your general sentiment. But at some point you have to start looking at this type of thing as a feature, not a bug. I read all of this terrible news and I think "Wow, things seem to be going as planned for the small few that have been given (i.e., are ordained with) the ability to plan things"

Zelphyr 7y ago
Explain to me how our government failing the people at a massive scale is a feature, not a bug.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  Since when are small business owners "the people"? As of 2012, only 21.5% of small businesses even employed anyone; 73.5% of them were sole proprietorships.[0] Most Americans don't work for these companies. I'm a little bit playing devil's advocate, but why is it a given that "small business owners" are a special class that the government should take extra pains bailing out? [0] https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf
- cultus 7y ago
  It's a feature for the people whom the government serves.
- ralston3 7y ago
  Devil's advocate (again, I agree with you but just for the sake of hearing you out) -- What makes you think the govt is suppose to support the people at massive scale? Last time I checked most (or at least the great majority of those that dominate and survive) organized governments were put together for the purposes of serving a few elite. ;) again, I agree with you

Eridrus 7y ago

Honestly, this was foreseen by everybody writing commentary. All the coverage of the paycheck protection program mentioned that the loan terms were extremely generous, and the money was not enough to cover everyone who was eligible, so it was going to run out really quickly. The only answers here are political: to hold legislators to account for passing laws knowing they have not provided adequate funding and basically running a government-sponsored lottery.

BFatts 7y ago
I heard estimates it was near $2T to fund it properly.
elliekelly 7y ago
What the program needed was for applicants to demonstrate they had exhausted other lines of credit available or at least had been turned down for a loan since their state implemented business closures. The same way unemployment checks are contingent on making some effort to find gainful employment these forgivable “loans” should only be given to those who (1) truly need assistance and (2) have made a good-faith effort not to need assistance.

clairity 7y ago

move to a small bank/credit union and tell everyone you know to do the same. BofA, jpmorgan chase, wells fargo, goldman, etc. are plutocratic rent-seekers at best.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

avgDev 7y ago

What makes me really angry is the way Trump/Mnuchin talked about this issue. This is not about politics. When I listened to them talk about how they want the big businesses to give the money back I laughed out loud. I mean have we not learned anything from the past? Does the administration NOT know that if there are no strict rules and oversight the bigger players have more resources to secure these loans. What a complete failure this program has been.

MR4D 7y ago
Congress wrote the rules on this behemoth of legislation, not the President. Second, Shake Shack actually gave back their $10 million. Whether that was due to Trump or just bad press, I haven't looked to see, but it can't hurt. Finally, if there is one thing that Trump is good at, it is using the podium as a bully pullpit. So yeah, I want him calling out companies to give money back. Even if he's only 1/2 successful, it's a lot better than not doing at all. Am I frustrated like you? Sure, but legislation like this is always messy. Always.
- stevenbedrick 7y ago
  Congress wrote the bill, yes, but in this case did so in very close coordination with the Treasury, specifically the Secretary, who presumably had a lot of input on the specifics. So it’s definitely not just on Congress, here... plenty of blame to go around.
  - MR4D 7y ago
    Agreed, but that’s only so the administration gets to check its list of stuff. Congress never delivers just that. But I agree that there is plenty of blame. I still think it was amazing that a relief act got passed so quickly that at least worked somewhat given the disparity in politics these days.

sharadov 7y ago

Planet Money has an excellent podcast on this https://www.npr.org/2020/04/10/832149266/episode-990-the-big-small-business-rescue https://www.npr.org/2020/04/10/832149266/episode-990-the-big...

mochomocha 7y ago

> I don't know what to do with the anger I'm feeling. Any thoughts on where this energy should go? I'd personally direct it towards the realization that the US in these difficult times looks more like a plutocracy than a healthy society (I live here). Socialism for the rich, "capitalism" for everyone else. Thinking of creative ways to convince your fellow citizens that this is nowhere near "the best" a society can offer to its constituents would be a good use of extra anger / energy.

stevens32 7y ago

The energy should probably go towards voting and trying to get others to vote as well

