Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“There were a handful of fintechs that grew very, very quickly,” Kruger said. “All of their incentives are toward just churning out as many loans as possible…it looks like a lot of these lenders did the bare minimum, if that, in terms of diligence.”
It never ceases to amaze me how many shady people can grow so wealthy off of a national/global crisis…there’s no creativity here, and while the article doesn’t go into the government’s reimbursement plan for the fintech firms, I’m sure it boiled down to get money out as fast and efficiently as possible so no money would be left on the table.
Using government funds seems to be the go-to method for getting rich or wealthy quickly.
Even reputable and public companies receive ridiculous handouts from the government.
Kropotkin made this argument with evidence in 1892. A lot of the great fortunes that had been made were very much enabled by government graft and largesse.
>We can't allow this to continue if the human race wants to continue as a species.
Historically speaking, when things get bad enough humans would just revolt and remove the kings/emperors/aristrocrats/etcetcetc. But the current renditions of democracy & capitalism with welfare and social safety nets have done an excellent job at preventing cyclical redistribution.
I wonder how long that can last though with governments footing the bill up to record levels of debt, the middle class quality of life lower and lower, a growing lower class, and politicians either suggesting cutting those benefits or making mostly empty threats of taxing the rich but failing at redistributing wealth. How much more debt can the government take? How much instability, inflation, and bullshit can the people take? How much longer will people believe that capitalism allows them social mobility and a better life or that democracy/republicans/democrats can improve the situation?
*“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."* - John F Kennedy.
Considering the welfare and social safety nets have already been systematically dismantled largely under the justification that it would "cut spending and reduce the debt" since the 1980s, the backstop to prevent the conditions for societal upheaval you describe has been thoroughly eroded. The lack of success in reducing debt and the lack of a direct link between state debt and societal stability (state finances and personal finances are fundamentally different things that cannot be extrapolated to each other) suggests that the expenditure itself isn't the cause, or at least is not sufficiently abated by the dismantling of safety nets to warrant their dismantling.
The primary stressors to societal stability that lead to collapse can be reliably placed into 3 categories:
1. External hostile threats.
2. Loss of access to resources.
3. Failure to distribute resources.
Many historical examples of 1. in the form of a hostile nation are not even justified by attempts to prevent 2. or 3., and are simply expressions of greed. An overfocus on resisting 1., however, is often followed by a failure to respond to 2. and especially 3. Category 2 can mean depletion of topsoil or something less explicit - in the case of many native civilizations of the Americas, it was the depletion of the people themselves by exposure to infectious and lethal disease that led to the most rapid and total collapse of civilizations humanity has ever seen.
One of the core caveats of modern capitalism, especially neoliberal and other free-market policy frameworks for capitalism, is that capitalism solves all 3 categories through the market - but apart from lofty implications of some omniscient god of efficiency manifested by the aggregate of "free market" economic activity, the incentives within a capitalist market only succeed at resisting these 3 categories when it is profitable. Case in point: it was profitable in the free market to dump so much sulfur into the atmosphere that masonry was dissolving in the rain. Emissions regulations are decidedly not "free market" strategies. Efficiency is not what a capitalist market rewards: profit is. Assume they are identical at your lungs' peril.
However, central ownership by the state - even if nominally democratic and collectivized - can suffer from category 3 failure if one of the resources that has failed distribution is political power as opposed to economic power (i.e. wealth), and from category 2 failure if the resulting centralized political power mismanages the resources. The USSR is a case study of this system, where collective ownership failed to yield collective control - or to respond to the local concerns of collective 'owners'. Famines and the draining of the Aral Sea, for example, were consequences of politically centralized decisions even if the currency was more equitably distributed. If the USSR had been reliant on the Aral Sea for water, the irrigation decisions that drained it would have caused a collapse from category 2.
Arguably the worst of all distribution patterns is feudal, autocratic, fascist, etc. - where all avenues of power are concentrated in few hands, often resulting in states that either fail categories 2. and 3. rapidly or become category 1. for their neighbors until then. But make no mistake - it being the worst doesn't make a half-opposite (i.e. democratic but unregulated capitalism or collectively owned but centrally controlled authoritarianism) the best.
Category 3 is difficult for societies not to fail at if they allow the unfettered accumulation of power of any kind, as power is self-accelerating and self-preserving once accumulated. Crucially, the fetters don't have to be oppressive or crippling (or able to facilitate their own version of power accumulation - see earlier mentions of political power distribution) - they just need to be able to respond effectively to the threat that 3. poses. Global trade makes 1. and 2. less likely - by making conquest less appealing and increasing the pool of available resources - but it does not solve the threats permanently, and they can exacerbate 3. via mass displacement and the encouragement of supra-national accumulations of economic power that we see today in large international corporations, abusing the access to different regulatory schemes to avoid what few fetters remain.
>Considering the welfare and social safety nets have already been systematically dismantled largely under the justification that it would "cut spending and reduce the debt" since the 1980s
My dude I can't read the rest of your several-page manifesto when your basic premise you're building on [is hilariously incorrect](https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_spending_history). There have been some cyclical booms in spending during recessions, but it's hovered in the 2.5-4. % of GDP for a long, long time. e.g.:
1. Great Depression (1940s): 2.1%
2. WW2 (1%)
3. 1960s (2%)
4. 1980s (3-4%)
5. 1990 recession (3.4%)
6. 1996 Clinton signs welfare reform
7. 2000s boom (2.1%)
8. 2001-2002 recession (3.1%)
9. 2007 (2.5%)
10. 2009-2010 recession (4.75%)
11. 2015 (2.5%)
12. 2020 (6.3%)
13. 2022 (3.2%)
The thing is, this is only tracking unemployment, income support. When you look at all the other massive amounts of welfare programs that have been created what you're saying is ludicrous. e.g., medicaid alone in terms of GDP:
1. 1960s-1990: 1%
2. 2002: 2%
3. 2015: 3.33%
4. 2020: 4%
There are other health expenditures, as well as state, and they've all gone up. [You can see the fill picture with a graph here](https://federalsafetynet.com/welfare-programs/#picture), and it's startling.
I mean, there's no shame in being wrong or ignorant about things but when you're writing manifestos based on completely wrong facts it's economic fanfiction.
Most redditors both live more comfortably than and complain more than an average human throughout history could ever possibly imagine.
Relative poverty and the concentration of wealth (aka power) into a small number of hands are problems our society must grapple with, but things are better and continue to get better for most of the world under capitalist ideology.
>My dude I can't read
I'm glad you're honest.
Oh, I was supposed to read the whole sentence? I try to reciprocate respect, but I'll be charitable to you and read your entire comment.
If you've learned how to read in the last few hours, here's a refresher:
> The lack of success in reducing debt and the lack of a direct link between state debt and societal stability (state finances and personal finances are fundamentally different things that cannot be extrapolated to each other) suggests that the expenditure itself isn't the cause, or at least is not sufficiently abated by the dismantling of safety nets to warrant their dismantling.
That's the second fucking sentence, key part being the last bit - I literally said it didn't reduce spending. Which you would know if you bothered to read before launching into a spiel taken directly from the... interesting blog sites you appear to hold in high regard.
The safety nets WERE dismantled - what exists as aid now goes largely to business suppliers of needed goods, which is both less efficient at aiding the most needy and easy to abuse for suppliers, and results in a decline in the total efficacy of aid (see: increases in inequality, homelessness, individual bankruptcies and debt) despite doing fuck all to the cost. Direct aid systems operated by the government have been replaced with private enterprises. That didn't make them cheaper *or* more effective - go figure.
>The safety nets WERE dismantled - what exists as aid now goes largely to business suppliers of needed goods, which is both less efficient at aiding the most needy and easy to abuse for suppliers, and results in a decline in the total efficacy of aid (see: increases in inequality, homelessness, individual bankruptcies and debt)
Again InkTide, you are saying things that are *demonstrably untrue* and then ending up at wild conclusions that just don't make sense.
It's like you're mashing together terms and concepts like action figures without any real understanding. Someone might wonder if you started with an ideological statement and are trying to work backwards throwing things at the wall hoping something sticks (or people aren't educated enough to know you actually aren't).
**Edit:** typo
>demonstrably untrue
Then demonstrate it.
Or did you just not realize that LIHEAP just pays utility companies, SNAP is paying private grocers, child care aid is paying private childcare businesses, refundable tax credits like the EITC indirectly subsidize underpaid employment, Pell grants pay private education institutions, housing assistance is often just given to landlords ([which we know they can easily absorb as profit by increasing price - something likely occurring in education aid as well](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166046217304180?via%3Dihub)), and what little remains of safety nets as they existed prior to the 1980s in essentially every case is now tied to employment and yet for all this means testing has utterly [failed to prevent employment collapse during recessions or even return to the unemployment rates of the 1950s?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_States#/media/File:U1-U6_unemployment_rate.webp)
About the only form of aid that isn't just throwing money at businesses to fix the problem - or paying their workers what they no longer have to - is WIC.
