Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 433 posts

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#361

Post by Broken_Hippo »

kortilla wrote: post #338
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government makes money when they give poor people money, too, and not only that, but other folks make money too because poor folks tend to spend their money. This is without having to keep track and collect loans.

No it doesn’t. The government doesn’t get back the principal + interest like they did from the banks. You’re considering secondary effects, which would have also happened with the money loaned to the banks.

I don't have sources that I'm willing to look up, but no, not really. Trickle down economics doesn't work like promised.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#362

Post by ThunderSizzle »

pjc50 wrote: post #347
ryandrake wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US lacks the state capacity to tell who was going to have trouble with COVID-19 closures, and who wouldn't, so a whole lot of money just had to go to people that had no need for it whatsoever. I love how it’s so critical that we means-test individual welfare so that no dollar can possibly go to someone who doesn’t need it, but when it comes to means-testing corporations for handouts, all of a sudden it’s imposs…

Those are the political conditions imposed by the ruling party at the time; the measures did get actual money to the public, but to do so it was necessary to pay off everyone who might have objected.

There wasn't "ruling party". You had Trump as president, you had Democrats in firm control of the house, and Uniparty RINOs in charge of the Senate.

All three "worked together" to get their goals done, which for Congress, means ensuring kickbacks get paid.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#365

Post by biorach »

codeivore wrote: post #354
jdminhbg wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no one This is an article in the Economist decrying it, so I don't think you can claim that no one is worried.

yeah, an article in a publication where the authors are anonymous because the views published in it are painfully true enough to make you real life enemies

all of the economist articles are anonymous

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/09/04/...

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#366

Post by technothrasher »

rory wrote: post #60

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…

We felt a bit guilty taking some of the money from the handout, until we saw how much more all the companies around us took. It all got snatched up as quick as companies could adjust their numbers to qualify.

While we were affected by a reduction in orders at beginning of the pandemic , we would have survived without layoffs anyway. But we decided to take the money and hold on to it in case the situation got worse. Now we’re sitting on a pot of gold that is supposed to help our workers from losing their jobs, but our current biggest labor issue is short staffing.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#367

Post by Frost1x »

ejb999 wrote: post #351

I used to listen to a podcast I enjoyed about a small and rapidly growing tech company in Oregon, someone I had personally met a few years back at a conference - which is where I first learned of the company; they work in the e-commerce space and I enjoyed listening to the founder talk about the trials and tribulations of growing his company; when covid hit, the company grew like gangbusters (like just abut every onl…

>I will never understand rich people making money hand-over-fist and still willing to take money from taxpayers who make a fraction of what they do so they can have even more

The two are correlated because our economic system rewards that very cut throat greedy behavior. Those behaviors mixed with some luck and skill are often how those very people became rich in the first place.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#368

Post by toolz »

ejb999 wrote: post #351

I used to listen to a podcast I enjoyed about a small and rapidly growing tech company in Oregon, someone I had personally met a few years back at a conference - which is where I first learned of the company; they work in the e-commerce space and I enjoyed listening to the founder talk about the trials and tribulations of growing his company; when covid hit, the company grew like gangbusters (like just abut every onl…

So in your opinion it was the companies fault that they didn't purposely leave a competitive advantage on the table while their competition surely utilized it?

It seems that you judge from a place of detached ignorance. We are going through a pandemic and that business owner may very well be worried the bottom will fall out any moment and if that owner has employees it is their responsibility to prepare as much as possible during times of uncertainty.

I find it unethical that you would judge the company rather than blame the core root of the problem which is the incompetence of the handouts in identifying rather easily that this company was growing and thus not in need.

For all you know the owner would very much prefer he didn't qualify for those loans alongside their competition. Blaming the company solves nothing but does create division. Blaming the program, however, has the potential to solve every problem you have with the situation.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#369

Post by throwaway6734 »

technothrasher wrote: post #366
rory wrote: post #60

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…

We felt a bit guilty taking some of the money from the handout, until we saw how much more all the companies around us took. It all got snatched up as quick as companies could adjust their numbers to qualify. While we were affected by a reduction in orders at beginning of the pandemic , we would have survived without layoffs anyway. But we decided to take the money and hold on to it in case the situation got worse. N…

Pay more with that pot of gold you're sitting on?

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#370

Post by DebtDeflation »

rory wrote: post #60

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…

The bulk of the funds should have been allocated to retailers and restaurants that were literally forced to close by local and state orders.

Funds that went to large non-retail businesses, like airlines, should have had far more strings attached. As the CARES Act was written, it placed a 12 month moratorium on stock buybacks, dividends, and executive pay increases but allowed those restrictions to be waived by the Fed and/or Treasury on a case by case basis, and they often were waived. Those restrictions should have had a time horizon closer to 5 years, and no waivers should have been permitted.

In many ways, this mirrored the bank bailouts of 2008-9. If the government is going to save your corporation from extinction, then it needs to receive something in return - at a minimum, shareholders need to take a haircut as they would in a bankruptcy proceeding. The policy objective should have been to protect the overall economy from the demise of critical industries, not the preservation of existing shareholder wealth.

Post reply on HN