I don't really get how, say if there's an infrastructure project, it's "unrelated" or foul to mandate that it be carbon neutral or whatever, or to tilt them towards green initiative s That's just good policy. We need these things regardless. In fact it's the same thing as pandemic preparedness in that it guards against a hard to imagine, cataclysmic threat, but one that is inevitable on the current course. The 30 year rise in sea levels is as catastrophic as this...of course we should spend money to mitigate it. But saying we can't do it because the same group of ****wits who told us COVID19 is a hoax say it's "unrelated" , because they also believe climate change is a hoax, seems pretty stupid. We shouldn't do bad policy because of the dumbassery of one side.
I think a 2 trillion dollar stimulus is enough proof that currency at this point is just digital make believe. It's not as though there was 2 trillion dollars just celled up in Ft. Knox waiting to be released to the general public. It's hard to hold others personally accountable for their economic hardships when our government can just print money out of thin air in the face of an epidemic.
I mean yea... we did the same thing during the Financial Crisis. It's just a matter of adding a few extra "0"s to the spreadsheet. However, there are consequences.
I wish those consequences would be discussed like hyperinflation. There is a cost to adding 2 trillion dollars that didn't exist into the economy and that's a devaluation of the dollar. Our administration won't discuss that though. Referring to the 2008 financial crisis, at least the government earned interest on their bailout of the housing market. What interest is the government going to collect from this 2 trillion stimulus?
Following up on the comments about the problems of just letting 1-2 million die. Leaving aside the humanitarian concern consider that not all of these people are going to be elderly. Adam Schlesinger of Fountains of Wayne just died and he was 52. He still had decades of productivity. We simply don't know enough about this disease to just say it will be elderly who aren't contributing to the economy and clearing the way for younger people. Even if it is mostly elderly we have had five major parties candidates run for President in their 70's. There are many elderly who are still active and contributing economically. Also many elderly represent a large store of institutional memory. For example in engineering fixing and in some cases successfully replacing older technology takes engineers who were around when that was first built. Just allowing 1-2 million to die will be an economic problem and one that could set us back our development.
The US isn't the Wiemar Republic. We've been waiting for inflation for the past 10 years, I'm sure it's going to come up but probably not like how you think. The entire $2 trillion isn't free money that won't be paid back. I'd be more concerned that we are going to have slower growth due to all the debt obligations coming up. I imagine boomers except their entitlements, in spite of all the tax cuts.
Doctors and scientists are such horrible businessmen. World renowned for not being able to properly identify and assess risk-reward. It's no surprise - they aren't trained to do that. They are only trained to evaluate risk and solve the immediate problem at hand. They should NOT be relied on to drive a national policy that has huge socioeconomic implications. Nor should they be relied on for supply chain advice or statistical interpretations. The data is rapidly unfolding before our eyes. We now know that the previous Imperial College estimates for deaths was wildly exaggerated. The previous hospitalization rates were previously exaggerated. The models have been wrong. Furthermore, we now know that 6.6 million Americans are out of work. 6.6 million families lost their source of income. This will bring about much hardship and suffering for families. The social and economic costs MUST BE BALANCED with the medical risks. We voluntarily ignore many risks in our daily lives with a higher chance of killing us than COVID. Driving a car, smoking, drinking alcohol, boating in Galveston Bay. YOU CANNOT ELIMINATE RISK IN YOUR LIFE. We have now wrecked the economy and millions of people's way of life, and standard of living, over a diseases that is only highly dangerous to the elderly and those with cardiovascular problems, respiratory problems, or diabetes. Yes there are exceptions, but by and large, this is statistically accurate. Is 6.6 million jobs worth giving up for 250 healthy people who have died? It's ugly to think about, but the answer is NO. Actuaries do this math daily for insurance companies. But also consider the # of people who will die from suicide and depression from lost jobs, lost savings, and lost houses. Many times the number of healthy people who die from COVID. Bottom Line: We must return to work SOON or else risk an economic calamity that kills more people than COVID. This virus does not pose a major risk to the working age population.
The US isn't a business. If we did nothing and the virus spread significantly faster, the economy would be worse off.
You're doing exactly what he wants you to do.... Respond to his response.... You can read his crap, but just don't respond to it... T_Man
False. The loss of life from a wrecked economy will exceed the loss of life from COVID. No economy means reduced funding for medical research and health care! Less people insured due to fewer jobs. More suicides and mental health problems. The HUMANE thing to do is to unleash the American worker and allow them to return to work. It will save lives. Again, for emphasis, this virus does not pose a statistical risk to the working age population. The data on deaths in both NY and FL prove this out. Do not work from old models that have been proven to be wildly inaccurate.
In hindsight, I think the 2008 bailout was a mistake in that it let private companies that are monopolies that are too big to fail know that the U.S. government will bail them out. This encourages things like stock buy backs instead of creating a business equivalent of a six month nest egg for rainy day situations like a pandemic. Like generally, as a personal practice, it's good to have enough money saved up for rainy day situations, where you have a nest egg saved up for six to twelve months of a mortgage, health insurance costs, groceries, and just bills. What the 2008 bailout did instead, is encourage shady business practices because if a company is caught doing fraudulent activity while also being too big to fail, the U.S. government will reward fraudulent activity by bailing them out. The only upside to that is a collection of interest from the bail out. Right now, no interest will be gained from a 2 trillion stimulus, as it is merely an emergency measure to keep our existing economy afloat. It's being reactive vs proactive. Anyone that's worked in IT knows the importance of pro-active thinking by anticipating future security holes that could be compromised by an intrusive hacker. Better to anticipate said security holes and patch them up than be a news headline that is stuck admitting that a hacker broke into their system and compromised millions of their user's SS numbers and personal data like what happened with Equifax. The cost of being pro-active may seem like a lot, what with being current on IT security, but is cheaper than being compromised by a hacker, ruining the reputation and trust of said private entity, and having to settle out of court for any lawsuits that may emerge from a hacking breach. No system administrator relishes talking about IT annual budget to renew Windows licenses with their higher ups as a justification to ensure maximum security vs intruders, but it's necessary to be as proactive as possible to avoid being a headline like Equifax. I can't help but think if our administration had reacted pro-actively in the face of this epidemic, perhaps we might all be suffering less, especially those who will die from lack of medical care and proper medical equipment due to our administration's reactive negligence and coverups. If you're still a die hard Trump supporter, can you consciously admit to yourself that Trump has reacted pro-actively vs reactively in the face of this epidemic?
Hmmm, let's see, he has marshaled the vast resources of the military, health care industry, federal government, and many private companies to respond to the problem. He has overseen the rapid production of PPE and ventilators and gotten those in the right hands. He shut down travel from China, when it was unpopular to do so. He has rapidly signed legislation to provide relief to families, workers and businesses. He has collaborated with state governors and mayors regardless of political affiliation. He has been 100% transparent with daily press conferences, answering all questions. Trump is an executive - and flat out efficient at getting stuff done. Obama hemmed and hawed and really was never a true leader/decision-maker like Trump. Obama's idea of stimulus was cash for clunkers. Obama spent billions on the Obamacare website that didn't work. It took months for TARP money to get in the right hands. It will take the Trump Administration DAYS to get money to those who need it. It's not even comparable. Obama was a speech reader and quite honestly a figurehead leader who pulled in the right coalition to get votes. Trump is someone who just gets stuff done. Spoiler Oh cot dam you just got OWNED
Contrary to other posters, I appreciate your satire as I find it humorous in these troubling times. Please keep posting.
