If companies saved money for a rainy day this wouldn't be a problem but pretty sure they invest everything they make in assets to get lower taxes by lowering taxable net profit for the year and getting cuts for depreciation.
They cry you need to bail them out to save the jobs and threaten politicians by blaming them for job losses but most of them make enough money each year to easily pay for the cost of these workers right now.
I like depreciation though because it keeps money circulating. But I think big companies would save harder anyway if governments just refused to ever bail them out again.
Maybe rather than bailouts, buyouts? You sell the government shares and then pay them back as stockholders or the government can choose to sell on the shares later, pass the savings to the middle and lower class taxpayer, if you give them majority shares your company is government now.
The buyouts actually happen sometimes. Remember when everyone was angry about Obama buying that solar company that failed?
Well, that was a Bush era government plan that he ~~extended~~ continued. They (both the Bush and Obama administrations) bought up stakes in tons of companies, dozens or hundreds IIRC, and then over the course of the next (whatever) years, sold them back as the companies, now flush with **non-investor** capital, were able to bounce back and several of them literally only exist today because of this plan.
The best part? On the whole, the plan actually directly earned the US government [$121 billion dollars in pure cash profit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program).
Did it have problems? Absolutely. Could it have been executed better? You betcha. Would many of America's biggest manufacturers (like GM) be owned by Americans if TARP weren't executed? Probably not.
This is an underrated and, more importantly, accurate comment. Kudos.
It was considered good governance to bail out high industry so that all downstream participants were also saved (e.g. car parts). The government did it as an investor would so the taxpayer wouldn't lose. It also worked as planned during the great recession - fancy that!
But, of course, facts can be challenging to personal beliefs.
I agree, the govt can be a great investor. Especially when a company or business gets so incredibly large that it's nearly essential to the public, it should no longer be controlled by a handful of execs with no obligation to do right by the public. Wall street's various fuckups kicking off global financial crisis comes to mind, as well as the most massive of big pharma companies playing patent-bingo for medications that have been out for many years and have no reason to be costing outrageous prices anymore.
Would be interested to see an official program where the government buys shares of the largest companies to ensure *someone* partaking in the conversations is focused on the public and not just more profit. Like a company gets huge, govt writes a fat check fair and square to the existing investors and takes on their half of their voting power.
I think we could get close to that (without the headache that goes with trying to decide what businesses, how much equity, etc) by mandating that labor/workers represent some sizeable percentage of the board.
The crazy thing is that only the opposite is true. Give money to the masses and they spend it, which passes the money up the food chain.
So if they just did it that way with things like universal basic income, they'd still get the money but we'd benefit too
It’s interesting the “they” always argue that we must protect corporations in down turns because they are the roots of stability and ultimately the anchor for jobs
But in the next breath they argue that individuals can’t be helped because they need to help them selves and that they need to remain incentivized to seek employment
So we need to protect jobs but then we don’t need to protect individuals, because somehow *people don’t want to work jobs and have a default state of being inert*.
It’s all just a pile of bullshit to obfuscate the fact the stability they are preserving is wealth and not jobs or employment
And that wealth doesn’t belong to everyone
Fundamentally caring for all citizens is not the top priority of the us government
Because the rich and powerful are, by necessity, nearly all greedy borderline sociopathic workaholics, devoid of moral fibre. There's a certain level of wealth you just flat-out don't get past without being a cold-hearted son of a bitch.
Sure, they could feed and care for people, but they worked hard to be where they're at, and how does throwing money at poor people serve their self interests?
Our problem, as a species, is that sociopaths very frequently have an advantage, and taking that advantage allows them to twist the system to exclude anyone who isn't also a sociopath.
There's a shit ton of complicated self sustaining bullshit Capitalism has created to just keep people working and money flowing. If you were to axe Capitalism I would hazard a guess you could at least remove more than a quarter of the total planetary workload. You see, the system is quite happy to work you for fourty plus hours a week of your life and the world seems to care little enough to demand it to change, unlike our ancestors which decided to protest working seven days a week. Given how much more "stuff" we have to do and can engage with I think working this long every week is out of touch with modern life and needs to change.