BFatts 7y ago

I'm glad that there are better controls in the extension being made to provide for mom&pop shops over big companies.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

inerte 7y ago

Run for elections or get a job in government. There are 90 thousand government agencies. Local, city, county, state, etc... There are people out there who wants you to think they are all like the DMV or dysfunctional like the Senate and Congress. Or worse, that the private sector somehow is where the challenge is. Maybe where you can get richer, but look at the department of agriculture or any other major government institution. $150b in budget and 100k employees. You find me a private company with similar size and a mission to feed 380M people. The US needs a renaissance of the importance and virtue of public service. Our best minds are selling ads or consulting to shave off 0.001% of sub-prime derivatives in nanoseconds. The government is us, and it’s huge and slow and careful and conservative and complex. But it needs us inside to change. PS: I got inspired by words from Anand Giridharadas, so bonus points if you recognized any from his interviews.

kelvin0 7y ago
Not to sound too cynic, but unless you have a powerful lobby on your side you won't get much done in government (US, CAN). Moving higher up in the government to have any position of power means that you necessarily 'played' the game and most likely are restrained by the powerful interests who help you along the way. Aside from any type of revolution or catastrophe (none I which I personally advocate), I can't see how you can make deep and lasting changes in the current system of entrenched interests. This is my opinion from observation. I am not an expert. Quite willing to read opposing views.
chosenbreed37 7y ago
> Or worse, that the private sector somehow is where the challenge is. Maybe where you can get richer, but look at the department of agriculture or any other major government institution. $150b in budget and 100k employees. You find me a private company with similar size and a mission to feed 380M people. I'm off on a tangent here...but is it really the responsibility of the department of agriculture to feed 380 million people? What did people do before the creation of the department of agriculture? :-)
- bdavis__ 7y ago

seph-reed 7y ago

> Any thoughts on where this energy should go? Join the pact: I solemnly swear to stand by those who fight corruption. Should they go too far, I will not fail to recognize the heroism in their intent. As they are expunged from social consciousness, I will not forget. I will not let their sacrifices be completely in vain.

jannes 7y ago
What do you mean with going "too far"? Sounds a bit scary.

malandrew 7y ago

> jump through the arbitrary hoops put in place by banks. To be fair, in most industries, arbitrary hoops are the result of government regulation. Yes, they might have been implemented by staff at the banks, but oftentimes at the behest of regulators. In every business I've worked on, every single friction point I've seen us add has been due to regulations, often in patchwork form since they would differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The product managers then are tasked with trying to mitigate the added friction.

erentz 7y ago

To all those who are simply saying voting is the answer, no that’s too simplistic and ignores the root of the problem. When the real difference between both parties is down to nothing and they’re both representing the monied and corporate interests, and when their immense power (funded by those interests) prevents alternatives you don’t really have anyone you can vote for who represents you, instead of the money. That’s the core of our issue in this country. If you don’t understand this just look deeper at the bailout and how they voted for it when they could’ve changed it. It contains all kinds of loot for those interests and things that are easy to say no to. It was drafted by the Republicans who control the Senate and the Democrats who control the house could’ve stripped out the controversial parts like the Mnuchin slush fund and passed the uncontroversial parts like the paycheck protection program. They could’ve stripped out the $170 billion real estate tax break. Etc. and passed those in the house that they control. Then forced the Republicans to go on the record as refusing to pass paycheck protection unless they get a slush fund and billionaire tax break. That’s politics. But they didn’t because the powers in the Democrat party wanted those things too. Which is also why they didn’t do an on the record vote for it. Another simple recent example is to look at the funding in the Democrat primary. Over $1 billion was spent in a panic against a social democrat who wants people to have health care. It’s an incredible figure. That wasn’t money from people that was money from the extremely wealthy and corporate interests. The solutions are: 1. Abolish the senate. It’s wholly undemocratic. This is the hardest but in time it may be whittled down to more of a ceremonial function like in most other countries that have two chambers. Meanwhile implement instant run off voting for Senators. 2. Implement STV with multi member districts for the House so that we have more proportional representation and voting for other outsider candidates becomes feasible. 3. Increase the size of the house to 650 members to improve representation. 4. Solve the money in politics problem. Perhaps public financing of elections is right. Perhaps tighter controls of campaign financing are possible and other anti corruption measures to prevent lobbyists passing money to officials. 5. Instant run off for election of the president. Two organizations that you may find good places to start are: https://www.fairvote.org/ https://www.fairvote.org/ https://represent.us/ https://represent.us/ PS: I will also add you do need to let your feelings be known to your representative. Call your local representative to express it. More people should do this because it can have an impact and tells them that people are watching. (We all like to complain about our representatives but how many of us ever express our issues to them?) And at some point later there may be more protests and demonstrations after what has happened. Be prepared to join them. Big change has always required this.

