4 ms·

Why would it be a problem to redesign a social policy in the social interest? So what if everyone one comes and says PPP needs to be amended to do better in ser

Why would it be a problem to redesign a social policy in the social interest? So what if everyone one comes and says PPP needs to be amended to do better in service of the country. Isn’t that what we want. It’s a good thing that they increased the spending period from 8 weeks to 24. Most restaurants were closed by state orders and were faced with forcing employees to come off unemployment (and employees resisted because unemployment was way better for them as they got an extra $600 week on top of regular pay) only to then pay them to stay home. Instead, by extending the spending window we give restaurants a fighting chance to have money to start operations again when it’s safe. Let’s tone down the rhetoric a bit, in no way are PPP loans close to rape or murder in magnitude of harm so it’s an inflammatory analogy with no purpose. In terms of the actual problems with PPP and percent of bad loans. Think of the counter factual. Would you rather have 1% bad loans or a wave of bankruptcies and layoffs triggering a depression that last 10 years? What about 10% bad loans? 50%? The PPP was well designed and administered under the circumstances. Let’s make improvements because we are not out of the woods yet. But let’s not scape goat or focus on the edge case problems and then destroy all of the benefits prevented harm.

mbesto 6y ago
> Most restaurants were closed by state orders and were faced with forcing employees to come off unemployment And yet those businesses either didn't get the loans or got a minuscule amount comparatively speaking (especially to those who knew how to game the system). > in no way are PPP loans close to rape or murder in magnitude of harm so it’s an inflammatory analogy with no purpose It was meant as a comparative analogy (murder to rape, as PPP to <whatever is worse>) not from (rape as to PPP, as murder is to <whatever is worse>). That was my purpose - two bad immediately recognizable crimes in society with one being considered worse. > Would you rather have 1% bad loans or a wave of bankruptcies and layoffs triggering a depression that last 10 years? What about 10% bad loans? 50%? I'd rather have a civil debate about whether that's effective (see Japan's lost decade for comparisons of why quantitative easing has even longer potentially more disastrous issues). You're kidding yourself if you unilaterally think that the PPP program is the only way to alleviate yourself from a "wave of bankruptcies and layoffs triggering a depression that last 10 years". Again, we're just kicking the can down the road, like we always do.

mbesto 6y ago

> Most restaurants were closed by state orders and were faced with forcing employees to come off unemployment And yet those businesses either didn't get the loans or got a minuscule amount comparatively speaking (especially to those who knew how to game the system). > in no way are PPP loans close to rape or murder in magnitude of harm so it’s an inflammatory analogy with no purpose It was meant as a comparative analogy (murder to rape, as PPP to <whatever is worse>) not from (rape as to PPP, as murder is to <whatever is worse>). That was my purpose - two bad immediately recognizable crimes in society with one being considered worse. > Would you rather have 1% bad loans or a wave of bankruptcies and layoffs triggering a depression that last 10 years? What about 10% bad loans? 50%? I'd rather have a civil debate about whether that's effective (see Japan's lost decade for comparisons of why quantitative easing has even longer potentially more disastrous issues). You're kidding yourself if you unilaterally think that the PPP program is the only way to alleviate yourself from a "wave of bankruptcies and layoffs triggering a depression that last 10 years". Again, we're just kicking the can down the road, like we always do.