3 ms·

Then you don’t know poor people who don’t have any investment in the stock market. Who absolutely do benefit from the immediate cash. Who drive your Uber, drive

Then you don’t know poor people who don’t have any investment in the stock market. Who absolutely do benefit from the immediate cash. Who drive your Uber, driver your door dash, serve your meal at your restaurant, probably cleaner your house, do you yard work, sell you shoes at the store, check you out at groceries, stock your groceries, serve you drinks at the bar. Stimulating the stock market was not the right move. You want to talk about putting the money and letting the market do it’s thing, give it to people and let them decide where to put. Putting the money in the stock market has only benefited those already in the stock market and those with the money to enter it.

dahfizz 6y ago
> Putting the money in the stock market has only benefited those already in the stock market and those with the money to enter it. Quantitative easing has been shown time and time again to alleviate and avoid economic downturn. Do grocery baggers and bar tenders benefit from an economic depression? Do you think Obama made the right choice to stimulate the economy in 2008? This is exactly the same thing.
- throwaway_USD 6y ago
  >Do grocery baggers and bar tenders benefit from an economic depression? People need groceries even during a depression. Its often said alcohol is recession proof, in fact alcohol sales seem to thrive even during a pandemic. I'll tell you what isn't >Do you think Obama made the right choice to stimulate the economy in 2008? This is exactly the same thing. Actually Bush took out a Stimulus of ~$800-900B before he left office and then Obama took our another $800-$900B when entering office. And I would say the vast majority of people I speak with would rather have seen the banks fail rather than taxpayers bailing them out (for massive fraud they perpetrated to issue bad loans/mortgages and then package them up and sell them to others knowing they were "toxic assets"). Banks used taxpayer money to buy their competitors to concentrate the market and fund foreclosure litigation to foreclose on the taxpayers that bailed them out. In hindsight most people agree the Bush/Obama bailouts should have gone directly to the homeowners, but it was considered a "moral hazard" encouraging bad behavior in the future, whereas ironically they didn't see the moral hazard in rewarding the banks that bear the most responsibility.
  - mennis16 6y ago
    You just nitpicked his two examples (and for a nitpick back bartender != liquor store clerk). I don't know enough about econ to have a side here but I would be interested in hearing a counterargument that actually addresses the impact of economic downturn on the class of jobs being discussed here (waiters, retail, cleaners, drivers, etc.)
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Do you think Obama made the right choice to stimulate the economy in 2008? Does anyone think that? Bailing out mismanaged financial dinosaurs was a monumentally poor decision. He didn't even have W's excuse: high suggestibility due to low intelligence.

dahfizz 6y ago

> Putting the money in the stock market has only benefited those already in the stock market and those with the money to enter it. Quantitative easing has been shown time and time again to alleviate and avoid economic downturn. Do grocery baggers and bar tenders benefit from an economic depression? Do you think Obama made the right choice to stimulate the economy in 2008? This is exactly the same thing.

throwaway_USD 6y ago
>Do grocery baggers and bar tenders benefit from an economic depression? People need groceries even during a depression. Its often said alcohol is recession proof, in fact alcohol sales seem to thrive even during a pandemic. I'll tell you what isn't >Do you think Obama made the right choice to stimulate the economy in 2008? This is exactly the same thing. Actually Bush took out a Stimulus of ~$800-900B before he left office and then Obama took our another $800-$900B when entering office. And I would say the vast majority of people I speak with would rather have seen the banks fail rather than taxpayers bailing them out (for massive fraud they perpetrated to issue bad loans/mortgages and then package them up and sell them to others knowing they were "toxic assets"). Banks used taxpayer money to buy their competitors to concentrate the market and fund foreclosure litigation to foreclose on the taxpayers that bailed them out. In hindsight most people agree the Bush/Obama bailouts should have gone directly to the homeowners, but it was considered a "moral hazard" encouraging bad behavior in the future, whereas ironically they didn't see the moral hazard in rewarding the banks that bear the most responsibility.
- mennis16 6y ago
  You just nitpicked his two examples (and for a nitpick back bartender != liquor store clerk). I don't know enough about econ to have a side here but I would be interested in hearing a counterargument that actually addresses the impact of economic downturn on the class of jobs being discussed here (waiters, retail, cleaners, drivers, etc.)
jessaustin 6y ago
Do you think Obama made the right choice to stimulate the economy in 2008? Does anyone think that? Bailing out mismanaged financial dinosaurs was a monumentally poor decision. He didn't even have W's excuse: high suggestibility due to low intelligence.