Economics question: Would suspending ALL loans and rent help keep the wheels on?

[Dan From Smithville]

Not broad:
Benefit: Suspending rent & loan payments to only renters & borrowers.
Burden: Only landlords & lenders bear this burden.

Broad:
Benefit: Assist all those in need, not just renters & borrowers.
Burden: The fed pays with deficit spending, which is repaid (some day over time) from tax revenue.

The broader solution is not only more libertarian, it's far better.

OK. Thanks. That is generally the solution I favor. What you are calling the broader solution.

Suspending rent and loan payments for all would not eliminate all burdens on employers. They still would have employees to pay, unless they could be convinced to work for free. They would still need goods and services beyond rent and loan revenue. It would be a very short term emergency response that would push the problem into the future, but not eliminate it. And there would be that much less money circulating. At least that is the best I can figure.

 

[Revoltingest]

OK. Thanks. That is generally the solution I favor. What you are calling the broader solution.

Suspending rent and loan payments for all would not eliminate all burdens on employers. They still would have employees to pay, unless they could be convinced to work for free. They would still need goods and services beyond rent and loan revenue. It would be a very short term emergency response that would push the problem into the future, but not eliminate it. And there would be that much less money circulating. At least that is the best I can figure.

Getting employees to work for free....they've never gone along with that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Getting employees to work for free....they've never gone along with that.

I would not, but I am selfish that way. I cannot speak for others, but I venture to predict there would be no enthusiastic rush to embrace the idea and render it to practice.

 

[Heyo]

Getting employees to work for free....they've never gone along with that.

They are called interns or volunteers and some industries rely heavily on them. (Journalism, research, activism)

 

[Revoltingest]

They are called interns or volunteers and some industries rely heavily on them. (Journalism, research, activism)

Dang!
If only I'd just changed the job title....I could even make them pay tuition.
Keen your mind is.

 

[Shad]

Yawn is right. Your powers of mind reading are weak at best, see ya around dude.

You asked me to defend a point I never made. Try again. Less deflection from your projection to your hurt feelings.

 

[Shad]

Formed in the middle of a crises? Since when is that a criterion?

As there is a current crisis right now. So you need to establish how nationalizing will solve this crisis.

[gain: why is that relevant?

As you are suggesting nationalizing as a solution to a problem in this crisis.

Based on precedent.

Since you failed to establish that nationalizing is a solution in a crisis you have no precedent.

It is the central point.

Nope. How the nationalizing is related to the crisis is.

Verified by your reaction.

Nope. All you did was say "Nationalize it" as if that means much. You have no argument so deflect. Yawn

You have completely lost track what this thread was about.

Wrong

The question was simply if there was a third alternative to letting a company go bankrupt or unconditionally give the company bail out money to avoid bankruptcy.

An alternative needs to be argued not asserted. Try again.

The reason why we don't want the bankruptcy is to save the jobs.
An additional nice-to-have would be to avoid having to do it all over again in 12 years.

Irrelevent

Nationalization would save the jobs. Do we agree on that?

No.

Nationalization could potentially be a cheaper alternative to just giving the bail out money away since the government has now the company as an asset.

Assertion. More so government would have to buy those companies so you bailout money is consumed by purchasing funds.

If it becomes successful again the stock can be sold at a profit. If it doesn't, the effect is the same as if the bail out money was just given away.

Again you are assuming stocks will be sold at a profit.

Do we agree on that?

Nope as you are merely assuming a state and the best case scenario. That is hedging a bet.

The only goal of a capitalist company is to make money for the shareholders. A nationalized company can formulate additional goals, e.g. job security for the workers.
Do we agree on that?

Nope as a company can do that without government involvement. Try again.

 

[Heyo]

Try again.

Nope. I think you wouldn't even agree that 1 + 1 is 2. You are willfully obtuse and not interested in a solution.
It was @icehorse who asked for an alternative. It is up to her/him to decide if s/he accepts nationalization as such. I rest my case.

 

[Shad]

Nope. I think you wouldn't even agree that 1 + 1 is 2. You are willfully obtuse and not interested in a solution.

Yawn. You have no arguments for why it will work. You are waffling.

It was @icehorse who asked for an alternative. It is up to her/him to decide if s/he accepts nationalization as such. I rest my case.

If other users accept your claim without question that do not mean my questions are resolved. Try again. You spent some time to defend your assertions yet now that you are bust you go to this line. Hilarious.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They are called interns or volunteers and some industries rely heavily on them. (Journalism, research, activism)

You bring up a very good point. Interns often work without pay, but some interns are paid. In the ag industry, most of the interns I know of were paid pretty well. Even some that are not often get something from it, like course credit.

When I was younger I had a summer job with the state. I met a couple of other college students working for the same department I did. They were interns making more money than I was plus they got course credit for six hours. They also had use of a state vehicle and expense accounts related to the nature of work the were doing.

My uncle used to volunteer at a local conservation center for fun. He had retired and had an income, but wanted something for his spare time.

I wonder if @Revoltingest will be putting out adverts for interns now? Must have own haggis???? Experience with bacon and lawn maintenance preferred. Have you had any experience with bears and picnic baskets?