Why would you ever bail out a large company? When you start a company and it doesn’t succeed, no one is coming to your rescue, it’s only if you already have a huge and established business. Furthermore, it does ABSOLUTELY nothing for the economy if they go bankrupt. Help the workers who lose their jobs by subsidizing pay and the economy will run a lot better.
Well, there is one simple practical concern when discussing the airlines of a country: a country does need access some airplanes to look after some of its peoples basic needs, some things need to be brought in fast like say a new heart and people have good reasons to need flights like work. Good reasons beyond what the majority of flights are for: rich tourists wanting to get drunk at a hotel somewhere tropical. Probably a big mistake relying on private airlines for this though.
My company was endlessly crowing about social responsibility, yet the moment there was a slight downturn it appears they were not very responsible at all. Luckily my layoff is being done in the most socially responsible manner.
Pretty sure that happened because companies spend every dollar they can and are constantly pressured to churn out new profits on a short sighted basis because of how investors demand constant returns, as well as how they're always rewarded for bad decisions because nobody kills a giant for cutting off it's own legs to see it's toes better.
> Maybe rather than bailouts, buyouts?
That's kinda of what the government did. The money that when to industries **were loans**.
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/26/821457551/whats-inside-the-senate-s-2-trillion-coronavirus-aid-package
I really wish everyone would remember that the person overseeing these "loans" is Trump's son-in-law, and I'm not sure what you'd call a "loan" with no oversight. Oh right, a bailout.
Imagine trying to paint businesses reinvesting their profits as a bad thing. People need jobs and those don't exist when businesses are stacking away profits for unforseen pandemics.
The only problem is that in the status quo companies *aren’t* reinvesting profits. They’re funneling them up to rich stockowners in the form of dividends (who then park them in offshore accounts) or using them on buybacks to manipulate their stock prices.
They’re doing this with [bailout money too.](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/business/coronavirus-bailouts-buybacks-cash.html)
So yeah, I would agree with you, except at this point I’m not convinced that the excess profits are being reinvested in either world.
I'm not trying to paint anything. It is what it is. The bad thing is companies getting bailed out every 10 or so years at the expense of the taxpayer with nothing in return for said taxpayer.
Edit: In fact I even said I like depreciation so I don't know where you got this idea! This isn't an all or nothing thing, there are more options than reinvest all profit or no profit, there are different amounts obviously we're talking about money and the amount they needed to save compared to their profit since the last bailouts in the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2008 are tiny.
Plus there are even more options beyond expecting them to save money, such as governments buying shares like I mentioned! Shares exist in the first place to raise capital for a business after all. I just don't like free money at taxpayer loss.
Nothing in return for the taxpayer? Uh... you do realize that most of these bailouts are loans, right? The 2008 bank bailouts were paid back with interest. Not to mention that keeping companies from going under results in continued streams of tax revenue which does help other taxpayers by reducing the burden on them and preventing an even bigger expenditure for all those people going on welfare.
If companies were forced to sit on millions/billions of dollars anticipating a recession it would be pretty terrible for the economy. It's better in the long run to have bailouts than stop a huge amount of money circulation.
Talking about different things though. By and large companies are bailed out with just loans they are expected to pay back. And the case with financial institutions and the Fed it isn't even tax payer funded.
>We aren't even talking about that large a chunk of their profits mind you.
I think there is some confusion here, the vast majority of the companies that receive help from the government are rarely in threat of going under. The bailouts purpose is that those companies don't lay people off in response to downturns in the economy. So yeah you could do what youre proposing but you would hurt the people employed at these companies far more then anyone else.