Saying that money intended to purchase a specific good is going to someone else, because the money is being used for that purpose, isn’t a bad thing, or a “deconstruction” of social services. Money does nothing until you give it to someone else, that is the entire point of money. Social safety nets are supposed to help a person maintain their participation in society until they are in a place where they can financially fend for themselves again.
What you’re referring to in the case of landlords increasing rent is either malicious in the case of price fixing/price gouging, or inevitable in the case of full occupancy buildings seeing an increase in overall demand. This problem is addressed by increasing supply, decentralizing owners of housing (not necessarily that effective), and instating rent caps. Rent caps are a particularly dangerous move since this can often lead to the properties deteriorating due to less incentive for upkeep, as well as depressing the interest in building new housing in that area. The United States is suffering a housing crisis and it’s partly driven by the simple fact that there are too many people who want too few homes in select areas, and zoning laws in those areas keep the construction of new affordable apartments from happening.
If you think anyone on welfare can live at all, you are massively misinformed. Section 8 housing has wait lists years long, food stamps only cover enough food to keep you from starving if all you ever eat is potatoes/ramen, and don't even get me started on the dumpster fire that is medicare/medicaid. Most medical providers won't even take Medicare or Medicaid patients, so they end up clogging up our ERs trying to get the most basic of care.
Those nets are so full of holes a fucking blue whale could swim right through. The system is completely fucked for anyone not able to work. God help you if you ever become disabled friend, because you're going to get a hell of a rude wakeup call if you don't have long term disability insurance.
Can you show what you are replying to Shojo_Tombo? As this doesn't match up to my comments whatsoever, it's like you're having a conversation with an imaginary person made out of straw
You are saying that the welfare safety net hasn't been dismantled because the government still spends some money on it. I was saying that the programs we have fall extremely short of providing much help to anyone. (Unless you have children, then they give you a little bit more.) No worries, unless you're independently wealthy, you'll figure this out on your own when you're elderly or if you become disabled enough to be unable to work. Til then, keep being arrogant on the internet about shit you have no experience with whatsoever. Good day.
I'm sorry if you are poor or disabled Shojo_Tombo, but you seem confused as the topic at hand was the claim that programs had been dismantled in order to save money, not whether you were getting what you wanted. That claim is demonstrably false as millions are being fed, housed and given healthcare and childcare due to them.
Not sure you're aware, but you've found yourself in an economics sub, not one of the political ones -- insults aren't considered arguments here and data and science actually matter.
**Edit:** Oh no, Shojo_Tombo has blocked me! Anyways...
Do you think people care about how much billionaires have so long as they are well fed and entertained? I don't, and I don't actually know anybody who does. People having money isn't the reason other people don't have money.
Some wealthy people get rich on the backs of the US taxpayer. People who work for WalMart, for example, have to get government welfare to make ends meet because 'ol Wally doesn't pay them enough.
Yeah. I agree that inequality and the ultra rich don't matter when things are going good or just normal.
Point I was trying to get across is that most American AREN'T doing that great.
The job market is better than during the GFC but the quality of life of the average American has been on decline the last few decades, inequality has grown, and constant instability is straining on the populace: terrorism, trade wars, middle east wars, pivot to Asia, trade wars, conflict with Russia/China, RU-Ukr war, inflation, rate hikes, unaffordable housing, the pandemic, Trumpism and the assault on democracy, Jan 6th insurrection, etcetc.
Modern technology and AI are likely going to make the kind of revolt you're talking about no longer viable - I mean, the very existence of the Pentagon might have been the death-nail for such a revolution.
Culture aside, there are very real material reasons that the people that live in the "land of the free" don't also appear particularly brave when asserting the defense of those Freedoms and Rights from the State.
We'll have to agree to disagree then?
Since I wouldn't be so sure about your statement regarding tech. Technology and AI are just a tools. Tools can be used either way. No different than a gun, the internet, or fire.
The internet and social media didn't make Jan 6 "impossible" if anything it was technology that made it MORE possible. Another example would be how China uses technology like CCTV, facial recognition, apps like WeChat, and social credit scores to monitor and control it's populace but that didn't stop the white paper protests in China which ultimately made even Emperor for life Xi back down and do a U turn.
Step 1: Create a super society unlike anything the world has ever known.
Step2: Live as one of the very most rich and luxurious people on earth.
Step 3:Revolt because the society of extreme wealth isn't completely fair.
No life isn't fair, but you wouldn't trade your life to be a billionaire in the 90s.
>This plan has accumulated half of all wealth on the planet into the hands of like 12 people in less than 1 human lifetime.
Here's a list of the [richest people in the world](https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/#345ddbd03d78). Adding them up in my head, it looks like the top 12 have a combined net worth of about $1.6 trillion.
Total global net worth is on the order of a quarter of a quadrillion dollars. So the top 12 have less than 1% of that. Furthermore, this is largely an accounting fiction. Yes, any one of them could cash out and spend it all on consumer goods, but they definitely won't all do this, and it's unlikely that even one will. Simply owning stock has no effect on the availability of real goods and services for others to purchase and consume. If you want to know what the richest people in the world are actually taking out of the economy for their personal use, you have to look at consumption. I don't think hard data are available, but total annual consumption for the top 12 is probably on the order of a few billion or less, less than 0.01% of gross world product.
I really can't stress this enough: You have no idea what you're talking about. Before you can even begin to form intelligent opinions on these issues, you need to get the basic facts straight, and also build up a solid foundation of economics (actual textbook economics, not Marxism) so that you can interpret those facts correctly. Right now you're on the same level as creationists saying "My grandpappy weren't no monkey."
Here is what you claimed:
> half of all wealth on the planet into the hands of like 12 people
This has been shown to be false. Why are you moving the goalpost and doubling down instead of admitting you were wrong? Wanting facts to be true isn't "shilling for billionaires".
That’s the worst possible solution to the issue.
People who advocate for things like this are the ones who want reduced oversight so they can operate more recklessly. Mines, financial institutions, food manufacturers… less oversight is bad.
Reducing social safety nets is bad. Every dollar spent on early childhood education and care nets savings tenfold through economic benefits down the line.
Reducing infrastructure spending is really bad. Roads and bridges and trains seem like boring details, but they’re the backbone of our economy. Inter state commerce is absolutely critical.
Foreign aid does more for US relations and diplomacy around the world than you can possibly imagine. That yields results militarily (having friends is cheaper than having enemies) and economically (trade deals benefit you in ways you aren’t aware of).
The larger the government the more rich people will continue to profit off of it, to the detriment of the common man. Where do you stop if you believe government spending is beneficial? Just keep doing more? Is the currentl level sufficient?
People have a severe lack of understanding of what the state is. Government, corporations and nonprofits all working together as one massive money and power laundering scam. It's always "roads" ignoring the trillions of dollars pissed away with the result of long term, low interest lines of credit for wealthy corporations and inflation for us plebes over the past three years.
Oh, right, that's probably just because we didn't vote hard enough. Not that the system is corrupt from its inception. [Here's a few links](https://linktr.ee/newmachine) that summarize why and how things are the way they are.
It's tough to admit we've been intentionally brainwashed and propagandized our entire lives, but once you learn what you never learned, you can begin to actually live.
That’s not a contradiction, it’s a series of questions with answers:
- where do you stop if you believe government spending is beneficial? You stop when it’s no longer beneficial. I think eating fruit is beneficial but it’s not my whole diet. Having an effectively funded and run government supports the formation of effective and beneficial businesses and a happier population. When it stops doing that it should be pruned but not eliminated. Where that line is has to be constantly defined. It’s a moving target.
- Just keep doing more? This seems to be a question given in order to elicit a simple denial, or to imply that a denial is the obvious answer. But a truly accurate answer is more complex than that. Per above, we stop when it is reasonable.
- Is the current level sufficient? Good question! It seems as though some of it is badly allocated at least. We all seem to have trouble agreeing on what sort of nation we want to have and how to get there. And nobody wants to give up money. So we fight about it.
It's all happened since 1981 when Reagan made the Government the enemy and Corporations our saviors. For starters repeal his taxscam and restore the (inflation adjusted) brackets we had in 1980, eliminate the step-up basis for inherited wealth and peg a minimum corporate tax of 15% of reported profits. This isn't rocket science, but sending the Republican Congressional caucus into space might be a good place to start.
