But the ideal is for them to be able to return
to the jobs they had before the shut-down.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Economics question: Would suspending ALL loans and rent help keep the wheels on?
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
to the jobs they had before the shut-down.
Doh! (again)
So far it appears to be: businesses and banks 95%, families 5%.
What appears to be the case so far - as expected - is that the rich are going to take most of the 2 trillion.
I haven't vetted your figures.
Do you realize that loans get repaid with interest?
(The loans are also to non-profits...at a lower interest rate.)
But the assistance to people isn't a loan.
It seems that you oppose aiding businesses so that they can survive.
If you don't face the consequences of employers disappearing, then
you're dooming the country to an economic crisis.
Why?
What has business done to you to justify this death wish?
What happens when restrictions are lifted, & employees
find their jobs are gone?
It gets worse.....as they continue to collect unemployment
insurance, this tab is paid by the remaining businesses.
As overhead skyrockets, so must prices.
It's a really bad idea to let the shut-down shutter companies
possibly permanently.
Heyo
Veteran Member
While, in the meantime having no health insurance and not knowing if they will get their job back and at the same conditions.
I think we all agree that help has to go out to all and that all have to take some losses during the crisis.
Can we also agree that those 3.3 million who got laid off already got f***** enough by the system?
I don't know the time frame, but laid off employees can keep their insurance.
I suppose one could say that anyone suffering a loss got "flurbed".
But that suggests someone is intentionally harming another.
And employees aren't the only ones suffering.
I know many who own small businesses which are shut down.
Even though they don't get a W2, their livelihood still matters.
I see it as a severe national crisis. It shouldn't be
about who is worthy or who doesn't matter.
The focus should be on mitigating the damage
to ensure quick recovery when the plague lessens.
Of course not.
But if history has taught us anything, it's that the 1%ers are going to come out of this smelling like a rose. In the OP, I proposed suspending ALL loans and rent. That includes the loans and rent that businesses have a liabilities.
The one percenters are people, not businesses.
And you're still proposing gutting the income from
many businesses, without eliminating their expenses,
eg, utilities, insurance, property taxes, repairs, fuel,
maintenance, payroll, payroll taxes, accounting.
A few of us aren't one percenters.
Suppose you own an apartment building.
You have no rent coming in. So you stop paying
for electricity, water, sewer, & gas. You stop
maintenance cuz the staff won't work for free.
The government shuts down the building cuz
it's no longer livable. Tenants are evicted by
government.
Is this what you want?
Heyo
Veteran Member
"The economy" are the products and services of a community. During the pandemic production is heavily reduced, so the economy takes a hit. Ideally that should be born equally.
More negligence than intention, though the problem is long known.
Like in the housing crisis when those who got evicted still don't have their home back but the CEOs of the saved banks got million dollar bonuses?
No, by supporting consumers, I'm in fact proposing the opposite. I'm proposing keeping business's revenue stream healthy, and I'm in no way proposing "gutting their income".
Again, landlords would need some special considerations. But landlords are a tiny slice of the economy. I'm not anti-landlord, I'm anti solutions that benefit the few.
How do I accomplish the revenue stream if I get no rent or loan payments?
We of the "tiny slice" don't intend to be sacrificed that the alter of
your generosity. You are indeed anti-landlord & also anti-tenant
if you want to destroy our business, & see our tenants evicted
when the units become unlivable.
We should probably stop now as you're consistently misquoting me. stay safe!
Well, we might be talking past each other.
But I look at the consequences of what you advocate.
And I've asked questions which you've not answered.
That does add difficulty to inferring your intent.
That's not been my intent. What non-rhetorical questions have gone unanswered?
This looks rhetorical, but isn't because a simple yes or no wouldn't suffice.
And explanation would be necessary.
Also not rhetorical....
@Revoltingest
1 - The apartment building question: I have already said (several times) that I think everyone's utilities should be covered. Next, the whole context of the OP is that we're in an emergency. So valid, long term concerns like maintenance aren't really on the table at this point. It seems to me that if we're making all of these Herculean efforts, we would suspend building inspections - and such.
2 - jobs gone: Well my claim is that far fewer jobs would be gone in the first place if the consumer class was kept liquid.
This is a sort of chicken-egg question. I think our "leaders" still believe in some form of trickle-down economics, and Nick Hanauer and I think that maybe "trickle up" would be a better approach.
But again, I'm not proposing any sort of overly simplistic, black and white solution, more like a perspective.
1 - The apartment building question: I have already said (several times) that I think everyone's utilities should be covered. Next, the whole context of the OP is that we're in an emergency. So valid, long term concerns like maintenance aren't really on the table at this point. It seems to me that if we're making all of these Herculean efforts, we would suspend building inspections - and such.
2 - jobs gone: Well my claim is that far fewer jobs would be gone in the first place if the consumer class was kept liquid.
This is a sort of chicken-egg question. I think our "leaders" still believe in some form of trickle-down economics, and Nick Hanauer and I think that maybe "trickle up" would be a better approach.
But again, I'm not proposing any sort of overly simplistic, black and white solution, more like a perspective.
How would a landlord with no income pay for them,
or are they free while the rent isn't being paid?
Maintenance is both long & short term.
Gas leaks, lack of water, no heat, no electricity....such
things would get the attention of building officials.
Your proposal has a lot of unintended consequences.
We can't assume that things should've been different all along.
This is not about "trickle down".
And "trickle up" won't save businesses with no income.
It's an extremely ill considered simplistic perspective.
I think we've exhausted this thread.
Strongly disagree on your first point, agree that we're talking past each other.
stay safe.
Hey, we're actually agreeing about disagreeing!
You stay safe too....horses aren't necessarily immune.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Absolutely, as any serious economist will tell us.
It is the consumer that creates the need for business to begin with, plus they are the ones who will determine whether a business succeeds or fails. If there's a need, and if there's people being attracted to a particular business, they'll likely succeed. If not, all the investment money in the world won't likely keep them afloat.
And this is especially true of smaller businesses in local communities, which really are the backbone of a nation's economy. Get people the money at the local lever one way or the other, and that approach has always been #1 in recovering from an economic downturn.
But without these businesses succeeding en masse, such as what we will be experiencing very soon, pumping money to the top 1% is a fool's game because that money is needed "below". It's Jack & Mary Consumer that will or will not bring out economy back, and whether the "conservatives" like it or not, they're the ones who are going to need tons of help.
And it's not just in this area because medical expenses are already starting to go through the roof, which creates another huge set of problems. But I'm not going to deal with that situation now.
Jane Boswell
Member
Yet everything medical is now eclipsing economic concerns, afterall dealing with a pathogen. The sordid topic of coin will die hard before it is redefined for more egalitarian purposes. That would be a scenario worth surviving covid19 for. Survive for more important important things too, meanwhile donning the latest hazmat fashion.