7 ms·

Sure, if you agree with socialism for the rich and for the rich only this was great just like 2008.

ChrisLomont 5y ago
Citizens took home trillions this time around. The 2008 money was loans, that were paid back with interest. The citizens this time around got socialism (and related inflation). 2008 had neither.
- JaimeThompson 5y ago
  Trillions?
  - jonas21 5y ago
    Yes, trillions. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/09/covid-relief-bills-us-has-spent-most-of-coronavirus-aid-money.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/09/covid-relief-bills-us-has-sp...
    - JaimeThompson 5y ago
      That is the total amount spent not the amount that citizens took home.
      - jonas21 5y ago
        Have a look at the first chart in the article. It shows $844B in stimulus checks and $666B in enhanced unemployment benefits. That alone is $1.5T paid directly to citizens, even without counting anything else.
      - ChrisLomont 5y ago
        Read the article 844B stimulus checks, 666B unemployment compensation, 145B other income security, 828B for paycheck protection (money lent to business to pay paychecks - goes to the people nearly as directly as the stimulus, and allows business to stay afloat).... It doesn't count the tax credits and other things that added to citizens handouts. A lot of the other categories went also directly to paying citizens. Read some about what happened.
abakker 5y ago
It is bad to keep citing 2008 money as if it were a handout. Much of the money was paid back with interest, and the government MADE money on those loans. Look up the “maiden lane” loans for an example.
- naasking 5y ago
  It's bad to keep countering complaints about 2008 as if the balance sheet is all that matters. The ethical complaints aren't about the money, but about the incentives and disincentives for certain behaviour, and the constant preferential treatment for a certain class of people above others. The cited reason for buying the bank debt instead of the home owner debt was "moral hazard", which actually applies to them both, but you don't need to guess which group was exempt from that consideration.
  - abakker 5y ago
    The worry was about creating moral hazard — the idea being that we would set a precedent that would drive the banks to be even more risk tolerant. Ultimately, everyone decided that the risk of bank collapse and bank runs were worse risks that the possibility that moral hazard would be the outcome.
    - naasking 5y ago
      Almost exactly the same argument applies to mortgage relief for the home owners, that's my point.
  - Aunche 5y ago
    >The cited reason for buying the bank debt instead of the home owner debt was "moral hazard" The moral hazard was the smallest of the problems. The complexity of how to do so seems like the much bigger issue. What does "buying homeowner debt" even mean when much of that debt has been securitized?
    - kbenson 5y ago

Citizens took home trillions this time around. The 2008 money was loans, that were paid back with interest. The citizens this time around got socialism (and related inflation). 2008 had neither.

JaimeThompson 5y ago
Trillions?
- jonas21 5y ago
  Yes, trillions. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/09/covid-relief-bills-us-has-spent-most-of-coronavirus-aid-money.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/09/covid-relief-bills-us-has-sp...
  - JaimeThompson 5y ago
    That is the total amount spent not the amount that citizens took home.
    - jonas21 5y ago
      Have a look at the first chart in the article. It shows $844B in stimulus checks and $666B in enhanced unemployment benefits. That alone is $1.5T paid directly to citizens, even without counting anything else.
    - ChrisLomont 5y ago
      Read the article 844B stimulus checks, 666B unemployment compensation, 145B other income security, 828B for paycheck protection (money lent to business to pay paychecks - goes to the people nearly as directly as the stimulus, and allows business to stay afloat).... It doesn't count the tax credits and other things that added to citizens handouts. A lot of the other categories went also directly to paying citizens. Read some about what happened.

abakker 5y ago

It is bad to keep citing 2008 money as if it were a handout. Much of the money was paid back with interest, and the government MADE money on those loans. Look up the “maiden lane” loans for an example.

naasking 5y ago
It's bad to keep countering complaints about 2008 as if the balance sheet is all that matters. The ethical complaints aren't about the money, but about the incentives and disincentives for certain behaviour, and the constant preferential treatment for a certain class of people above others. The cited reason for buying the bank debt instead of the home owner debt was "moral hazard", which actually applies to them both, but you don't need to guess which group was exempt from that consideration.
- abakker 5y ago
  The worry was about creating moral hazard — the idea being that we would set a precedent that would drive the banks to be even more risk tolerant. Ultimately, everyone decided that the risk of bank collapse and bank runs were worse risks that the possibility that moral hazard would be the outcome.
  - naasking 5y ago
    Almost exactly the same argument applies to mortgage relief for the home owners, that's my point.
- Aunche 5y ago
  >The cited reason for buying the bank debt instead of the home owner debt was "moral hazard" The moral hazard was the smallest of the problems. The complexity of how to do so seems like the much bigger issue. What does "buying homeowner debt" even mean when much of that debt has been securitized?
  - kbenson 5y ago