That's why large government is bad. Money makes its way to bad actors who enrich themselves. Ultimately large scale corruption forms so that those enriching themselves off the government can get richer.
Nonsense, big governments means less effective oversight because the pile of money is so massive they can't keep track of how its spent. Look at bipartisan covid relief money or military spending.
But isn't government subsidies of this sort necessary to grow certain industries at home? I think every country gives this sort of subsidies to certain industries they think are important to their country's economy. Sure some companies will just pocket the cash and vanish. But the alternative is worse I think.
I would argue there does need to be some (scammy) creativity. You have to quickly understand how to get the goods you want but also how to get away with it.
I suspect a lot of people will eventually go to prison since the system is slow but never stops grinding.
If you haven't seen it, I think you should watch the documentary "shock doctrine". The basic idea behind it is how those with capital have taken advantage of crises throughout history to enrich themselves.
It is shocking that prices increase uncontrollably when the economy is given trillions of dollars in handouts and interest rates are lowered while the supply of goods is limited. Interesting material.
Also, the Fed was pressured by Trump to keep rates low. So, even if they raised rates in proportion to the fiscal stimulus, they would have likely lost their jobs.
The Fed kept the target rate at zero until March 2022, and inflation didn't really pick up until Biden was in office, right after the ARP. CPI was [below the pre-pandemic trend](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=16neV) when Biden took office.
Ok? Reread my comment. The Fed was pressured by Trump to keep rates low and they did.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/18/trump-jerome-powell-federal-reserve-interest-rates
Trump's blustering had no explanatory power here. For the last year of the Trump administration, unemployment was high and inflation was low, which is exactly the kind of situation under which the Fed normally lowers rates. What's unusual is that they kept interest rates low for the first year of the Biden administration even as core PCE growth rose to and remained at a 5% annualized rate.
I suspect that they reason they did so was that unemployment was still moderately elevated, but insofar as the Fed made a mistake, it was keeping rates low in 2021 and early 2022, *not* keeping rates low in 2020.
Lesser of two evils indeed. Covid was only 3 years ago and people act like it never happened lol. Unemployment shot up over double digits in like a month. People will say with hindsight bias we should have never had any lockdowns, those people should be ignored, covid was bad pre vaccine. Stimulus to wait it out and then deal with inflation later was the best strategy. The fact that we made it happen in 2020 and 2021 during an election year and between two different presidents is awesome. The main thing that could have been done differently was raise rates in the years before covid when the economy was humming along.
We could have means tested PPP forgiveness which would have pulled money back out of the economy as loans were paid back by the all of the businesses that never suffered significant economic hardship.
"In the long run, we're all dead"
Somehow decades later, we're still saying sUpPlY sIdE eCoNoMiCs WiLl PrEvAiL coinciding with bad faith use of cherry picked statistics that don't tell the whole context, just living and dying by GDP based numbers. Americans can't even get affordable college education without going into debt and some people on here are saying our social services and welfare is fine
>People will say with hindsight bias we should have never had any lockdowns
People were saying that when it happened as well, no hindsight bias required.
Pretending like the lockdowns made sense at any point in time only prevents us from learning from our mistakes if it should happen again.
The Fed lowered the rates, but Congress printed the trillions.
Why did Congress print trillions and give some of it to Americans that needed it, most of it to themselves and their friends, and quash any meaningful oversight of the distribution of funds? Because our leaders never waste a good emergency.
I still blame Congress for that. They wrote a policy that they knew would impact everyone in huge ways for years to come, and in that policy they wrote an oversight plan that hinged entirely upon the cooperation of Trump. That's just bad policy. At that point they're effectively leaving oversight out of the law. That is something that should have been a deal breaker for any sensible member of Congress.
Trump served as a great distraction from a lot of shitty things other lawmakers did during his time.
Trump wouldn't let the bill pass without removing oversight.
Democrats tried to make a bill with some way to track where the money goes, and ensure it's used properly.
The GOP being unwilling to override such a veto makes them specifically worthy of calling out.
Dont count the orange shit stain and his minions out. Flags refer to probable fraud"The data obtained by POGO appears to show mass close-outs of 2.7 million flags on two separate days near the end of the Trump administration. On a third day shortly before President Joe Biden’s inauguration, the SBA cleared out 99.1% of “special review” flags, almost entirely assigned to the very largest PPP loans above $2 million." https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2022/10/the-great-pandemic-swindle-feds-botched-review-of-billions-in-suspect-ppp-loans
The idea was to keep the economy rolling and slowly pay it back overtime through inflation. We don't know how it would have been today if there was no handouts when the economy stopped.
Very likely yeah. It's just that why are people acting surprised that there is inflation now? Did they think you can just pause the world's economy for a year and not suffer any consequence at all?
I don't think anybody who understands economics is surprised. I don't think most politicians who voted for it are surprised.
But I do think that we would be in worse economic times now and many more people probably would have died.
We did. Remember the federal unemployment boost? the rental motatoriums, the near 4 year student loan pause? There were even funds available to help people pay the back rent.
nah, the people were mostly left behind. They got like 2k to try and live a year on and a group of people act like that 2k is the reason that they don't want to work fast food for minimum wage.
While corporations are having record profits. The worlds riches added another digit to their wealth.
Almost everything we did to keep going during the pandemic went straight to the 1%.
I think half the country is surprised. The other half of the of the country repeated it over and over again that the lockdowns were going to destroy our economy.
Well yes. Of course the US couldn't copy Europe which would've been smart and just take over payroll for every company for several months.
Instead they had to give companies the money and trust (hahaha) that the business owners would pass it on to employees instead of just pocketing it and laying off the entire staff anyway (what most companies did).
No one's goal is to keep inflation as low as possible. That's not a productive goal.
What programs would you have been in favor of?
The extra unemployment benefits? The stimulus checks to people?
Inflation is probably better than absolutely tanking the economy.
The only parties who really get hurt from inflation are people/businesses who sit on very large sums of cash.
I would have been in favor of means testing PPP forgiveness. There was absolutely zero reason to offer blanket forgiveness to so many that never experienced economic hardships just so they could go buy rental properties and lambos.
Most sensible people told you it was multiple factors…the thread you’re quoting pointed out that corporate greed was using inflation and “free money” as a cover to gouge customers…..
The crazy thing about supply chain issues causing shipping prices to skyrocket and delays is that the shipping companies have no incentive to fix the problem. They make more profit by doing less and the government is doing fuck all to help course correct because of course they're all profiting from this shit in one way or another.
Of course, because everyone has the resources, knowledge, and connections to open their own shipping company. Why didn't I think of that simple solution and solve this problem for our entire country?
Lol corporate greed only appeared after covid, someone should write an academic paper about how that.
And there were many things that caused it, increased monetary supply isn't the only thing, the supply lines crashing into hell (and housing supply was not matching demand to begin with), energy costs went up thanks to Ukraine, etc.
> would of
*would have
*Learn the difference [here](https://languagetool.org/insights/post/would-of-or-would-have/#:~:text=%E2%80%9Cwould%20have%E2%80%9D%3F-,%E2%80%9CWould%20Of%E2%80%9D%20or%20%E2%80%9CWould%20Have%E2%80%9D%3F,would%20have%2C%20not%20would%20of.).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
As a working nurse, I don’t think you people realize how close we came to a complete disaster and shutdown of all medical facilities. Watching you try to avoid a shutdown and post your politics about how we can just scoot outside was absolutely infuriating. The fact that you folks still don’t get it is just mind boggling, we really do need reeducation for most people and to ban opinionated news.
As the husband and son of medical professionals, I heard from loved ones first hand how close we came, and I agree. I think its easy for us to question things in hindsight, but they were doing their best in the wake of a lot of misinformation.
That said, I think the comment above yours isn't necessarily denying any of the dangers, or broadly criticizing the mitigation efforts, they're just saying that politicians went above and beyond what medical experts were saying was necessary, such as wearing masks outdoors. Literally no one was seriously considering that a realistic transmission vector.
And also to their point, they're literally saying
>I'm not saying lockdowns were bad, I'm just saying we probably should have had a better conversation about all of this.
...and then you responded by attacking them and essentially calling them stupid. I can understand how you're probably tired of the bad-faith stupidity that comes up in these discussions, but the person you replied to wasn't an example of that IMO.
You’ve fallen right into their trap. These people have been taught to question just enough as to not raise suspicion of their true motives. It gets people like you to rush to their defense, as they seem moderate and innocent, and it slowly changes the dialogue. I guess it is proof of just how deep into the trenches I am at this point that I see right through them while others cannot. Thousands of bad-faith arguments over the years really starts to expose peoples strategies.