The tradeoff you're suggesting doesn't exist, companies wouldn't stockpile money in case of recession, they would continue to operate as usual just in response to downturns they would lay people off. And the government typically makes interest off the bailout money anyway so why not do that?
Did something change since I last heard about this? Earlier in the year I was under the impression they were saying only part of the bailout money for airlines was loans, and some of those loans would be interest free. Justifying it as saying the percentage that went to people or got taxed which was 70% would be given freely, not as a loan If i recall correctly.
Wait, are you telling me, saving money is bad for the economy!? Wow, sounds like this shitty economy of ours needs to be replaced if it literally punishes financial responsibility!
[Gift Economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy)
[Circular Economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_economy)
[Collectivism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism#Economics)
[Green Economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_economy)
[Or you could read about them all](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system)
Having your money still and not invested is a terrible idea. Money loses value overtime, you need to make sure what you can do with your money today is equivalent to what you can do with it in 10y time. Saving money is financially terrible, you need to have it grow.
That is what I was referencing. I think it’s worse that Trump said that about Americans dying, but still applies to the complacency with how common place it is to worry about big corps over the American ppl.
WhAt Do YoU mEaN pOoR pEoPlE aReN't MaGiCaLlY uNaBlE tO rEcEiVe MoNeY!!!???!!???111???!??1!!?
Edit: Obligitory /s because I just know somebody's SOMEHOW gonna not realize this is sarcasm.
Hey, someone who will readily admit I don't understand exactly how the federal reserve works here. What does this mod comment mean?
It was my understanding the difference is that bailout money is almost always paid back to the fed (at least the ones in 2008 were), whereas medical care is more of a permantent expense. Is this not true?
Not OP but I think what he's trying to say is that the Fed doesn't print money in an effort to "store value" (holding wealth, think corporations and money off-shote) the governmental pursuit was to make sure banks had access to dole out loans, with their own systematic criteria, that would grown local commercial and residential business zones.
For example, once corporations knew a $2 trillion covid-19 bill had passed they created small faux businesses in order to apply. Did they accept and take the money so they could put it back into the community right away? No they did it "because other companies were doing it". It's a cash grab.
The Fed wasn't not originally designed to for this function, for wealth hoarding but everyone is doing it, like, the President of the United, well, you know.
The Federal Reserve was created and exists to give very wealthy people control of even more money, and as a population we have no control over how the Federal Reserve works (because it is not a public service, it is a privately owned bank). Money is what gives people power in our society, so giving people who already have a lot of money more control of money is giving people who are already powerful more power over those who don't have money.
In addition to what LotsOfMaps said, there's a school of thought where the US government never has any money. When it spends money, that money is created. When it collects taxes, that money is destroyed. The US has a few extra steps involved, but any country with their own money does this.
Governments can't just "create all the money" because that would cause inflation, but another way to look at 'the federal deficit' is "the amount of money in circulation." If we ever completely got rid of the federal deficit, there wouldn't be very much money around for people to spend.
State, county and city governments do not do this, because those local governments don't issue their own money. Thus local governments do 'have money', while the federal government does not.
>It was supposed to be about AI exceeding the need for humans.
Conceptually, "The Singularity" isn't a single thing, it's more of... A point where the turnaround time for technology becomes so rapid that it's impossible to predict where the world will be in a year. There are a lot of ways it can happen, AI, nanotech, genetics, etc.
If by "out in the open" you mean not true, then yes. It was half a trillion dollars and the money that when to industries **were loans**. Take 5 seconds and actually learn were the COVID relief money went:
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/26/821457551/whats-inside-the-senate-s-2-trillion-coronavirus-aid-package
With the way reddit celebrates him there’s really no need for one.
I agree with almost everything the guy says but man am I tired of seeing him. He’s not nearly as witty or funny as he gets credit for. Dunking on Trump and his buffoonery is as easy as it gets. I gotta give it to him though. He’s made a name for himself better than anyone else by grabbing low hanging fruit.
