11–20 of 161 posts
Looks like these reporters have missed the entirety of reddit, there is plenty of criticism there, from what I’m assuming amounts to thousands or millions of people.
I don’t understand this stuff. Politicians have directly ordered closures. If your bottom falls out from under you because you were playing fast and loose that seems inherently different than being told from above “you just cease your main method of generating revenue until we tell you otherwise.”
There is a much more fair way to do this. Firms simply issue new stock and sell it to the market. Firms get the capital they need, the general tax payer isn't holding the bag.
The QE and stimulus programs from 2008 were significantly more targeted toward the upper and upper-middle classes (arguably without that much trickle-down), and so there wouldn't be much significant inflation as measured by consumer price indices.
But if we look at the assets that rich people invest in (since it's mostly wealthier people who benefited from the 2008 stimulus programs), then I'd say there's been a significant amount of inflation - P/E ratios for stocks have been historically high in the last few years, real estate in desirable cities has gotten significantly more expensive, and bond yields have been low.
We seem to be already seeing some of the same, with the stock market being pushed up by the Fed's commitment to 4T+ in stimulus this time around and ever lower interest rates.
I don’t understand this stuff. Politicians have directly ordered closures. If your bottom falls out from under you because you were playing fast and loose that seems inherently different than being told from above “you just cease your main method of generating revenue until we tell you otherwise.”
You're asking me,(general tax payer) to give you money to ride out the storm, but you get all the private gains in the future while I take the risk now. There is a much more fair way to do this. Firms simply issue new stock and sell it to the market. Firms get the capital they need, the general tax payer isn't holding the bag.
In The Netherlands, our government reserved a special € 100 million for startups, because they are not eligible for the normal relief program because these startups have no revenue and "their succes is measured differently". In the grand scheme of things, € 100 million is peanuts of course. Still I found it baffling. I should also mention these are loans, but if the startups fail the government is still holding the b…
In general, a society where it is possible to pause all economic activity at any time is going to be much more robust than one that doesn't, and is going to reduce the impact of an apocalyptic event that the government cannot bail the society out of, possibly avoiding human extinction in the most severe cases.
For instance, if everyone stores several years worth of food and water at home, then even the most catastrophic events are much less likely to kill the vast majority of people in the world.
So, there is a moral hazard, and it may be wise to either minimize the bailouts or to make such resilience mandatory.
Looks like these reporters have missed the entirety of reddit, there is plenty of criticism there, from what I’m assuming amounts to thousands or millions of people.
The article seems to be about how the political response from conservatives seems to be muted, making the point that all their talk about small government, no regulation, and the evils of socialism appear to vanish the moment the people who need government assistance are millionaires and not common folk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're asking me,(general tax payer) to give you money to ride out the storm, but you get all the private gains in the future while I take the risk now. There is a much more fair way to do this. Firms simply issue new stock and sell it to the market. Firms get the capital they need, the general tax payer isn't holding the bag.
GP is making the point that in this case, the government caused the insolvency of these businesses in significant part through authoritarian closures, not through the irresponsibility of those running the business. Therefore the government (taxpayers) owe them recompense to make them whole.
Economic activity would decline substantially regardless of government action.
Well, not really: bailouts punish people and business who incurred costs to operate in a way that would allow them to pause their economic activity for months (cancellable supply/rent/employment contracts, cash reserves, etc.), and favors those who did not do so. In general, a society where it is possible to pause all economic activity at any time is going to be much more robust than one that doesn't, and is going to…