4 ms·

Yes, proof of impaired revenue or profit streams with a certain threshold should have been a requirement for PPP. Much lower income thresholds should have been

Yes, proof of impaired revenue or profit streams with a certain threshold should have been a requirement for PPP. Much lower income thresholds should have been applied to stimulus checks. Student loan debt should not have been paused for high earners. Interest rates should not have been pegged at 0 while asset bubbles formed over all asset classes. That's called rational and responsible policy. Enforcement could have been retroactive to avoid delaying disbursement of funds. It's not hard to write sensible legislation, even under a time crunch. And hardships come naturally to business all the time. It's not the government's role to save everybody in every situation. Companies that were financially irresponsible or poorly run should naturally fail when economic times get rough. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We saved everybody just to end up with massive inflation which will require forcing the economy into recession anyway, defeating the entire purpose and impact of the stimulus. Make no mistake, unemployment will spike in a big way as the Fed tightens, just as it has essentially every other time they had to tighten to curb inflation. The aid was right, the magnitude was far overdone. It will be quite obvious to historians, though it's obvious even now.

gamblor956 4y ago
Wow. Just wow. No point in trying to have a conversation with someone who is just going to rotely reiterate ideological talking points. But I will say on one point (Companies that were financially irresponsible or poorly run should naturally fail when economic times get rough.) These companies ere struggling because the government shut everything nonessential down. The point of the PPP was to make up for that fact that the government, during a global pandemic that killed millions wouldn't let people go to work. Next time you want to discuss the merits of the PPP, step outside of your tech bubble and think about what COVID was like for all of the non-tech companies whose functions can't be done from home.
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  What is ideological? Your responses indicates you have no understanding of nuance or magnitude in policy. Was it an all or nothing situation? No, not at all. So either you're being intentionally misleading, or lack critical thinking. The option in front of politicians wasn't do these bills in this exact form or nothing at all. Why act like it was? It's a false premise. Is it due to a bias in trying to justify the inflationary result? And you seem to lack understanding of the consequence of high inflation, which inevitably will be higher unemployment, hurting those you sought to help. Study any history of the relationship between monetary policy, inflation, and unemployment and it's pretty obvious.
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    LOLOLOL. I worked on economics policy in a prior life. I've forgotten more about economic policy than you've ever known. Inflation is not a bad thing; in fact, low-to-moderate inflation is desired. High inflation is not because it generally means that base or fixed cost growth (i.e., food and oil) is outpacing productive growth (pretty much everything else). The option in front of politicians wasn't do these bills in this exact form or nothing at all. Why act like it was? It's a false premise. No it wasn't, but it was the best package they could put together, and it took months to get that far due to ideologues blocking better/more efficient options. It's for armchair economists like you to debate the theoretical perfect relief package that they should have passed, in the non-existent fantasy la la land where that would have been possible. Of course, in that fantasy land, COVID wouldn't have happened, and our economy would not have become dependent on JIT inventory.
tanaros 4y ago
> That's called rational and responsible policy. While I wouldn’t say that the policy as implemented was optimal, I think it’s worth considering the conditions under which it was made. Each policy like this needs to balance the efficiency of the program with its coverage of those who need help. As an example, giving money to everyone unconditionally would have ensured full coverage, but it might not be very efficient. However, each restriction added to make the aid more targeted risks excluding people who genuinely needed help (reducing coverage) and _also_ increases costs since now the restriction needs to be tested, there needs to be an enforcement apparatus for those who violate it, etc. This is an uncertain calculus. Then there’s the political reality that policy is not created by a benevolent dictator but instead through compromise among many individual parties, each of which has their own agenda and priorities, some of whom are acting in bad faith. Each decision point leads to more debate (should this group be in or out? should this threshold be X or Y?) and hassle, while in the background there are people suffering right now. After some point, you have to give up and accept the imperfections just to get it done. Finally, politics being what they are, no matter how effective, helpful, and efficient the program is, the government’s reward for shipping the aid package is that the opposition party will decry it as wasteful and unnecessary. Every flaw will be amplified as part of their overall political messaging, and armchair analysts with the full benefit of hindsight will critique every decision. I can’t imagine that provides great motivation to put a lot of effort into polishing and tweaking the policy into perfection. All of this is not to say that we shouldn’t strive for better programs and government—we absolutely should—just that it is a tremendously difficult problem.

gamblor956 4y ago

Wow. Just wow. No point in trying to have a conversation with someone who is just going to rotely reiterate ideological talking points. But I will say on one point (Companies that were financially irresponsible or poorly run should naturally fail when economic times get rough.) These companies ere struggling because the government shut everything nonessential down. The point of the PPP was to make up for that fact that the government, during a global pandemic that killed millions wouldn't let people go to work. Next time you want to discuss the merits of the PPP, step outside of your tech bubble and think about what COVID was like for all of the non-tech companies whose functions can't be done from home.

adam_arthur 4y ago
What is ideological? Your responses indicates you have no understanding of nuance or magnitude in policy. Was it an all or nothing situation? No, not at all. So either you're being intentionally misleading, or lack critical thinking. The option in front of politicians wasn't do these bills in this exact form or nothing at all. Why act like it was? It's a false premise. Is it due to a bias in trying to justify the inflationary result? And you seem to lack understanding of the consequence of high inflation, which inevitably will be higher unemployment, hurting those you sought to help. Study any history of the relationship between monetary policy, inflation, and unemployment and it's pretty obvious.
- gamblor956 4y ago
  LOLOLOL. I worked on economics policy in a prior life. I've forgotten more about economic policy than you've ever known. Inflation is not a bad thing; in fact, low-to-moderate inflation is desired. High inflation is not because it generally means that base or fixed cost growth (i.e., food and oil) is outpacing productive growth (pretty much everything else). The option in front of politicians wasn't do these bills in this exact form or nothing at all. Why act like it was? It's a false premise. No it wasn't, but it was the best package they could put together, and it took months to get that far due to ideologues blocking better/more efficient options. It's for armchair economists like you to debate the theoretical perfect relief package that they should have passed, in the non-existent fantasy la la land where that would have been possible. Of course, in that fantasy land, COVID wouldn't have happened, and our economy would not have become dependent on JIT inventory.

tanaros 4y ago

> That's called rational and responsible policy. While I wouldn’t say that the policy as implemented was optimal, I think it’s worth considering the conditions under which it was made. Each policy like this needs to balance the efficiency of the program with its coverage of those who need help. As an example, giving money to everyone unconditionally would have ensured full coverage, but it might not be very efficient. However, each restriction added to make the aid more targeted risks excluding people who genuinely needed help (reducing coverage) and _also_ increases costs since now the restriction needs to be tested, there needs to be an enforcement apparatus for those who violate it, etc. This is an uncertain calculus. Then there’s the political reality that policy is not created by a benevolent dictator but instead through compromise among many individual parties, each of which has their own agenda and priorities, some of whom are acting in bad faith. Each decision point leads to more debate (should this group be in or out? should this threshold be X or Y?) and hassle, while in the background there are people suffering right now. After some point, you have to give up and accept the imperfections just to get it done. Finally, politics being what they are, no matter how effective, helpful, and efficient the program is, the government’s reward for shipping the aid package is that the opposition party will decry it as wasteful and unnecessary. Every flaw will be amplified as part of their overall political messaging, and armchair analysts with the full benefit of hindsight will critique every decision. I can’t imagine that provides great motivation to put a lot of effort into polishing and tweaking the policy into perfection. All of this is not to say that we shouldn’t strive for better programs and government—we absolutely should—just that it is a tremendously difficult problem.