7 ms·

I think people need to start realising just how incredibly much the government is now stepping in at each of these crises to make them as smooth as possible. Bu

by zpeti 6y ago

I think people need to start realising just how incredibly much the government is now stepping in at each of these crises to make them as smooth as possible. But there is a downside to this. You are not allowing the normal economic effects to happen because you are wanting to keep everything as it is, but then guess what, the status quo stays, and anyone joining the ladder is finding it increasingly difficult. What's amazing is how the narrative around this however is that we need MORE government to set things right. Yet in the tech bubble the government blew up the real este bubble, in 2008 all the banks got saved along with loads of other insurance and other businesses, and now we have the largest stimulus packages ever. (on top of government subsidised student loans, which have made loads of money available for college, pushing up prices). It's counter intuitive but in the long run this is BAD for anyone that doesn't already have something. It inflates asset prices, it locks in people who already have something. It's bad for millennials. And millennials shouldn't be arguing for more government intervention, but less. Let things fail, so that the waste can get burned off. Unfortunately it seems a lot of people think things literally need to be burned down for there to be change. But let's be clear, 30-40 years of interventions by governments did this, which is exactly what left leaning people want of government.

augustt 6y ago
> Let things fail, so that the waste can get burned off I guess the waste here is people who simply can not pay for food or housing? What a naive take.
- tenaciousDaniel 6y ago
  Hm, maybe that's how the statement should be interpreted, but I was interpreting it in light of the "too big to fail" mantra after the 2008 recession. Lots of banks and auto companies were bailed out to keep them afloat. So I interpret it as "let companies go bankrupt".
- zpeti 6y ago
  No, it's zombie companies kept alive by stimulus cheques, and management who get to stick around and failing companies that should have gone under 20 years ago.
  - brational 6y ago
    a better solution is raising minimum worker benefits & protections, pigovian taxes as well where necessary, etc. If a company cannot earn enough money while meeting some basic minimum requirements to society then it should fail quickly. In the scenario you're asking for - the zombie companies just layoff employees, cut wages/benefits, landlords evict, etc. The zombie lives on just fine until the market corrects while everyone else fails. You're correct that failing companies need to fail but your "just let the free market handle it" approach is a fairy tale.
- mediaman 6y ago
  Yes. It's the sort of take by people who have made zero effort to study history or economics. "Keep the budgets tight" was the mantra in the early 30s in response to the depression. It took a World War that killed millions of people (and was -- surprise! -- a major artificial government stimulus) to get out of it. Yes, providing monetary liquidity and fiscal stimulus during times of extreme stress is not purely good. It can have an effect of keeping some companies alive that perhaps should not be. That is bad and we should try to minimize it in the context of a recovery effort. But the fact that it's not perfect is not a reason to claim that burning everything down and creating a decades-long horrible depression in which many die of starvation, and that cripples the country, is a preferable alternative. They think that if you let everything burn down then green shoots will pop up and everything will be happy and folks will rebuild and it'll be better and the government oughta get its snout out of our business and just let pure capitalism run its course and...
  - 0DHm2CxO7Lb3 6y ago
    > It took a World War that killed millions of people (and was -- surprise! -- a major artificial government stimulus) to get out of it. You are describing the broken window fallacy here. War and destruction doesn't help the economy. What happens in war is that useful resources in the economy are diverted from productive use and mutual beneficial trade to death and destruction.
    - mediaman 6y ago
      You're right that the broken window fallacy is a fallacy when the economy is not in a depression, but it can be a bit more situational and complex than that. When aggregate demand is "stuck" at a depressed level (high unemployment causes low demand, resulting in more low unemployment), the stimulus of war can actually help pull the economy out of its stuck position, even if the war is destructive. Of course, once it's no longer stuck, the continued destructive stimulus is just destructive. There are better fiscal ways to pull the economy out of a depression than war, because most wars don't pay much in the way of dividends, unlike large scale public works. But even if the stimulus isn't a great ROI in "normal" times, it can have a high ROI in "depressed" times due to its ability to get demand unstuck.
FridgeSeal 6y ago
Capitalism did this, governments intervened when it became necessary to prevent things from effectively burning to the ground because the market can’t/won’t fix it. Letting banks burn down in 2008 would no doubt have been a cathartic moment, but it would be pragmatically a poor decision. Immediately post-crisis those responsible should be held responsible and actual action should be taken, but we don’t elect governments to lead us and then have them do nothing in a crisis.
- cpursley 6y ago
  > Capitalism did this Source?
reflectiv 6y ago
> But let's be clear, 30-40 years of interventions by governments did this, which is exactly what left leaning people want of government. You Unironically say this yet Trump (a very right candidate) is the one pumping money into the economy to save his election chances. The reality is each party wants to spend money where it feels it is important. Republicans/right wingers have given up fiscal responsibility a LOOOOOONG time ago.
- zpeti 6y ago
  Let me be clearer then about my previous post, republicans are just as bad in practice. But the most vocal people who want government intervention are left leaning.
  - Falling3 6y ago
    So why call out the side that's at least honest about its intentions? If you think government intervention is a bad thing, isn't the side that's upfront and honest about its desired amount of intervention still better?
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      You can either take the view that the honesty is better or you can take the view that at least one party is sufficiently embarrassed by it that they don't proclaim it's a good thing and when they do it they hide it. He just didn't pick the same one as you.
      - Falling3 6y ago
        Forget political allegiance and let's be honest. By what metric is the blatantly hypocritical choice better?
wonderwonder 6y ago
"millennials shouldn't be arguing for more government intervention, but less" Your argument that government intervention is bad for millennials is flawed. Without government intervention such as eviction moratoriums, unemployment benefits and federal government stimulus checks there would have been massive homelessness. Prior to the pandemic 40% of americans could not cover a $400 emergency, all of these people would have been on the street without the government stepping in. At one point the unemployment rate as 15%. I cant really see how this would have been good for them. I would argue that specific and targeted government intervention such as complete student loan forgiveness would have a massive beneficial effect on millenials.
- thatcat 6y ago
  Some programs benefit them but the things you listed were secondary interventions, interventions. If there was no stimulus and business stayed open that would have benefited them.
- pnutjam 6y ago
  Burn it down is always a mistake in hindsight. There is alot of low hanging fruit to fix these issues; higher taxes; amendment to fix Citizen's United; revamp the Supreme Court.. All of these are easier then digging a shaft, jumping in, and trying to climb out. Speaking as someone who has no assets, no 401k, no home.
  - bryanlarsen 6y ago
    https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment thanks pnutjam
    - wonderwonder 6y ago
      Is a genetically modified human, or a person created through purely scientific means a natural person?
      - 6y ago
yuxt 6y ago
The issue is not really that the government is bad, the problem is it has become a proxy for ultra rich to push their agenda. You can probably make it more efficient by limiting corporate sponsorship and making it more transparent. Millennials don't have many options or tools at their disposal to influence the direction we are heading.
- pnutjam 6y ago
  Just gonna' leave this here: https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment
  - refurb 6y ago
    Please stop. You're posting the same link multiple times.
    - pnutjam 6y ago
      I didn't post the other link in the thread, it was posted as a response to my comment. I didn't realize it was there when I posted mine.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
vsareto 6y ago
This might be unpopular, but they're not going to let major things fail because of political reasons. Popular opinion thinks the US is declining, and failures only add to that perceived momentum. That's why there's endless stimulus. For letting major businesses fail, we really do have the resources to let those former employees do nothing but sit at home and use the internet all day and have no bills. But the US can't handle someone not working and still being able to pay their bills.
bjustin 6y ago
If we let large numbers of businesses fail, the people who have a lot of money now will buy up their assets and we'll come out with more concentrated wealth in society. I will grant you that the federal government in the US could have done better in some ways by just sending out checks to every citizen instead of loans to businesses, but I don't think that's what you had in mind when you talk about less government.

