4 ms·

Perhaps you can translate for me too, because I read the reply and agreed that the risk appetite for new small business owners might not be as robust given the

by kovacs 6y ago

Perhaps you can translate for me too, because I read the reply and agreed that the risk appetite for new small business owners might not be as robust given the current set of rules, which is what the commenter was saying. At least that's my interpretation. You seem to see something else in this comment. As a result I have some clarification questions... How do they want to "keep kicking the can down the road" exactly? Your comment about the government not being able to bail out everyone only serves to reinforce the point about the risk of starting a small business. What do you mean by "He's right"? He's right that people will line up to start new businesses and put their diminished life savings on the line after what's transpired? Then you flippantly say "Add UBI and nationalized healthcare", as if it's just something you add to a shopping cart and "it's not complicated". So it sounds like you assume these features as part of the assumption that people will flock to starting businesses. That's not part of the discussion at all, but it's an interesting point to discuss whether that would spur the activity. It very well might as it's the "social safety net" one would need to have more confidence. About the only thing you said that resonated with me is "the elites just don't want it". Given the growing wealth disparity and the relative flat to down real income of the average American in the last 40 years I'd say that's a fair statement. Your final statement comes out of nowhere as you lump the commenter into this group of elites when all they were saying is "hey man, I'm not so sure people will be lining up to risk their life savings to start a small business". Care to try again with a gentler, more constructive tone and explain how the commenter, and by extension myself, are naive with the summarized viewpoint I stated at the outset?

engineeringwoke 6y ago
It's not an opinion. I'm an engineer who also trained as an economist, and I know the answers to these questions. It's just math. It's all about the money supply. The elite want to bail out because it inflates the money supply. You can bail in instead of bail out. Bankruptcies happen and equity holders lose, but the problem is that bankruptices reduce the money supply. Money effectively disappears when debt is restructured. The problem we now face is that equity holders today have decided that bail outs are necessary politically. Equity is the most speculative ownership of productive capacity, but you wouldn't guess it with the way it's discussed. Wouldn't you expect that that kind of security to lose value in an unforeseen circumstance like this? The system eventually doesn't function if the government hamfistedly tries to alter price discovery to such an extent that markets stop working. That's where we are today. So bail in. Give everyone free money. I give you an ID number and a bank account number, and I receive cash every month. That's a hell of lot simpler. Nationalize healthcare. Wouldn't a nationalized system be simpler? The lines of code per person have to be higher in a country with fifty different systems. It will cause inflation, but we don't really have a choice. Sorry if my tone is a bit flippant, but someone has to argue for sanity here. The United States is going down a dark path in nationalizing so many USD assets. Somebody has to try to explain why.
- DuskStar 6y ago
  > It's not an opinion. I'm an engineer who also trained as an economist, and I know the answers to these questions. It's just math. Considering how many economists seem to disagree on what the proper response here is, I highly doubt it's just math. And regarding nationalizing healthcare... That's a whole truck full of worms, and seems unrelated to an economic recovery. Couldn't you also argue that seeing the government nationalize an entire industry would decrease entrepreneurial spirit in other industries in fear of the same thing happening there?
  - engineeringwoke 6y ago
    I'm not an academic that likes to write up econometric models with 40 years of data to make myself feel smart, so I am not so ignorant to reality. It really is just math. Every dollar we waste today on unproductive capacities is a dollar that your children will never have.
    - DuskStar 6y ago
      "I'm not an academic and have real world experience, therefore I'm right" I don't think it works like that.
      - engineeringwoke 6y ago
        In a time where economists have a lot of soul searching to do, the realists are a good place to start.
        DuskStar 6y ago
        > In a time where economists have a lot of soul searching to do This might be true, but I don't know that there's been an obviously wrong set of recommendations yet during the coronavirus crisis. Do you have an example? > the realists are a good place to start This is almost certainly false - at least if you're including yourself in "realists". Personally, I'd look at the heretical economists first.

by kovacs 6y ago

engineeringwoke 6y ago

It's not an opinion. I'm an engineer who also trained as an economist, and I know the answers to these questions. It's just math. It's all about the money supply. The elite want to bail out because it inflates the money supply. You can bail in instead of bail out. Bankruptcies happen and equity holders lose, but the problem is that bankruptices reduce the money supply. Money effectively disappears when debt is restructured. The problem we now face is that equity holders today have decided that bail outs are necessary politically. Equity is the most speculative ownership of productive capacity, but you wouldn't guess it with the way it's discussed. Wouldn't you expect that that kind of security to lose value in an unforeseen circumstance like this? The system eventually doesn't function if the government hamfistedly tries to alter price discovery to such an extent that markets stop working. That's where we are today. So bail in. Give everyone free money. I give you an ID number and a bank account number, and I receive cash every month. That's a hell of lot simpler. Nationalize healthcare. Wouldn't a nationalized system be simpler? The lines of code per person have to be higher in a country with fifty different systems. It will cause inflation, but we don't really have a choice. Sorry if my tone is a bit flippant, but someone has to argue for sanity here. The United States is going down a dark path in nationalizing so many USD assets. Somebody has to try to explain why.

DuskStar 6y ago
> It's not an opinion. I'm an engineer who also trained as an economist, and I know the answers to these questions. It's just math. Considering how many economists seem to disagree on what the proper response here is, I highly doubt it's just math. And regarding nationalizing healthcare... That's a whole truck full of worms, and seems unrelated to an economic recovery. Couldn't you also argue that seeing the government nationalize an entire industry would decrease entrepreneurial spirit in other industries in fear of the same thing happening there?
- engineeringwoke 6y ago
  I'm not an academic that likes to write up econometric models with 40 years of data to make myself feel smart, so I am not so ignorant to reality. It really is just math. Every dollar we waste today on unproductive capacities is a dollar that your children will never have.
  - DuskStar 6y ago
    "I'm not an academic and have real world experience, therefore I'm right" I don't think it works like that.
    - engineeringwoke 6y ago
      In a time where economists have a lot of soul searching to do, the realists are a good place to start.
      - DuskStar 6y ago
        > In a time where economists have a lot of soul searching to do This might be true, but I don't know that there's been an obviously wrong set of recommendations yet during the coronavirus crisis. Do you have an example? > the realists are a good place to start This is almost certainly false - at least if you're including yourself in "realists". Personally, I'd look at the heretical economists first.