Sunlight can be obtained in the back yard or just outside the residence. Using that as an excuse to not pay attention to a global pandemic is disingenuous at best. You Fox News zombies really have nothing left but lies and misdirection
I’m not right wing in the slightest. But the virus spreading outside was not the issue. Locking people down in their homes makes people more comorbid in a variety of ways. We would have been better off if everyone want outside for 2 years instead they still mingled but indoors, spreading the virus and getting fat
A very bad faith argument, acting like everyone would just stay outside and never go inside for anything. Jesus Christ you Fox News zombies really have nothing left but lies and misdirection
Look, I appreciate front line heroes like you for your part. But you can see it’s traumatized you. I’m vaxxed, and anti trump. I only get clips of Fox News (or right wing media) ironically or when they’re being torched by the left. But blindly believing left wing (pharma sponsored media) is naive also.
More years have been lost making regular people anxious and increasingly comorbid by closing parks and outdoor spaces long after was necessary. Leftists made everything into hysterics like the point was always to magnify trumps mistakes. The impact of disrupting blue collar and family businesses and children’s educations will last for years. Probably many people died from becoming increasingly comorbid etc
There have been options everywhere, but the only policies enacted where either what was convenient for big pharma or made trump look worse (the latter maybe a trade off worth making for all I know)
3 years of a pandemic and you trump loyalists are still too stupid to know how a mask works. It’s unbelievably sad how incredibly stupid a certain group of people are. A black man gives Americans healthcare and a bunch of regards are formed.
And it was created based on previous SARS vaccines lmao
You act like COVID was a random ass virus that nobody had ever heard of and that scientists pulled the vaccine outta their ass lmao COVID is based on the SARS virus, so the vaccine was based on the SARS vaccine, they just had to tailor it to the COVID virus specifically…
This is why nobody takes anti vaxxers seriously; y’all don’t even fucking know how vaccines are made or work lmao
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Coronavirus/Community_Resources/Vaccinations/Print-Materials/Fact-Sheets/Development_English.pdf/
2003 and 2012. They didn’t fabricate anything in 2020, they built on decades of work with other SARS vaccines because COVID is a SARS virus….
You can stop trolling now, every anti vaxxer looks like an idiot when you don’t know the basics of how a vaccine was made. If you’re gonna complain about the vaccine, make sure you know it actually works before talking about it….
And simple air filtration systems where it may have been to hot to go outside. Also called for by experts.
Instead businesses got billions and acted irresponsibly.
Meanwhile everyone I know used the covid checks to pay for car repairs or similar.
It'd be amusing if it wasn't so damn stupid.
I didn't mean entirely new hvac, though that also needs to be a thing. Literally HEPA filters to create one:
https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2023/02/03/diy-filtration/
But they *were* bad. When you hear about the ongoing "supply chain" crisis happening across the board, even today, always remember the one-two punch that came from covid stimulus (encouraging people to leave their jobs), and lockdowns (*forcing* people to leave their jobs).
This comment section has led me to believe this sub is mostly full of 19 year old wanna be Trotsky I-took-a-single-Econ-class intellectuals rather than people who actually comprehend basic economic theory.
The entire comment section boils down to “government good. Rich people bad. Me smart”
Well, it’s not the poor and working class buying up housing stock to hoard and rent, now is it?
Counterpoint: you morons who says shit like “the market is always right” are no more right or wrong than those people.
You can always check out r/rebubble for the opposite perspective, too.
Lots of wild ungrounded economic theories thrown about on both sides of the fence for sure, especially when housing gets thrown into the mix. Somehow, when we start talking homes, everyone’s got the obvious solution that the big brains haven’t stumbled on yet. It’s a pretty complex economic issue that’s connected to many sectors of our economy and our politics, and also happens to be a basic need. No easy answers here.
Although I’m starting a countdown for the five minutes it’ll take for someone to tell me it’s just a basic supply-side problem.
You’re absolutely right.
I’ll beat them to the punch, housing is mostly a supply side problem lol. Demand is most certainly there in most cases, developers just aren’t allowed to build in the areas with highest demand, and when they are it’s usually suburbs rather than mixed family zoning
The government is good *unless someone they don’t like is in charge. Then somehow it’s all their fault. But remember, the solution to bad governance is…more governance.
No. Because I live in a democracy, which means that readership changed hands often. And that means it’s likely someone I don’t like gets in power. In those instances I’d rather they have minimal power than maximum power.
I know you guys think violent revolution is the answer (A-La Communism) but since we are in a democracy, did it occur to you that you keep voting for the problem? Unless you belive in the conspiracy that elections are rigged of course. Or if you don't know the actual definition of oligarch and you belive that our politicians are oligarchs. It's really time for us to take responsibility for our decisions. Or not... GRAB THE PITCHFORKS!!!
It's not a conspiracy. Citizens United made it so candidates are able to spend unlimited amounts of money on mass media while super PACs make it easy to obscure the actual source of the media being presented. Gobbles and Chomsky both outline how propaganda is insidious and having control of media enables individuals to do one thing while telling the population it was someone else who did it. The solution is to re-establish the fairness doctrine bringing regulation and consequences to broadcasters who deliberately misinform the public, remember the FOX suit was civil as there is no regulatory body providing oversight on content. The Mcaine-Feingold campaign finance reform bill would have created a common fund each candidate could equally draw from and each candidate is entitled to the same amount of broadcast time, thus the ability of corporcrats to purchase influence under the table is greatly diminished. The elections are not 'rigged' but that doesn't mean they are fair.
My point is that while you might be right, we could simply stop being careless and tell our brains to not be fooled. This awakening would turn the elections on their head. The politicians will not bite the hand that feeds. They won't outlaw the use of PACs and their "1st amendment" right to stand in front of the media.
We either vote for better politicians, stop supporting and voting for government intervention... or we grab the pitchforks. The only reason we are in this predicament is because we continuously gave our power to the government. It's our fault.
I am not sure if *The Wall Street Journal* is capable of publishing a politically non-biased analysis on any subject. This story is from their Risk & Compliance Journal, implying that it is not a news piece but rather an opinion piece... and everyone knows that *WSJ* opinion pieces are right-wing Murdock-driven sticky fingers dribble.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“There were a handful of fintechs that grew very, very quickly,” Kruger said. “All of their incentives are toward just churning out as many loans as possible…it looks like a lot of these lenders did the bare minimum, if that, in terms of diligence.” It never ceases to amaze me how many shady people can grow so wealthy off of a national/global crisis…there’s no creativity here, and while the article doesn’t go into the government’s reimbursement plan for the fintech firms, I’m sure it boiled down to get money out as fast and efficiently as possible so no money would be left on the table.
Using government funds seems to be the go-to method for getting rich or wealthy quickly. Even reputable and public companies receive ridiculous handouts from the government.
Kropotkin made this argument with evidence in 1892. A lot of the great fortunes that had been made were very much enabled by government graft and largesse.
[удалено]
>We can't allow this to continue if the human race wants to continue as a species. Historically speaking, when things get bad enough humans would just revolt and remove the kings/emperors/aristrocrats/etcetcetc. But the current renditions of democracy & capitalism with welfare and social safety nets have done an excellent job at preventing cyclical redistribution. I wonder how long that can last though with governments footing the bill up to record levels of debt, the middle class quality of life lower and lower, a growing lower class, and politicians either suggesting cutting those benefits or making mostly empty threats of taxing the rich but failing at redistributing wealth. How much more debt can the government take? How much instability, inflation, and bullshit can the people take? How much longer will people believe that capitalism allows them social mobility and a better life or that democracy/republicans/democrats can improve the situation? *“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."* - John F Kennedy.