by zpeti 6y ago

augustt 6y ago

> Let things fail, so that the waste can get burned off I guess the waste here is people who simply can not pay for food or housing? What a naive take.

tenaciousDaniel 6y ago
Hm, maybe that's how the statement should be interpreted, but I was interpreting it in light of the "too big to fail" mantra after the 2008 recession. Lots of banks and auto companies were bailed out to keep them afloat. So I interpret it as "let companies go bankrupt".
zpeti 6y ago
No, it's zombie companies kept alive by stimulus cheques, and management who get to stick around and failing companies that should have gone under 20 years ago.
- brational 6y ago
  a better solution is raising minimum worker benefits & protections, pigovian taxes as well where necessary, etc. If a company cannot earn enough money while meeting some basic minimum requirements to society then it should fail quickly. In the scenario you're asking for - the zombie companies just layoff employees, cut wages/benefits, landlords evict, etc. The zombie lives on just fine until the market corrects while everyone else fails. You're correct that failing companies need to fail but your "just let the free market handle it" approach is a fairy tale.
mediaman 6y ago
Yes. It's the sort of take by people who have made zero effort to study history or economics. "Keep the budgets tight" was the mantra in the early 30s in response to the depression. It took a World War that killed millions of people (and was -- surprise! -- a major artificial government stimulus) to get out of it. Yes, providing monetary liquidity and fiscal stimulus during times of extreme stress is not purely good. It can have an effect of keeping some companies alive that perhaps should not be. That is bad and we should try to minimize it in the context of a recovery effort. But the fact that it's not perfect is not a reason to claim that burning everything down and creating a decades-long horrible depression in which many die of starvation, and that cripples the country, is a preferable alternative. They think that if you let everything burn down then green shoots will pop up and everything will be happy and folks will rebuild and it'll be better and the government oughta get its snout out of our business and just let pure capitalism run its course and...
- 0DHm2CxO7Lb3 6y ago
  > It took a World War that killed millions of people (and was -- surprise! -- a major artificial government stimulus) to get out of it. You are describing the broken window fallacy here. War and destruction doesn't help the economy. What happens in war is that useful resources in the economy are diverted from productive use and mutual beneficial trade to death and destruction.
  - mediaman 6y ago
    You're right that the broken window fallacy is a fallacy when the economy is not in a depression, but it can be a bit more situational and complex than that. When aggregate demand is "stuck" at a depressed level (high unemployment causes low demand, resulting in more low unemployment), the stimulus of war can actually help pull the economy out of its stuck position, even if the war is destructive. Of course, once it's no longer stuck, the continued destructive stimulus is just destructive. There are better fiscal ways to pull the economy out of a depression than war, because most wars don't pay much in the way of dividends, unlike large scale public works. But even if the stimulus isn't a great ROI in "normal" times, it can have a high ROI in "depressed" times due to its ability to get demand unstuck.

