They are essentially the same with the same goal. One is reactionary to try and reduce an already existing crisis and the other more proactive to try and prevent it.
Agree - although 2008 should have done some of that and it made people even more libertarian with the "no bailouts!" movement. I think this may reshape healthcare thinking too, depending on how we do vs Europe, for example. If Europe's health care goes through hell and we manage through things, it may end the M4A movement for a while. Or the reverse if we fail and manage well. If Big Pharma also saves humanity, it may change how people view the "big pharma is too profitable and scamming everyone" narrative. All around, this has the potential to reshape our views of things. Or we fix this in a few months like China, go back to normal, and nothing changes. Who knows.
What's being talked about now is not a stimulus payment - we've shut everything down so there's nothing to stimulate. This is a survival payment - to pay rent/utilites/etc. That's exactly what UBI is conceptually - it's to guarantee a consistent baseline source if income to make it easier to weather the bad times.
Im finding this stimulus package a joke which ranks up there with some of the auto bailouts and banks. Regardless of the details, its being presented as a bailout of the economy, but the reality is its bailing out the middle class and small businesses. This is the area Trump won back some support from previous elections. And he is doing it again.
We should have a specific bill for the restaurant industry. There are over 15 million employees. Over 10x as many as Boeing. It is 10% of the labor force. There are comparatively few restaurant billionaires like Tillman as compared to line workers. The market is highly diluted among thousands of competitors. They need the money and there are very few large stakeholders who would siphon up the cash like in airlines or hotels. I would argue it's as strategically important as well due to the sectors sheer size. 10% of the labor force is a lot.
There were 1.4M hospitality workers in the State of Texas as of January. By April 1 800K to 1M of those will be unemployed.
One is permanent while the other is a temporary tool. It's like taking a steroid to heal versus taking them habitually. One creates dependence while the other heals. No this is not the same as UBI which is a proposal to create a continuous income. The concepts, while sharing a similarity, are not the same. Anyone proposing that they are is hopeful in using this as a political opportunity to support UBI in the future and say SEE we did it before. But that ignores the long-term v short-term effects of giving money to the population. The longer you do something like this the less it helps you and the more it hurts you.
This one? https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ Or this? https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/auto-bailout-ten-years-later-right-call/
Money always trickles up almost never trickles down Poor Person's money goes to --> Rent, Stores, Utilities Rich Person's money goes to --> Storage (aka Banks, other money holding places) Rocket River
Dang... got excited and thought I was rich there for a minute when you said Storage... Then you broke it down and I became Poor again... T_Man
**** this guy, there are already millions out of work. Bailout should be conditional on his immediate resignation, abrogation of his exit package, and replacement of the board and forfeiture of their compensation this year.
Those bailouts cost the government nothing and saved millions of job sand ultimately the entire US economy. They also punished the companies to varying degree to try to avoid a moral hazard. Given the speed at which they were designed, if anything, they were examples of well-designed bailouts that paid for themselves and actually ultimately made a small profit for taxpayers.
I know buybacks are an easy target, but this is more complicated than that. If not buybacks, the money would likely have been paid out in dividends. We don't want or expect companies to just sit on billions of dollars in profits - we want those profits to get distributed out one way or another. If anything, the buybacks are better than dividends because United bought an asset - meaning the government could simply now take the stock they bought back as a condition of the bailout. And if United recovers, the government can sell that stock to the open market to make a profit at the expense of United. This is kind of what happened in the bank bailouts (different mechanism) and it reaped profits for taxpayers. That said, the threats themselves are certainly tonedeaf and stupid.
Bernie would try to fix all this but folks 'aint ready apparently so folks get what they ask for, not deserve unfortunately.