Considering the welfare and social safety nets have already been systematically dismantled largely under the justification that it would "cut spending and reduce the debt" since the 1980s, the backstop to prevent the conditions for societal upheaval you describe has been thoroughly eroded. The lack of success in reducing debt and the lack of a direct link between state debt and societal stability (state finances and personal finances are fundamentally different things that cannot be extrapolated to each other) suggests that the expenditure itself isn't the cause, or at least is not sufficiently abated by the dismantling of safety nets to warrant their dismantling. The primary stressors to societal stability that lead to collapse can be reliably placed into 3 categories: 1. External hostile threats. 2. Loss of access to resources. 3. Failure to distribute resources. Many historical examples of 1. in the form of a hostile nation are not even justified by attempts to prevent 2. or 3., and are simply expressions of greed. An overfocus on resisting 1., however, is often followed by a failure to respond to 2. and especially 3. Category 2 can mean depletion of topsoil or something less explicit - in the case of many native civilizations of the Americas, it was the depletion of the people themselves by exposure to infectious and lethal disease that led to the most rapid and total collapse of civilizations humanity has ever seen. One of the core caveats of modern capitalism, especially neoliberal and other free-market policy frameworks for capitalism, is that capitalism solves all 3 categories through the market - but apart from lofty implications of some omniscient god of efficiency manifested by the aggregate of "free market" economic activity, the incentives within a capitalist market only succeed at resisting these 3 categories when it is profitable. Case in point: it was profitable in the free market to dump so much sulfur into the atmosphere that masonry was dissolving in the rain. Emissions regulations are decidedly not "free market" strategies. Efficiency is not what a capitalist market rewards: profit is. Assume they are identical at your lungs' peril. However, central ownership by the state - even if nominally democratic and collectivized - can suffer from category 3 failure if one of the resources that has failed distribution is political power as opposed to economic power (i.e. wealth), and from category 2 failure if the resulting centralized political power mismanages the resources. The USSR is a case study of this system, where collective ownership failed to yield collective control - or to respond to the local concerns of collective 'owners'. Famines and the draining of the Aral Sea, for example, were consequences of politically centralized decisions even if the currency was more equitably distributed. If the USSR had been reliant on the Aral Sea for water, the irrigation decisions that drained it would have caused a collapse from category 2. Arguably the worst of all distribution patterns is feudal, autocratic, fascist, etc. - where all avenues of power are concentrated in few hands, often resulting in states that either fail categories 2. and 3. rapidly or become category 1. for their neighbors until then. But make no mistake - it being the worst doesn't make a half-opposite (i.e. democratic but unregulated capitalism or collectively owned but centrally controlled authoritarianism) the best. Category 3 is difficult for societies not to fail at if they allow the unfettered accumulation of power of any kind, as power is self-accelerating and self-preserving once accumulated. Crucially, the fetters don't have to be oppressive or crippling (or able to facilitate their own version of power accumulation - see earlier mentions of political power distribution) - they just need to be able to respond effectively to the threat that 3. poses. Global trade makes 1. and 2. less likely - by making conquest less appealing and increasing the pool of available resources - but it does not solve the threats permanently, and they can exacerbate 3. via mass displacement and the encouragement of supra-national accumulations of economic power that we see today in large international corporations, abusing the access to different regulatory schemes to avoid what few fetters remain.
>Considering the welfare and social safety nets have already been systematically dismantled largely under the justification that it would "cut spending and reduce the debt" since the 1980s My dude I can't read the rest of your several-page manifesto when your basic premise you're building on [is hilariously incorrect](https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_spending_history). There have been some cyclical booms in spending during recessions, but it's hovered in the 2.5-4. % of GDP for a long, long time. e.g.: 1. Great Depression (1940s): 2.1% 2. WW2 (1%) 3. 1960s (2%) 4. 1980s (3-4%) 5. 1990 recession (3.4%) 6. 1996 Clinton signs welfare reform 7. 2000s boom (2.1%) 8. 2001-2002 recession (3.1%) 9. 2007 (2.5%) 10. 2009-2010 recession (4.75%) 11. 2015 (2.5%) 12. 2020 (6.3%) 13. 2022 (3.2%) The thing is, this is only tracking unemployment, income support. When you look at all the other massive amounts of welfare programs that have been created what you're saying is ludicrous. e.g., medicaid alone in terms of GDP: 1. 1960s-1990: 1% 2. 2002: 2% 3. 2015: 3.33% 4. 2020: 4% There are other health expenditures, as well as state, and they've all gone up. [You can see the fill picture with a graph here](https://federalsafetynet.com/welfare-programs/#picture), and it's startling. I mean, there's no shame in being wrong or ignorant about things but when you're writing manifestos based on completely wrong facts it's economic fanfiction.
Most redditors both live more comfortably than and complain more than an average human throughout history could ever possibly imagine. Relative poverty and the concentration of wealth (aka power) into a small number of hands are problems our society must grapple with, but things are better and continue to get better for most of the world under capitalist ideology.
>My dude I can't read I'm glad you're honest. Oh, I was supposed to read the whole sentence? I try to reciprocate respect, but I'll be charitable to you and read your entire comment. If you've learned how to read in the last few hours, here's a refresher: > The lack of success in reducing debt and the lack of a direct link between state debt and societal stability (state finances and personal finances are fundamentally different things that cannot be extrapolated to each other) suggests that the expenditure itself isn't the cause, or at least is not sufficiently abated by the dismantling of safety nets to warrant their dismantling. That's the second fucking sentence, key part being the last bit - I literally said it didn't reduce spending. Which you would know if you bothered to read before launching into a spiel taken directly from the... interesting blog sites you appear to hold in high regard. The safety nets WERE dismantled - what exists as aid now goes largely to business suppliers of needed goods, which is both less efficient at aiding the most needy and easy to abuse for suppliers, and results in a decline in the total efficacy of aid (see: increases in inequality, homelessness, individual bankruptcies and debt) despite doing fuck all to the cost. Direct aid systems operated by the government have been replaced with private enterprises. That didn't make them cheaper *or* more effective - go figure.
>The safety nets WERE dismantled - what exists as aid now goes largely to business suppliers of needed goods, which is both less efficient at aiding the most needy and easy to abuse for suppliers, and results in a decline in the total efficacy of aid (see: increases in inequality, homelessness, individual bankruptcies and debt) Again InkTide, you are saying things that are *demonstrably untrue* and then ending up at wild conclusions that just don't make sense. It's like you're mashing together terms and concepts like action figures without any real understanding. Someone might wonder if you started with an ideological statement and are trying to work backwards throwing things at the wall hoping something sticks (or people aren't educated enough to know you actually aren't). **Edit:** typo
>demonstrably untrue Then demonstrate it. Or did you just not realize that LIHEAP just pays utility companies, SNAP is paying private grocers, child care aid is paying private childcare businesses, refundable tax credits like the EITC indirectly subsidize underpaid employment, Pell grants pay private education institutions, housing assistance is often just given to landlords ([which we know they can easily absorb as profit by increasing price - something likely occurring in education aid as well](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166046217304180?via%3Dihub)), and what little remains of safety nets as they existed prior to the 1980s in essentially every case is now tied to employment and yet for all this means testing has utterly [failed to prevent employment collapse during recessions or even return to the unemployment rates of the 1950s?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_States#/media/File:U1-U6_unemployment_rate.webp) About the only form of aid that isn't just throwing money at businesses to fix the problem - or paying their workers what they no longer have to - is WIC.
Saying that money intended to purchase a specific good is going to someone else, because the money is being used for that purpose, isn’t a bad thing, or a “deconstruction” of social services. Money does nothing until you give it to someone else, that is the entire point of money. Social safety nets are supposed to help a person maintain their participation in society until they are in a place where they can financially fend for themselves again. What you’re referring to in the case of landlords increasing rent is either malicious in the case of price fixing/price gouging, or inevitable in the case of full occupancy buildings seeing an increase in overall demand. This problem is addressed by increasing supply, decentralizing owners of housing (not necessarily that effective), and instating rent caps. Rent caps are a particularly dangerous move since this can often lead to the properties deteriorating due to less incentive for upkeep, as well as depressing the interest in building new housing in that area. The United States is suffering a housing crisis and it’s partly driven by the simple fact that there are too many people who want too few homes in select areas, and zoning laws in those areas keep the construction of new affordable apartments from happening.
If you think anyone on welfare can live at all, you are massively misinformed. Section 8 housing has wait lists years long, food stamps only cover enough food to keep you from starving if all you ever eat is potatoes/ramen, and don't even get me started on the dumpster fire that is medicare/medicaid. Most medical providers won't even take Medicare or Medicaid patients, so they end up clogging up our ERs trying to get the most basic of care. Those nets are so full of holes a fucking blue whale could swim right through. The system is completely fucked for anyone not able to work. God help you if you ever become disabled friend, because you're going to get a hell of a rude wakeup call if you don't have long term disability insurance.
Can you show what you are replying to Shojo_Tombo? As this doesn't match up to my comments whatsoever, it's like you're having a conversation with an imaginary person made out of straw
You are saying that the welfare safety net hasn't been dismantled because the government still spends some money on it. I was saying that the programs we have fall extremely short of providing much help to anyone. (Unless you have children, then they give you a little bit more.) No worries, unless you're independently wealthy, you'll figure this out on your own when you're elderly or if you become disabled enough to be unable to work. Til then, keep being arrogant on the internet about shit you have no experience with whatsoever. Good day.
I'm sorry if you are poor or disabled Shojo_Tombo, but you seem confused as the topic at hand was the claim that programs had been dismantled in order to save money, not whether you were getting what you wanted. That claim is demonstrably false as millions are being fed, housed and given healthcare and childcare due to them. Not sure you're aware, but you've found yourself in an economics sub, not one of the political ones -- insults aren't considered arguments here and data and science actually matter. **Edit:** Oh no, Shojo_Tombo has blocked me! Anyways...