 

[Revoltingest]

You bring up a very good point. Interns often work without pay, but some interns are paid. In the ag industry, most of the interns I know of were paid pretty well. Even some that are not often get something from it, like course credit.

When I was younger I had a summer job with the state. I met a couple of other college students working for the same department I did. They were interns making more money than I was plus they got course credit for six hours. They also had use of a state vehicle and expense accounts related to the nature of work the were doing.

My uncle used to volunteer at a local conservation center for fun. He had retired and had an income, but wanted something for his spare time.

I wonder if @Revoltingest will be putting out adverts for interns now? Must have own haggis???? Experience with bacon and lawn maintenance preferred. Have you had any experience with bears and picnic baskets?

I see no advantage in having interns who cost more than regular workers.

 

[icehorse]

@Shad No snark was ever intended. I'm proposing that we zoom way, way, out and try to look at this from a fresh perspective. All of my questions here are meant to understand your points and further the conversation. None of this is meant to be snark.

I am looking at history involving horrible practices by banks and government enablers.

So I'm confused here. It seems to me that you're both worried about historical failures AND you're also defending the standard approach of propping up the banks?

None of my points are about endless growth. My points are above preventing a collapse where citizens lose not the CEOs.

On this goal we're agreed. But it seems like the standard answer of "do a bank bailout" inevitably leads to lining the pockets of the CEOs.

So - as a thought experiment - what if ALL of the stimulus money went to consumers?

You are making a giant assumption which is just standard rhetoric from the left. It is parroting, nothing more. It is devoid of thought and consideration of what I actually posted. Your response leads me to believe these topics are over your head if you think I am promoting endless growth.

This is where I'm gonna cry foul. This is a form of ad hominem that is both incorrect and offensive. If YOU read carefully, you would see that I was not claiming that you were promoting endless growth. I was using that as an example only.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I see no advantage in having interns who cost more than regular workers.

Not the fancy ones. The regular, no cost interns. So eager to learn, they work for experience.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not the fancy ones. The regular, no cost interns. So eager to learn, they work for experience.

A couple years ago, I actually had a
kid who did some work for free.
But I soon started paying him anyway.

Perhaps that was his fiendish plan, eh.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A couple years ago, I actually had a
kid who did some work for free.
But I soon started paying him anyway.

Perhaps that was his fiendish plan, eh.

Did he use some sort of bacon fragrance for aftershave?

 

[Revoltingest]

Did he use some sort of bacon fragrance for aftershave?

He didn't look old enuf to shave.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He didn't look old enuf to shave.

I knew a guy growing up that was a bit more than 6 foot by 14 and already shaving. Based on his size he could have worked as two for free. Highly economical intern and he liked motorcycles.

 

[Shad]

@Shad No snark was ever intended. I'm proposing that we zoom way, way, out and try to look at this from a fresh perspective. All of my questions here are meant to understand your points and further the conversation. None of this is meant to be snark.

I took issues with the framing of the questions.

So I'm confused here. It seems to me that you're both worried about historical failures AND you're also defending the standard approach of propping up the banks?

I am talking about preventing adding another crisis on top the existing 3 we have now not bail outs due to mismanagement as per 2009.

On this goal we're agreed. But it seems like the standard answer of "do a bank bailout" inevitably leads to lining the pockets of the CEOs.

It can but that is a problem for Dems and GOP. After all the last example was the 2009 bailout backed by both parties.

So - as a thought experiment - what if ALL of the stimulus money went to consumers?

It still wouldn't work as you have businesses that can not operate thus has no customers at all.

This is where I'm gonna cry foul. This is a form of ad hominem that is both incorrect and offensive.

No as you did make a giant assumption based on something I never said nor advocated for.

If YOU read carefully, you would see that I was not claiming that you were promoting endless growth. I was using that as an example only.

Yawn

"Do either of you have links to proofs that back up these economic truisms?"

You assumed my argument was about this and asked for proof of an argument from your head.

 

[ManSinha]

You bring up a very good point. Interns often work without pay, but some interns are paid. In the ag industry, most of the interns I know of were paid pretty well. Even some that are not often get something from it, like course credit.

There is one more aspect to it @Dan From Smithville and @Revoltingest - in medicine and law - the person supervising the intern can write them letters of recommendation and if they are really pleased with the professional performance and aptitude of the intern, actually call in a favor and get them accepted to a high level job or a chance at further study - I shall provide two or three examples

I interned with a gentleman who was well known in the field (had written a few textbooks and was regarded as an authority on the subject) - he made a call and got me into a fellowship program that I may or may not have gotten in without his backing

I know of at least two individuals who "clerked" with judges and senators in DC and both are in high level positions in the Federal government today - one in CMS and the other in DoJ

FWIW

 

[icehorse]

It still wouldn't work as you have businesses that can not operate thus has no customers at all.

Well we're gonna have businesses at all points on the can-to-cannot operate continuum. The question is - if consumers could all still consume, wouldn't that minimize the number of businesses that would have to close? We can call this idea "trickle up economics"