4 ms·

Do "we" believe any of that? Everything you're suggesting here is just standard left-wing political worldview wrapped in a narrative device of "we believe <th

Do "we" believe any of that? Everything you're suggesting here is just standard left-wing political worldview wrapped in a narrative device of "we believe <the system works>, but really it doesn't". Also, ignoring fraud, wouldn't the flow of capital for PPP be primarily to the lower rungs, not from them? The money was to keep paying hourly wage employees in factories and retail while the business was shut down, right? Maybe I'm mistaken about how the program worked, but I thought it was essentially the government stepping in to provide funds for payroll.

Loughla 4y ago
>Also, ignoring fraud, wouldn't the flow of capital for PPP be primarily to the lower rungs, not from them? The money was to keep paying hourly wage employees in factories and retail while the business was shut down, right? That's sort of the entire narrative here, though. In theory, you are correct. BUT - the "loans" being forgiven across the board is, essentially, removing the step where businesses prove that the money was used for what it was supposed to be used for. So, absent concrete proof, it is easy to speculate that this was just another wealth transfer to the top. Will we ever know? Probably not. But it's one more thing to throw onto the outrage bonfire for every side. It gives the left something to talk about (look at the wealth transfer to the rich). It give the right something to talk about (look at this gross overspend by the government). It gives the middle something to talk about (look at how smart we are knowing that this would happen). And it's all political theater. These are my opinions. Edit: that being said, look at the comments in this thread for literal arguments that are examples of every single point in that last paragraph.
panarky 4y ago
That's a great example of the power of Orwellian naming. Only 25% of "Paycheck Protection" funds "trickled down" to workers, while 75% was hoarded by owners. If the objective is to get cash into the pockets of workers, you can just give it to them directly, and they'll get 100% of it. The only possible rationale for implementing a Rube Goldberg system like PPP is if you intend for the vast majority of the funds to get siphoned off by the wealthy long before it makes it down to workers.
- vkou 4y ago
  > If the objective is to get cash into the pockets of workers, you can just give it to them directly, and they'll get 100% of it. That objective was achieved by opening up the unemployment taps. The objective of PPP was to prevent the destruction of half the businesses in the economy, which would have had knock-on-effects that would have taken years and decades to fully unravel. Think of the bullwhip effect in supply chains that everyone's been bitching about for the past two years. Now, multiply it times ten, because half the participants in the economy collapsed, and their replacements have not gotten their shit together yet, and won't for another five years. Businesses collapsing, and ~identical businesses re-opening next year destroys massive amounts of value. The value was in the human knowledge, connections, contracts, and relationships between them and their suppliers/customers. You lose all of that. PPP was a stop-gap measure to reduce the # of these losses.
  - MarkMarine 4y ago
    I think you're thinking of this in a binary sense, like we can either pay the business owners and they will <maybe> pay their employees and then it will be forgiven OR we let those people lose their job and go on unemployment. Those aren't the only options, but even if they were, in the semi industry it was fairly common for the whole company I worked for to shut down for a week or two if the semi economy isn't cranking. We all went on unemployment or took vacation, and came back to our jobs when the company opened again. But, unemployment isn't the only thing we can use, because it does have strings. We expect you to be looking for another job every week, and proving it. The social security system is setup to distribute money to every American with a social security number, in a far more streamlined system. There are also nice systems in place that limit the amount you get from social security in the case that you're earning more than a limit. I think social security being extended to all Americans, letting them stay "at" their job even if it was shut down, and setting a floor for income at this time which would make sure the business owners were also able to buy their basic essentials, but not Lamborghinis, would have been the right move. I understand this would require something to help businesses with rent while they were unable to operate. A national rent holiday to cover the emergency of the pandemic would be one idea, or bailing out the banks that were effected. The way this was implemented isn't the only way it could be implemented is all I'm saying, lots of countries did it other ways, and they didn't collapse in on themselves at the end of covid. The PPP program is not the only solution to keeping workers connected to their jobs, but it sure did create a lot of opportunities for fraud. There are podcasts that took hundreds of thousands of dollars of PPP money. A podcast.

Loughla 4y ago

>Also, ignoring fraud, wouldn't the flow of capital for PPP be primarily to the lower rungs, not from them? The money was to keep paying hourly wage employees in factories and retail while the business was shut down, right? That's sort of the entire narrative here, though. In theory, you are correct. BUT - the "loans" being forgiven across the board is, essentially, removing the step where businesses prove that the money was used for what it was supposed to be used for. So, absent concrete proof, it is easy to speculate that this was just another wealth transfer to the top. Will we ever know? Probably not. But it's one more thing to throw onto the outrage bonfire for every side. It gives the left something to talk about (look at the wealth transfer to the rich). It give the right something to talk about (look at this gross overspend by the government). It gives the middle something to talk about (look at how smart we are knowing that this would happen). And it's all political theater. These are my opinions. Edit: that being said, look at the comments in this thread for literal arguments that are examples of every single point in that last paragraph.

panarky 4y ago

That's a great example of the power of Orwellian naming. Only 25% of "Paycheck Protection" funds "trickled down" to workers, while 75% was hoarded by owners. If the objective is to get cash into the pockets of workers, you can just give it to them directly, and they'll get 100% of it. The only possible rationale for implementing a Rube Goldberg system like PPP is if you intend for the vast majority of the funds to get siphoned off by the wealthy long before it makes it down to workers.

vkou 4y ago
> If the objective is to get cash into the pockets of workers, you can just give it to them directly, and they'll get 100% of it. That objective was achieved by opening up the unemployment taps. The objective of PPP was to prevent the destruction of half the businesses in the economy, which would have had knock-on-effects that would have taken years and decades to fully unravel. Think of the bullwhip effect in supply chains that everyone's been bitching about for the past two years. Now, multiply it times ten, because half the participants in the economy collapsed, and their replacements have not gotten their shit together yet, and won't for another five years. Businesses collapsing, and ~identical businesses re-opening next year destroys massive amounts of value. The value was in the human knowledge, connections, contracts, and relationships between them and their suppliers/customers. You lose all of that. PPP was a stop-gap measure to reduce the # of these losses.
- MarkMarine 4y ago
  I think you're thinking of this in a binary sense, like we can either pay the business owners and they will <maybe> pay their employees and then it will be forgiven OR we let those people lose their job and go on unemployment. Those aren't the only options, but even if they were, in the semi industry it was fairly common for the whole company I worked for to shut down for a week or two if the semi economy isn't cranking. We all went on unemployment or took vacation, and came back to our jobs when the company opened again. But, unemployment isn't the only thing we can use, because it does have strings. We expect you to be looking for another job every week, and proving it. The social security system is setup to distribute money to every American with a social security number, in a far more streamlined system. There are also nice systems in place that limit the amount you get from social security in the case that you're earning more than a limit. I think social security being extended to all Americans, letting them stay "at" their job even if it was shut down, and setting a floor for income at this time which would make sure the business owners were also able to buy their basic essentials, but not Lamborghinis, would have been the right move. I understand this would require something to help businesses with rent while they were unable to operate. A national rent holiday to cover the emergency of the pandemic would be one idea, or bailing out the banks that were effected. The way this was implemented isn't the only way it could be implemented is all I'm saying, lots of countries did it other ways, and they didn't collapse in on themselves at the end of covid. The PPP program is not the only solution to keeping workers connected to their jobs, but it sure did create a lot of opportunities for fraud. There are podcasts that took hundreds of thousands of dollars of PPP money. A podcast.