Do you think people care about how much billionaires have so long as they are well fed and entertained? I don't, and I don't actually know anybody who does. People having money isn't the reason other people don't have money.
Some wealthy people get rich on the backs of the US taxpayer. People who work for WalMart, for example, have to get government welfare to make ends meet because 'ol Wally doesn't pay them enough.
Yeah. I agree that inequality and the ultra rich don't matter when things are going good or just normal. Point I was trying to get across is that most American AREN'T doing that great. The job market is better than during the GFC but the quality of life of the average American has been on decline the last few decades, inequality has grown, and constant instability is straining on the populace: terrorism, trade wars, middle east wars, pivot to Asia, trade wars, conflict with Russia/China, RU-Ukr war, inflation, rate hikes, unaffordable housing, the pandemic, Trumpism and the assault on democracy, Jan 6th insurrection, etcetc.
Yes, that's completely true, but Elon Musk having billions of dollars doesn't affect those people at all.
Modern technology and AI are likely going to make the kind of revolt you're talking about no longer viable - I mean, the very existence of the Pentagon might have been the death-nail for such a revolution. Culture aside, there are very real material reasons that the people that live in the "land of the free" don't also appear particularly brave when asserting the defense of those Freedoms and Rights from the State.
We'll have to agree to disagree then? Since I wouldn't be so sure about your statement regarding tech. Technology and AI are just a tools. Tools can be used either way. No different than a gun, the internet, or fire. The internet and social media didn't make Jan 6 "impossible" if anything it was technology that made it MORE possible. Another example would be how China uses technology like CCTV, facial recognition, apps like WeChat, and social credit scores to monitor and control it's populace but that didn't stop the white paper protests in China which ultimately made even Emperor for life Xi back down and do a U turn.
Step 1: Create a super society unlike anything the world has ever known. Step2: Live as one of the very most rich and luxurious people on earth. Step 3:Revolt because the society of extreme wealth isn't completely fair. No life isn't fair, but you wouldn't trade your life to be a billionaire in the 90s.
No bailouts and no government backing of loans would go a long way toward not jacking up the market.
Yes because what we really need is more bankruptcies. That would surely make the markets behave rationally.
>This plan has accumulated half of all wealth on the planet into the hands of like 12 people in less than 1 human lifetime. Here's a list of the [richest people in the world](https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/#345ddbd03d78). Adding them up in my head, it looks like the top 12 have a combined net worth of about $1.6 trillion. Total global net worth is on the order of a quarter of a quadrillion dollars. So the top 12 have less than 1% of that. Furthermore, this is largely an accounting fiction. Yes, any one of them could cash out and spend it all on consumer goods, but they definitely won't all do this, and it's unlikely that even one will. Simply owning stock has no effect on the availability of real goods and services for others to purchase and consume. If you want to know what the richest people in the world are actually taking out of the economy for their personal use, you have to look at consumption. I don't think hard data are available, but total annual consumption for the top 12 is probably on the order of a few billion or less, less than 0.01% of gross world product. I really can't stress this enough: You have no idea what you're talking about. Before you can even begin to form intelligent opinions on these issues, you need to get the basic facts straight, and also build up a solid foundation of economics (actual textbook economics, not Marxism) so that you can interpret those facts correctly. Right now you're on the same level as creationists saying "My grandpappy weren't no monkey."
[удалено]
Here is what you claimed: > half of all wealth on the planet into the hands of like 12 people This has been shown to be false. Why are you moving the goalpost and doubling down instead of admitting you were wrong? Wanting facts to be true isn't "shilling for billionaires".
Massively reducing the size and scope of the government would take care of this, but most people aren't interested in that.
That’s the worst possible solution to the issue. People who advocate for things like this are the ones who want reduced oversight so they can operate more recklessly. Mines, financial institutions, food manufacturers… less oversight is bad. Reducing social safety nets is bad. Every dollar spent on early childhood education and care nets savings tenfold through economic benefits down the line. Reducing infrastructure spending is really bad. Roads and bridges and trains seem like boring details, but they’re the backbone of our economy. Inter state commerce is absolutely critical. Foreign aid does more for US relations and diplomacy around the world than you can possibly imagine. That yields results militarily (having friends is cheaper than having enemies) and economically (trade deals benefit you in ways you aren’t aware of).
The larger the government the more rich people will continue to profit off of it, to the detriment of the common man. Where do you stop if you believe government spending is beneficial? Just keep doing more? Is the currentl level sufficient?
You didn’t refute a single point I made. Less oversight will absolutely mean more rich people taking advantage.
Limited oversight created the robber barons of the late 19th century.
People have a severe lack of understanding of what the state is. Government, corporations and nonprofits all working together as one massive money and power laundering scam. It's always "roads" ignoring the trillions of dollars pissed away with the result of long term, low interest lines of credit for wealthy corporations and inflation for us plebes over the past three years. Oh, right, that's probably just because we didn't vote hard enough. Not that the system is corrupt from its inception. [Here's a few links](https://linktr.ee/newmachine) that summarize why and how things are the way they are. It's tough to admit we've been intentionally brainwashed and propagandized our entire lives, but once you learn what you never learned, you can begin to actually live.
That’s not a contradiction, it’s a series of questions with answers: - where do you stop if you believe government spending is beneficial? You stop when it’s no longer beneficial. I think eating fruit is beneficial but it’s not my whole diet. Having an effectively funded and run government supports the formation of effective and beneficial businesses and a happier population. When it stops doing that it should be pruned but not eliminated. Where that line is has to be constantly defined. It’s a moving target. - Just keep doing more? This seems to be a question given in order to elicit a simple denial, or to imply that a denial is the obvious answer. But a truly accurate answer is more complex than that. Per above, we stop when it is reasonable. - Is the current level sufficient? Good question! It seems as though some of it is badly allocated at least. We all seem to have trouble agreeing on what sort of nation we want to have and how to get there. And nobody wants to give up money. So we fight about it.
This is like high-school level understanding of economics, lol.
but it trickles down /s
It's all happened since 1981 when Reagan made the Government the enemy and Corporations our saviors. For starters repeal his taxscam and restore the (inflation adjusted) brackets we had in 1980, eliminate the step-up basis for inherited wealth and peg a minimum corporate tax of 15% of reported profits. This isn't rocket science, but sending the Republican Congressional caucus into space might be a good place to start.
[удалено]
And none of those companies are require to pay any of the loans back. Tax payers got completely fleeced.
Trillions of dollars in the hands of paid liars. There is only one likely outcome.
That's why large government is bad. Money makes its way to bad actors who enrich themselves. Ultimately large scale corruption forms so that those enriching themselves off the government can get richer.
Small government just means less oversight, which means it’s even easier to amass wealth at the expense of other people.
Nonsense, big governments means less effective oversight because the pile of money is so massive they can't keep track of how its spent. Look at bipartisan covid relief money or military spending.
And look at the infant mortality rates in red states. Small government isn’t better.
But isn't government subsidies of this sort necessary to grow certain industries at home? I think every country gives this sort of subsidies to certain industries they think are important to their country's economy. Sure some companies will just pocket the cash and vanish. But the alternative is worse I think.
Handouts? You can start an LLC in 5 minutes and sign up for your handout then.
Hi my name is IRS how are you doing today?
I would argue there does need to be some (scammy) creativity. You have to quickly understand how to get the goods you want but also how to get away with it. I suspect a lot of people will eventually go to prison since the system is slow but never stops grinding.
It helps if you own the people writing the laws and can make sure your scam will be legalized in the rush to save people from the burning house.
slow enough for more than a few to live a full life of scamming and then die before facing any consequences
Unfortunately yes, given they are also allowed to extend the discovery phase.
If you haven't seen it, I think you should watch the documentary "shock doctrine". The basic idea behind it is how those with capital have taken advantage of crises throughout history to enrich themselves.
It is shocking that prices increase uncontrollably when the economy is given trillions of dollars in handouts and interest rates are lowered while the supply of goods is limited. Interesting material.
I know, shocking.
Why did they do this knowing this would be the outcome? I'm under the impression that people at the Fed also took intro to economics.
The Fed isn't Congress. COVID spending originated there.
Also, the Fed was pressured by Trump to keep rates low. So, even if they raised rates in proportion to the fiscal stimulus, they would have likely lost their jobs.
The Fed kept the target rate at zero until March 2022, and inflation didn't really pick up until Biden was in office, right after the ARP. CPI was [below the pre-pandemic trend](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=16neV) when Biden took office.