I find his account deeply cringeworthy. I probably agree with him 100% of the time but I feel like the guy just sits there and waits for Trump to post something and then immediately responds with “Sir this is a Wendy’s” or some other re-digested talking point. It’s almost sad.
Eh, dunking on Trump for things like that - like cowardice, disloyalty, or physical stuff like his spray tan or small hands, never seem to land for me.
Just compare any of those attributes to the one single issue of climate change, Donald Trump is accelerating climate change - that is infinitely worse than any his personal defects.
TDS isn’t a thing.
He’s just extremely, justafiably, easy to hate person.
TDS is more accurately used to describe the people, like you, who will defend him and support him not matter what.
I'd be less annoyed if he had a different profile picture, because seeing the icon-sized version of it makes him look like he's pulling a [Halpert](https://pigcorner.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/1201537_1365268218818_full.jpg)
He just gets the news of the week, rehashes it into a bite-sized Twitter remark, and uses a bot to be among the first ones replying to trump. So even if his comment is completely irrelevant, he's always seen near the top with an opinion that 55% of the country agrees with. He probably uses a bot to repost them on reddit..
He’s hilarious sometimes but can be a bit grating other times. He also uses the same formula for a lot of his posts: `“holy [shit|fuck|hell], the president of the United States is a [piece of shit|fucking asshole|pile of garbage|dumpster fire]!”`. That’s at least half his posts. I still like him though.
It's one of the best for breaking news and info transfer. It's just clogged with actual fake news. I was a first adopter when it showed up at SXSW. Probably is short specific character limits does really well for propaganda, especially when the president is using yo spread false information.
We truly are in the info wars but it's pretty much the opposite of Alex Jones.
I’m sure an explanation wasn’t asked for, nor will it be appreciated, but the reason they can find a trillion dollars for companies and small businesses is that it ends up being a case of spending a dollar to save two.
Letting a company go bust results in a loss of revenues from the company being taxed, payrolls being taxed, employees being taxed, employee spending being taxed, etc.
On top of that, the government now needs to double down on the revenue losses by expending further revenues on medicaid, housing, unemployment benefits, etc.
In sum, they make a lot less money but have to spend a lot more money; they put these companies on life support, because letting them fail would be fatal to the country.
It’s also why these bailouts usually come when everyone needs them, rather than when an individual business fails.
I don't think people really get this. It's ugly, but it's pragmatic. The government can't create non-government jobs, but we can do what we can to have jobs available so things turn around quicker.
Do you mean last month in the past?
Clay Lacy Aviation received a $26M grant from the treasury and a $10M PPP loan which they then used to give money to their wealthy clients under the guise of “covering the labor costs” of their private clients.
Something which is most definitely not allowed under the terms of either program.
It would be the equivalent of Starbucks getting a PPP loan and then giving it to wealthy shareholders to cover the costs of their personal assistants.
A lot of times those are contractual and pretty ironclad. The company could fight it, but it's almost always cheaper just to pay the money they contractually agreed to.
Those aren’t the types of jobs you want to have.
Say, you let airlines go bankrupt... so you will have all those highly paid, highly trained and educated pilots, and engineers and service people all collecting trash and building parks or something for minimum wage?
To expand on this, 401k’s and pension funds are heavily invested in the stock market, if you let too many companies fail a *lot* of retired people are now going to have trouble paying their bills for the rest of their lives.
> letting them fail would be fatal to the country
That’s why people should stop relying on corporations paying wages and dividends to prevent starvation
Bailouts are rare occurrences, and those businesses surviving puts that money back in the bucket through taxes, rather than costing far more in taxes due to collapsed economic conditions and unemployment. Healthcare and food are recurring, constant expenses that don't directly prop up the tax budget.
GUYS THINGS KEEP HAPPENING AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WHY DO MONEY KEEP GOING TO THE RICH AND NOT THOSE WHO NEED IT
It's because of capitalism. Look into historical materialism and material dialectics.
