301–310 of 433 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There may have been a population with more human suffering than former slave owners.
But that suffering wasn't increased by paying off the former slave owners. If anything, it may have reduced it by making it politically feasible to end slavery earlier.
For example, a parliamentary compromise where such a trade-off is documented or something like that
I know a few upper-middle class small business owners (all non-retail sectors) whose businesses weren't substantially affected by the pandemic, but who basically got a free handout as part of the program. Two mentioned how they were initially hesitant to apply for money, but then worried that if they didn't, their business could take a downturn after it was too late. Then as long as they spent the money on payroll (w…
If you don’t show losses, and the loan was forgiven, it becomes taxable revenue. As a C corp, Trump got those taxes down to 21%, so it was only mostly free.
https://rsmus.com/what-we-do/services/tax/state-and-local-ta...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) Everyone, even those with extreme wealth, can be helped to see the benefit of raising the floor for everyone. There is a non zero possibility that anyone can lose their wealth, or their children or grandchildren end up losing it. In a world increasing ravaged by automation, UBI is an insurance policy not only for those in need now, but possibly for you and your progeny. 2) Wealthy elites will end up just as poor a…
Free handouts don't "raise the floor" in a sustainable, long-term, or asymptotically effective way. Every dollar spent on UBI would yield better returns being invested in essentially any kind of R&D, unless your time preference is very high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free handouts don't "raise the floor" in a sustainable, long-term, or asymptotically effective way. Every dollar spent on UBI would yield better returns being invested in essentially any kind of R&D, unless your time preference is very high.
Don't think of it as a free handout. Think of it as a dividend on your citizenship. Every person a shareholder of the nation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, if you agree with socialism for the rich and for the rich only this was great just like 2008.
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.
Preschool is like a 9-12x return on investment; it's bonkers.
Don't worry, that money went to job creators and it will definitely trickle down to everyone else!
No surprise there. Who are the rich? The politicians and bureaucrats who implemented these ideas, along with their buddies who fund their campaigns and junkets, and offer cushy board positions and lobbying gigs if they ever do leave their government posts.
Were there countries that did a better job than the US in regards to the economic response the pandemic, particularly with respect to fiscal stimulus? Is any other country as close the the US to prepandemic GDP trendlines? I wouldn’t be surprised if there are but I’m honestly not aware of them.
But that’s not necessarily due to the PPP. Stimulus checks and unemployment insurance were the majority of the $2.2 billion effort. European countries were more efficient with their version of PPP (and perhaps general pandemic assistance programs) because they leveraged existing programs that touched payrolls.
From the article:
> Many countries that kept workers in jobs had programmes in place already: some of the most successful—including France, Japan and Germany—simply increased coverage and benefits at the onset of the pandemic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, if you agree with socialism for the rich and for the rich only this was great just like 2008.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious too. But I would suggest that the U.S. has very deep pockets and can throw a lot of money at a problem. That doesn't mean it was a "smart" response by the U.S.
I think it’s totally fair to criticize the response and suggest it could have been better, I meant it more in terms of the people complaining never seem to entertain the counterfactual of how bad things could have ended up with no/poor fiscal response.
These programs were created quickly - some countries had better infrastructure to handle this than the US - but the alternative could have been an underwhelming response to an even larger problem.