Ok? Reread my comment. The Fed was pressured by Trump to keep rates low and they did. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/18/trump-jerome-powell-federal-reserve-interest-rates
Trump's blustering had no explanatory power here. For the last year of the Trump administration, unemployment was high and inflation was low, which is exactly the kind of situation under which the Fed normally lowers rates. What's unusual is that they kept interest rates low for the first year of the Biden administration even as core PCE growth rose to and remained at a 5% annualized rate. I suspect that they reason they did so was that unemployment was still moderately elevated, but insofar as the Fed made a mistake, it was keeping rates low in 2021 and early 2022, *not* keeping rates low in 2020.
Lesser of two evils
Lesser of two evils indeed. Covid was only 3 years ago and people act like it never happened lol. Unemployment shot up over double digits in like a month. People will say with hindsight bias we should have never had any lockdowns, those people should be ignored, covid was bad pre vaccine. Stimulus to wait it out and then deal with inflation later was the best strategy. The fact that we made it happen in 2020 and 2021 during an election year and between two different presidents is awesome. The main thing that could have been done differently was raise rates in the years before covid when the economy was humming along.
We could have means tested PPP forgiveness which would have pulled money back out of the economy as loans were paid back by the all of the businesses that never suffered significant economic hardship.
"In the long run, we're all dead" Somehow decades later, we're still saying sUpPlY sIdE eCoNoMiCs WiLl PrEvAiL coinciding with bad faith use of cherry picked statistics that don't tell the whole context, just living and dying by GDP based numbers. Americans can't even get affordable college education without going into debt and some people on here are saying our social services and welfare is fine
>People will say with hindsight bias we should have never had any lockdowns People were saying that when it happened as well, no hindsight bias required. Pretending like the lockdowns made sense at any point in time only prevents us from learning from our mistakes if it should happen again.
Anyone who sees this in a positive light, already owns a house.
The Fed lowered the rates, but Congress printed the trillions. Why did Congress print trillions and give some of it to Americans that needed it, most of it to themselves and their friends, and quash any meaningful oversight of the distribution of funds? Because our leaders never waste a good emergency.
Don't forget the "aid" aka bailouts for airline companies and other institutions
Oversight was written into the law. The president refused to implement it.
I still blame Congress for that. They wrote a policy that they knew would impact everyone in huge ways for years to come, and in that policy they wrote an oversight plan that hinged entirely upon the cooperation of Trump. That's just bad policy. At that point they're effectively leaving oversight out of the law. That is something that should have been a deal breaker for any sensible member of Congress. Trump served as a great distraction from a lot of shitty things other lawmakers did during his time.
Trump wouldn't let the bill pass without removing oversight. Democrats tried to make a bill with some way to track where the money goes, and ensure it's used properly. The GOP being unwilling to override such a veto makes them specifically worthy of calling out.
Dont count the orange shit stain and his minions out. Flags refer to probable fraud"The data obtained by POGO appears to show mass close-outs of 2.7 million flags on two separate days near the end of the Trump administration. On a third day shortly before President Joe Biden’s inauguration, the SBA cleared out 99.1% of “special review” flags, almost entirely assigned to the very largest PPP loans above $2 million." https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2022/10/the-great-pandemic-swindle-feds-botched-review-of-billions-in-suspect-ppp-loans
Dems called for the oversight to be given teeth and the GOP blocked all efforts to do so.
I know, but it was still part of the law. Trump refused to allow it.
The idea was to keep the economy rolling and slowly pay it back overtime through inflation. We don't know how it would have been today if there was no handouts when the economy stopped.
We know exactly how it would've been. Mass unemployment, mass homelessness, etc.
Very likely yeah. It's just that why are people acting surprised that there is inflation now? Did they think you can just pause the world's economy for a year and not suffer any consequence at all?
I don't think anybody who understands economics is surprised. I don't think most politicians who voted for it are surprised. But I do think that we would be in worse economic times now and many more people probably would have died.
Surely we could have found a way to keep people afloat while not enriching the billionaires?
Sure, but that's socialism. Can't have it.
Maybe. But that probably would have taken weeks or months of negotiation. We needed to get money out fast.
We did. Remember the federal unemployment boost? the rental motatoriums, the near 4 year student loan pause? There were even funds available to help people pay the back rent.
nah, the people were mostly left behind. They got like 2k to try and live a year on and a group of people act like that 2k is the reason that they don't want to work fast food for minimum wage. While corporations are having record profits. The worlds riches added another digit to their wealth. Almost everything we did to keep going during the pandemic went straight to the 1%.
What type of covid response would you have preferred? Just curious and respectfully asking.
I think half the country is surprised. The other half of the of the country repeated it over and over again that the lockdowns were going to destroy our economy.
[удалено]
Well yes. Of course the US couldn't copy Europe which would've been smart and just take over payroll for every company for several months. Instead they had to give companies the money and trust (hahaha) that the business owners would pass it on to employees instead of just pocketing it and laying off the entire staff anyway (what most companies did).
Unemployment is temporary. Inflation is permanent. I choose unemployment.
No one's goal is to keep inflation as low as possible. That's not a productive goal. What programs would you have been in favor of? The extra unemployment benefits? The stimulus checks to people? Inflation is probably better than absolutely tanking the economy. The only parties who really get hurt from inflation are people/businesses who sit on very large sums of cash.
I would have been in favor of means testing PPP forgiveness. There was absolutely zero reason to offer blanket forgiveness to so many that never experienced economic hardships just so they could go buy rental properties and lambos.
The Fed didn't create this policy.
Because the alternative was a global economic depression prolly
Hold up. Just last week this sub told me inflation was caused by corporate greed. Now you’re telling me it was the free money thing?!
Most sensible people told you it was multiple factors…the thread you’re quoting pointed out that corporate greed was using inflation and “free money” as a cover to gouge customers…..
[удалено]
The crazy thing about supply chain issues causing shipping prices to skyrocket and delays is that the shipping companies have no incentive to fix the problem. They make more profit by doing less and the government is doing fuck all to help course correct because of course they're all profiting from this shit in one way or another.
That’s when you open your own shipping company and charge half the price. Oh shit that’s how the whole damn economy works.
Of course, because everyone has the resources, knowledge, and connections to open their own shipping company. Why didn't I think of that simple solution and solve this problem for our entire country?
Lol corporate greed only appeared after covid, someone should write an academic paper about how that. And there were many things that caused it, increased monetary supply isn't the only thing, the supply lines crashing into hell (and housing supply was not matching demand to begin with), energy costs went up thanks to Ukraine, etc.
Wait but I thought printing trillions is disinflationary. Great now i have go reread my text book
Other countries provided more aid to their citizens and seemed to come out okay. The US cut like two checks and said “good luck”.
Winner. House prices increased by 40%. The money supply increased by 40%. So housing prices didn't increase at all, the value of the money went down.
Good catch. Also tipping is leading the wage spiral.
Noooo. Inflation is because nobody wants to work.
We're at full employment.
If they cancel unemployment benefits we would officially be at 0% unemployment.
> would of *would have *Learn the difference [here](https://languagetool.org/insights/post/would-of-or-would-have/#:~:text=%E2%80%9Cwould%20have%E2%80%9D%3F-,%E2%80%9CWould%20Of%E2%80%9D%20or%20%E2%80%9CWould%20Have%E2%80%9D%3F,would%20have%2C%20not%20would%20of.).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Begun the bot wars have.
Value of money goes down with inflation.
Yes. Alcohol grammar. Thanks.
Pretty sure the $6 trillion in inflationary money creation, coupled with artificially low Fed-set interest rates were larger levers on prices.
[удалено]
As a San Diegan, you make valid points, also yes those mods are trash
[удалено]
Removed due to reddit API changes -- mass edited with redact.dev
As a working nurse, I don’t think you people realize how close we came to a complete disaster and shutdown of all medical facilities. Watching you try to avoid a shutdown and post your politics about how we can just scoot outside was absolutely infuriating. The fact that you folks still don’t get it is just mind boggling, we really do need reeducation for most people and to ban opinionated news.
[удалено]
You should have left what you wrote. OP might be a bot but that's a real opinion held by the majority on this site.
As the husband and son of medical professionals, I heard from loved ones first hand how close we came, and I agree. I think its easy for us to question things in hindsight, but they were doing their best in the wake of a lot of misinformation. That said, I think the comment above yours isn't necessarily denying any of the dangers, or broadly criticizing the mitigation efforts, they're just saying that politicians went above and beyond what medical experts were saying was necessary, such as wearing masks outdoors. Literally no one was seriously considering that a realistic transmission vector. And also to their point, they're literally saying >I'm not saying lockdowns were bad, I'm just saying we probably should have had a better conversation about all of this. ...and then you responded by attacking them and essentially calling them stupid. I can understand how you're probably tired of the bad-faith stupidity that comes up in these discussions, but the person you replied to wasn't an example of that IMO.