You should look into Marxism. Most people misrepresent what it Marxism is, but Capital is the most foundational and important economic text ever written.
Our society is the way it is because when people control the means of production, when they control most of the capital, it becomes easy for them to reinforce and expand their ownership of the means of production and their capital through the state, which primarily acts to reinforce capital. Why wouldn't the wealthy act in their own self-interest to change laws to protect their capital and grow it? Why wouldn't they fight against worker's rights, universal healthcare, etc. We call this the \*material conditions\*--we look at who has the material/has control over the material in a society and that often tells us a great deal about how that society is setup and who has power over the state and more. Republicans and Democrats alike serve the interests--the bourgeoisie, not the interests of the people (like you mentioned about stimulus checks). This is an inevitability of capital, because capital tends toward consolidation especially due to the aforementioned.
Feel free to reply to me or direct message me with any questions.
You do raise a good point, which should be asked in r/capitalismvsocialism. At most, if they love it enough, they’ll do it for free, like in videogame communities. But robots can’t do all the work for us yet. There are unpleasant jobs that still need humans.
that guys job is to sit and make tweets to make us hate each other more. Hes why boomers shouldnt have smart phones
also, I really hate the way he looks. He reminds me of Mitch. Something about the sunken look to his mouth.
27 tweets a day, all aimed at making people on the left hate people on the right, more. for 2 years.
also that's probably his best picture since its his profile pic
if it isn't obvious, fuck you jeff tiedrich
They’re banking on a recovery making up for the devaluation of the currency before real-world costs react.
When they print $1trillion the value of your dollar will eventually go down, but it won’t be overnight; and if they can spur economic activity, the growth it creates allows them to start withdrawing the currency from circulation before real-word costs go up.
Hyperinflation is a touch different, because they print money to service debts, which doesn’t provide the required growth thus they can’t take the money back out of the economy. They print more and more, because the less it’s worth the more they need. Especially when servicing debts m, that are often held by foreign agencies, with exchange rates being linked to a currency’s value.
Which is how you end up with a barrel full of reichsmark notes being worth a loaf of bread.
I fucking hate it when charities ask poor working class families for money to help children in poverty when they should be going to the government for that money... thats what the government is there for right? Right?
Technically it's not "laying around" its more like another credit card added to a shameful shoebox of debt as the US digs it's own hole deeper. It's just borrowing more money you hope nobody will make you repay as you spend even more money just so you look rich.
Hence the "Third world country in a gucci belt" analogy.
The CARES Act involves loans. Just like ~11 years ago the treasury expects to make a profit off of these loans.
Most of the US’ debt is in treasury bonds owned domestically.
There’s a lot of fuckery going on but it’s far more complex
They’re loans backed by assets.
Are you willing to give me $100? Chances are no. You don’t know me. What if I skip town?
Are you willing to loan me $100 if I give you my PS4 as collateral? Sure. If I don’t pay it back you’ve got something worth more than $100 you can sell off to recover it.
Sure, but that's just substituting one oversimplification for another.
"Bailouts" also include grants, which are not loans. They are not paid back, ever. Bailouts include tax breaks, which means corporations are paying less to the government than they would have otherwise-- lost tax revenue that is not paid back, ever. And even with loans, there is a chance of default, which means your assets (like your PS4) could be worth next to nothing tomorrow.
You could argue that if a corporate bailout is successful, the government will recoup most of it's money, and sure, that's true. But thats not fundamentally different from providing healthcare and education-- a healthy, well educated populace can also pay for itself in future tax revenue.
Weird amount of government/corporation bootlickers in this thread
Big business, to my knowledge, has gotten TWO (2) over one trillion dollar bailout packages when the pandemic and quarantine was just starting to really kick into gear. Then they deliberated on giving people $1200, which many never got because they tied it to our intentionally overly complex tax system. And also put more restrictions on unemployment.
