4 ms·
The intervention in the United States was haphazard and underfunded by the government. There was no reason for any business to go bankrupt while a proper lockdo
by bitdizzy 6y ago
The intervention in the United States was haphazard and underfunded by the government. There was no reason for any business to go bankrupt while a proper lockdown was implemented. Instead there was a spotty, inconsistent response with very little help for people. Like, one 1200 check for people and two loans for businesses?
It was the worst of all worlds and you're blaming it on the wrong people.
- bpodgursky 6y ago> Like, one 1200 check for people That's really dishonest. The unemployment insurance boost ($600/wk for many months), continuing in a limited fashion, was huge and expensive. And the PPP (even if there were execution problems) was a forgivable loan, basically a grant. A huge amount of money was pumped into maintaining employment.
- umvi 6y ago> There was no reason for any business to go bankrupt while a proper lockdown was implemented What does this mean? That the Fed will just print money to cover every business expense of every business during "proper" lockdowns? That seems like a terrible idea.
- karmicthreat 6y agoIsn't that exactly what the fed is doing for the wealthy right now by buying up the bond market? They are creating a furious amount of money currently with no end in sight. But if you are a smaller business you are just going to be left to rot.
- colinmhayes 6y agoIt means we should've pulled a China and shot people who tried to leave their house for a month. Then we wouldn't be in this situation.
- hotz 6y agoWow
- colinmhayes 6y agoI now truly believe that enough people are too stupid to be trusted to make good decisions.
- raverbashing 6y ago"Just print money" Yeah maybe they will have to buy less hundred dollar toilet cover for the military, or less last generation missiles, I think that should be more than enough to pay for it. Or maybe less subsidies for the oil industry.
- liability 6y agoIt's amusing that you think $100 for a toilet is wasteful, when that's about as much as a cheap toilet would cost at Home Depot. I don't think you've ever bought a toilet if you think that's too much to spend on one. Toilets that cost 2-3 times that are not uncommon.
- raverbashing 6y agoActually I was underestimating it https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/the-air-forces-10000-toilet-cover/2018/07/14/c33d325a-85df-11e8-8f6c-46cb43e3f306_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/the-...
- liability 6y agoCustom low volume parts are more expensive than off-the-shelf parts, who knew. Looks like they've since found a low cost alternative.