4 ms·

honestly the entire country would have been better off with just giving every adult in the US 2k a month for 6 months. Would have cost about 2.5 trillion. Count

honestly the entire country would have been better off with just giving every adult in the US 2k a month for 6 months. Would have cost about 2.5 trillion. Country could have been safely shut down, everyone would have been able to cover their bills. When the country reopens, everyone would have money to burn which would have flowed into businesses. Spend another 2 - 3 trillion on true small business loans / grants. Forbid stock buy backs in the future. McConnell has also indicated he has no interest in giving states any more money for unemployment. So desperate people are going to be even more desperate soon. What the federal government has done instead is an abomination aimed at falsely propping up share prices. We are very possibly looking at the onset of a massive depression spurred on by just plain poor crisis management at the federal level.

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
It's not quite that simple. If you give people $2k and businesses nothing, people aren't going to spend that money on businesses. They're not allowed to do a lot of things they usually spend money on. Retail, restaurants, hotels, live entertainment, airlines, movie theaters, etc would go bankrupt en masse. I'm not sure that's actually a problem. The responsible businesses that had cash would buy the poorly managed businesses at a discount. Long term, this could possibly lead to even worse inequality. Not to mention, a lot of the jobs might be destroyed permanently. I do agree that I think it would've been better for most people to only give people the money. There would still be a lot of losers. On the simplest basis, most restaurants and hotels are small businesses. The majority of them would lose their business. $2k would do nothing for them. And the majority of these business owners are decidedly not rich.
- wonderwonder 7y ago
  I do agree, but note I did say another 2 - 3 trillion in small business loans / grants. Is that enough? I am not sure, but I do agree that if not managed correctly much like the housing crisis those with cash will swoop in and buy the distressed businesses. I just don't see how what we are doing currently is going to prevent that though. The white house is actively picking winners and losers in the business world with almost no congressional oversight and has fired the IG responsible for it.

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago

It's not quite that simple. If you give people $2k and businesses nothing, people aren't going to spend that money on businesses. They're not allowed to do a lot of things they usually spend money on. Retail, restaurants, hotels, live entertainment, airlines, movie theaters, etc would go bankrupt en masse. I'm not sure that's actually a problem. The responsible businesses that had cash would buy the poorly managed businesses at a discount. Long term, this could possibly lead to even worse inequality. Not to mention, a lot of the jobs might be destroyed permanently. I do agree that I think it would've been better for most people to only give people the money. There would still be a lot of losers. On the simplest basis, most restaurants and hotels are small businesses. The majority of them would lose their business. $2k would do nothing for them. And the majority of these business owners are decidedly not rich.

wonderwonder 7y ago
I do agree, but note I did say another 2 - 3 trillion in small business loans / grants. Is that enough? I am not sure, but I do agree that if not managed correctly much like the housing crisis those with cash will swoop in and buy the distressed businesses. I just don't see how what we are doing currently is going to prevent that though. The white house is actively picking winners and losers in the business world with almost no congressional oversight and has fired the IG responsible for it.