FridgeSeal 6y ago

Capitalism did this, governments intervened when it became necessary to prevent things from effectively burning to the ground because the market can’t/won’t fix it. Letting banks burn down in 2008 would no doubt have been a cathartic moment, but it would be pragmatically a poor decision. Immediately post-crisis those responsible should be held responsible and actual action should be taken, but we don’t elect governments to lead us and then have them do nothing in a crisis.

cpursley 6y ago
> Capitalism did this Source?

reflectiv 6y ago

> But let's be clear, 30-40 years of interventions by governments did this, which is exactly what left leaning people want of government. You Unironically say this yet Trump (a very right candidate) is the one pumping money into the economy to save his election chances. The reality is each party wants to spend money where it feels it is important. Republicans/right wingers have given up fiscal responsibility a LOOOOOONG time ago.

zpeti 6y ago
Let me be clearer then about my previous post, republicans are just as bad in practice. But the most vocal people who want government intervention are left leaning.
- Falling3 6y ago
  So why call out the side that's at least honest about its intentions? If you think government intervention is a bad thing, isn't the side that's upfront and honest about its desired amount of intervention still better?
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    You can either take the view that the honesty is better or you can take the view that at least one party is sufficiently embarrassed by it that they don't proclaim it's a good thing and when they do it they hide it. He just didn't pick the same one as you.
    - Falling3 6y ago
      Forget political allegiance and let's be honest. By what metric is the blatantly hypocritical choice better?

wonderwonder 6y ago

"millennials shouldn't be arguing for more government intervention, but less" Your argument that government intervention is bad for millennials is flawed. Without government intervention such as eviction moratoriums, unemployment benefits and federal government stimulus checks there would have been massive homelessness. Prior to the pandemic 40% of americans could not cover a $400 emergency, all of these people would have been on the street without the government stepping in. At one point the unemployment rate as 15%. I cant really see how this would have been good for them. I would argue that specific and targeted government intervention such as complete student loan forgiveness would have a massive beneficial effect on millenials.

thatcat 6y ago
Some programs benefit them but the things you listed were secondary interventions, interventions. If there was no stimulus and business stayed open that would have benefited them.
pnutjam 6y ago
Burn it down is always a mistake in hindsight. There is alot of low hanging fruit to fix these issues; higher taxes; amendment to fix Citizen's United; revamp the Supreme Court.. All of these are easier then digging a shaft, jumping in, and trying to climb out. Speaking as someone who has no assets, no 401k, no home.
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment thanks pnutjam
  - wonderwonder 6y ago
    Is a genetically modified human, or a person created through purely scientific means a natural person?
    - 6y ago

yuxt 6y ago

The issue is not really that the government is bad, the problem is it has become a proxy for ultra rich to push their agenda. You can probably make it more efficient by limiting corporate sponsorship and making it more transparent. Millennials don't have many options or tools at their disposal to influence the direction we are heading.

pnutjam 6y ago
Just gonna' leave this here: https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment
- refurb 6y ago
  Please stop. You're posting the same link multiple times.
  - pnutjam 6y ago
    I didn't post the other link in the thread, it was posted as a response to my comment. I didn't realize it was there when I posted mine.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

vsareto 6y ago

This might be unpopular, but they're not going to let major things fail because of political reasons. Popular opinion thinks the US is declining, and failures only add to that perceived momentum. That's why there's endless stimulus. For letting major businesses fail, we really do have the resources to let those former employees do nothing but sit at home and use the internet all day and have no bills. But the US can't handle someone not working and still being able to pay their bills.

bjustin 6y ago

If we let large numbers of businesses fail, the people who have a lot of money now will buy up their assets and we'll come out with more concentrated wealth in society. I will grant you that the federal government in the US could have done better in some ways by just sending out checks to every citizen instead of loans to businesses, but I don't think that's what you had in mind when you talk about less government.