_curious_ 7y ago

"Any thoughts on where this energy should go?" Good question. What are you working on? Can you channel your negativity into a positive starting today - however small? Bigger picture/longer term: can you re-calibrate your time, energy, and emotions into a 'be the change' model? It can be done deliberately!

dustingetz 7y ago

"Sufficiently Powerful Optimization Of Any Known Target Destroys All Value" https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/12/31/does-big-business-hate-your-family/ https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/12/31/does-big-business-ha... Once recognized as emergent phenomenon we can stop getting emotional about it and learn to build more resilient systems that scale to the next level

xenospn 7y ago

This is by design. The entire program was built and designed to benefit them, and I would not be surprised if it turned out that they were instrumental in writing the legislation and were given details ahead of time, so they could get a leg up on the "competition".

jjmorrison 7y ago

> I am upset at myself for hoping anyone in this process would act like a decent human being. I hear you that you were hoping these big institutions would do what was best for people and the country in a time like this and they didn't deliver on that. If helpful, this is how I thought of it. If the fees are higher on bigger loans, and the company's goal is to make money, this was the right decision for them. These banks are as successful as they are because they are the best at optimizing for the goals the system we've created has set. Maybe in a special case like this, they could've chosen to go against this incentive. But that would probably be worse in the long term. The real problem at hand is that the incentives we've set aren't the ones that we want anymore. We know it needs to be fixed, but it's really hard because our economy is this tightly coupled web. No one really knows what will happen if we start changing incentives. So we've decided not to change much yet. In a way, if banks had gone against their incentives in this moment of acute need, it really would've been a lie. A red herring that might make us delay changing the incentives even longer. I guess the way I'm holding this is without righteousness. There's no single individuals in these banks that are the evil ones to blame. We've just created a system of incentives that ensures whoever is making certain decisions will keep making the ones that are made. It doesn't matter who, they'll always be made. It's like darwinism. So let's really spend time thinking about what change we want to make that would reward people for making the choices we want to see.

akira2501 7y ago

> The large institutions are more savvy, have staff they can devote to finding this money, and have more connections to the banks. Except, when they aren't. Wells Fargo got completely eclipsed by a much smaller regional bank. Per the LA Times: "Small businesses that rushed in vain to tap $349 billion in emergency U.S. loans to survive the coronavirus crisis are facing a harsh reality: Some of the nation’s top banks lagged behind relatively tiny rivals in handling applications. As banking giants tried to automate the process, hundreds of employees at Texas lender Cullen/Frost Bankers Inc. volunteered to fill out forms manually, working late into the night in homes to set up $3 billion in loans. That contrasts with Wells Fargo & Co., which arranged only about $120 million by the time the program was depleted this week, according to people briefed on its progress." From: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-04-18/small-business-loans-coronavirus-unemployment https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-04-18/small-busi...

Loughla 7y ago
I meant large businesses, not large banks. Large businesses are more apt to have folks dedicated to working through that kind of red-tape.

bsanr2 7y ago

If you're the kind of person I think you are, then it's going to take all of the energy you can muster to convince yourself to vote for leftists/American democratic socialists in the next election. But I promise you, those are the only people who are going to help you in this situation. Not necessarily because they'll get what they want, or because their ideas are good, but because the threat of them coming into power will force banks et al. to reassess just how much they want to push it.