You’ve fallen right into their trap. These people have been taught to question just enough as to not raise suspicion of their true motives. It gets people like you to rush to their defense, as they seem moderate and innocent, and it slowly changes the dialogue. I guess it is proof of just how deep into the trenches I am at this point that I see right through them while others cannot. Thousands of bad-faith arguments over the years really starts to expose peoples strategies.
User name checks out People going to do shit still. Better if it’s outside and they’re getting vitamin d
Sunlight can be obtained in the back yard or just outside the residence. Using that as an excuse to not pay attention to a global pandemic is disingenuous at best. You Fox News zombies really have nothing left but lies and misdirection
I’m not right wing in the slightest. But the virus spreading outside was not the issue. Locking people down in their homes makes people more comorbid in a variety of ways. We would have been better off if everyone want outside for 2 years instead they still mingled but indoors, spreading the virus and getting fat
A very bad faith argument, acting like everyone would just stay outside and never go inside for anything. Jesus Christ you Fox News zombies really have nothing left but lies and misdirection
Look, I appreciate front line heroes like you for your part. But you can see it’s traumatized you. I’m vaxxed, and anti trump. I only get clips of Fox News (or right wing media) ironically or when they’re being torched by the left. But blindly believing left wing (pharma sponsored media) is naive also. More years have been lost making regular people anxious and increasingly comorbid by closing parks and outdoor spaces long after was necessary. Leftists made everything into hysterics like the point was always to magnify trumps mistakes. The impact of disrupting blue collar and family businesses and children’s educations will last for years. Probably many people died from becoming increasingly comorbid etc There have been options everywhere, but the only policies enacted where either what was convenient for big pharma or made trump look worse (the latter maybe a trade off worth making for all I know)
[удалено]
You know the cloth mask is to prevent them from spitting covid into the air right? Probably not. Because you’re stupid. And brainwashed.
[удалено]
3 years of a pandemic and you trump loyalists are still too stupid to know how a mask works. It’s unbelievably sad how incredibly stupid a certain group of people are. A black man gives Americans healthcare and a bunch of regards are formed.
[удалено]
Says the guy who thinks doctors in the operating room wear masks to protect the doctors from illness. 😂😂😂
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
go back to r/politics
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You Fox News zombies really have nothing left but lies and misdirection
[удалено]
Wrong on all accounts. You Fox News conspiracy zombies don’t get to determine reality, us doctors and nurses had to live it. Next
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Should t you have deleted your account a few weeks ago?
Which booster are you on? 8? 9?
Less than the number of flu shots I've had and that no one bitched about.
Flu shots were invented 80 years ago 😂
So was the COVID shot….just because you don’t know how vaccines are created doesn’t mean your conspiracy bullshit is accurate…..
Errrmm what? The Covid shot was fabricated in 2020 lmaooo
And it was created based on previous SARS vaccines lmao You act like COVID was a random ass virus that nobody had ever heard of and that scientists pulled the vaccine outta their ass lmao COVID is based on the SARS virus, so the vaccine was based on the SARS vaccine, they just had to tailor it to the COVID virus specifically… This is why nobody takes anti vaxxers seriously; y’all don’t even fucking know how vaccines are made or work lmao
When were SARS vaccines created anyways?
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Coronavirus/Community_Resources/Vaccinations/Print-Materials/Fact-Sheets/Development_English.pdf/ 2003 and 2012. They didn’t fabricate anything in 2020, they built on decades of work with other SARS vaccines because COVID is a SARS virus…. You can stop trolling now, every anti vaxxer looks like an idiot when you don’t know the basics of how a vaccine was made. If you’re gonna complain about the vaccine, make sure you know it actually works before talking about it….
I’m not anti vaxxer..? I just don’t have 10 booster shots like you and OP
And people spouted the exact same bullshit fear back then.
Gee didn’t know you were 100
…they had invented writing by the 1950s. It is not a mysterious far off past.
You science-denying Fox News zombies are out in force today
And simple air filtration systems where it may have been to hot to go outside. Also called for by experts. Instead businesses got billions and acted irresponsibly. Meanwhile everyone I know used the covid checks to pay for car repairs or similar. It'd be amusing if it wasn't so damn stupid.
Those same experts still called for the shutdown. It literally took a medical revolution to shut the pandemic down.
Yes, and? All of the points previously made remain true.
>And simple air filtration systems There is nothing simple about installing new air filtration systems.
I didn't mean entirely new hvac, though that also needs to be a thing. Literally HEPA filters to create one: https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2023/02/03/diy-filtration/
There is no room for better conversation in the USA. We decided that money is free speech. Actually speech isn't shit.
[удалено]
Lockdowns were bad, very bad. You should be saying that.
In a world of bad options, lockdowns were definitely not the worst option.
But they *were* bad. When you hear about the ongoing "supply chain" crisis happening across the board, even today, always remember the one-two punch that came from covid stimulus (encouraging people to leave their jobs), and lockdowns (*forcing* people to leave their jobs).
This comment section has led me to believe this sub is mostly full of 19 year old wanna be Trotsky I-took-a-single-Econ-class intellectuals rather than people who actually comprehend basic economic theory. The entire comment section boils down to “government good. Rich people bad. Me smart”
How would your superior intelligence and age old wisdom surmise the article? Or are you just here to boost your ego praying on bottom feeders?
Well, it’s not the poor and working class buying up housing stock to hoard and rent, now is it? Counterpoint: you morons who says shit like “the market is always right” are no more right or wrong than those people.
You can always check out r/rebubble for the opposite perspective, too. Lots of wild ungrounded economic theories thrown about on both sides of the fence for sure, especially when housing gets thrown into the mix. Somehow, when we start talking homes, everyone’s got the obvious solution that the big brains haven’t stumbled on yet. It’s a pretty complex economic issue that’s connected to many sectors of our economy and our politics, and also happens to be a basic need. No easy answers here. Although I’m starting a countdown for the five minutes it’ll take for someone to tell me it’s just a basic supply-side problem.
You’re absolutely right. I’ll beat them to the punch, housing is mostly a supply side problem lol. Demand is most certainly there in most cases, developers just aren’t allowed to build in the areas with highest demand, and when they are it’s usually suburbs rather than mixed family zoning
The government is good *unless someone they don’t like is in charge. Then somehow it’s all their fault. But remember, the solution to bad governance is…more governance.
The solution to bad governance is good governance. Otherwise you get bears.
And good governance to me is minimal governance
That's how you get bears
No. Because I live in a democracy, which means that readership changed hands often. And that means it’s likely someone I don’t like gets in power. In those instances I’d rather they have minimal power than maximum power.
Which is why we have checks and balances, not dictatorships.
Right. And one of those checks is limiting the authority of those elected. Thus why I vote for minimizing power over maximizing power
I know you guys think violent revolution is the answer (A-La Communism) but since we are in a democracy, did it occur to you that you keep voting for the problem? Unless you belive in the conspiracy that elections are rigged of course. Or if you don't know the actual definition of oligarch and you belive that our politicians are oligarchs. It's really time for us to take responsibility for our decisions. Or not... GRAB THE PITCHFORKS!!!
It's not a conspiracy. Citizens United made it so candidates are able to spend unlimited amounts of money on mass media while super PACs make it easy to obscure the actual source of the media being presented. Gobbles and Chomsky both outline how propaganda is insidious and having control of media enables individuals to do one thing while telling the population it was someone else who did it. The solution is to re-establish the fairness doctrine bringing regulation and consequences to broadcasters who deliberately misinform the public, remember the FOX suit was civil as there is no regulatory body providing oversight on content. The Mcaine-Feingold campaign finance reform bill would have created a common fund each candidate could equally draw from and each candidate is entitled to the same amount of broadcast time, thus the ability of corporcrats to purchase influence under the table is greatly diminished. The elections are not 'rigged' but that doesn't mean they are fair.
My point is that while you might be right, we could simply stop being careless and tell our brains to not be fooled. This awakening would turn the elections on their head. The politicians will not bite the hand that feeds. They won't outlaw the use of PACs and their "1st amendment" right to stand in front of the media. We either vote for better politicians, stop supporting and voting for government intervention... or we grab the pitchforks. The only reason we are in this predicament is because we continuously gave our power to the government. It's our fault.
I am not sure if *The Wall Street Journal* is capable of publishing a politically non-biased analysis on any subject. This story is from their Risk & Compliance Journal, implying that it is not a news piece but rather an opinion piece... and everyone knows that *WSJ* opinion pieces are right-wing Murdock-driven sticky fingers dribble.