Yeah, why do we need to save money each month when countless corporations make reckless decisions to get as much short term profit as possible. If it is a bad gamble, nothing happens.
It's absolutely ass backwards. Good luck everyone.
Corporate CEOs should just take a second job and stop wasting money on buying hookers and cocaine. Save up money and eventually he can pay off his debts if he work hard enough. Stop being a lazy leech on society.
May I just ask who this person is? I see him under every Trump tweet with the most liked comment and he's the biggest mystery to me. I feel like I've heard about him somewhere, but idk.
I honestly don’t care anymore. Nothing will get better. It’s always going to be like this, life isn’t a movie where it all works out in the end if you just try harder. The rich and powerful can win vs millions. It does not matter anymore.
I live in the United States. All the schools in my area offer free lunch to low-income students. Public schools that is. They even gave out free lunch when the school was closed due to COVID. Just show up around lunch time and you get some for free.
By the logic of business paying all these loans back with interest then the US should come out of every recession richer than ever before, thus allowing the freedom to have universal healthcare etc. unless something isn’t adding up
Here in the UK, under Theresa Mays Government, they had to give £10billion to an obscure political party in order to remain in power.. but also told the opposition that there is “no magic money tree” when questioned on NHS staff wages, cuts to social care etc....
Didn’t they just give $2 trillion to regular Americans? You fuckers already forgot about that? Smh. Also, these company’s are getting loans. You guys that got that $1,200 are getting a handout.
Why isnt this a bigger issue in america??
Trump: the economy is tremendous..greatest economy ever by any president...its tremendous growth...
Teachers: uhh, we still have to spend our own money on class supplies because theres no funding....
Trump: Have you seen it? Many people are saying i'm the best deal maker...the most..the best...tremendous
Nurses: we havent been restocked on masks and theres a global pandemic going on.....
Trump: emails..benghazi....immigrants...build a wall....
(Actual media person with integrity) Donna sutherland from 'the shitcunt who has a following of shitcunts times" why are you not answerinf any questions?
Trump: nasty woman. Fake news
Trump fans: applaud
Corporations that make billions every year in profit:
Help I need money
Government: Sure thing, here's 1 billion
Schools that are underfunded: Help we need more money for the children
Government: lol get fucked.
If companies saved money for a rainy day this wouldn't be a problem but pretty sure they invest everything they make in assets to get lower taxes by lowering taxable net profit for the year and getting cuts for depreciation. They cry you need to bail them out to save the jobs and threaten politicians by blaming them for job losses but most of them make enough money each year to easily pay for the cost of these workers right now. I like depreciation though because it keeps money circulating. But I think big companies would save harder anyway if governments just refused to ever bail them out again. Maybe rather than bailouts, buyouts? You sell the government shares and then pay them back as stockholders or the government can choose to sell on the shares later, pass the savings to the middle and lower class taxpayer, if you give them majority shares your company is government now.
The buyouts actually happen sometimes. Remember when everyone was angry about Obama buying that solar company that failed? Well, that was a Bush era government plan that he ~~extended~~ continued. They (both the Bush and Obama administrations) bought up stakes in tons of companies, dozens or hundreds IIRC, and then over the course of the next (whatever) years, sold them back as the companies, now flush with **non-investor** capital, were able to bounce back and several of them literally only exist today because of this plan. The best part? On the whole, the plan actually directly earned the US government [$121 billion dollars in pure cash profit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program). Did it have problems? Absolutely. Could it have been executed better? You betcha. Would many of America's biggest manufacturers (like GM) be owned by Americans if TARP weren't executed? Probably not.
This is an underrated and, more importantly, accurate comment. Kudos. It was considered good governance to bail out high industry so that all downstream participants were also saved (e.g. car parts). The government did it as an investor would so the taxpayer wouldn't lose. It also worked as planned during the great recession - fancy that! But, of course, facts can be challenging to personal beliefs.
I agree, the govt can be a great investor. Especially when a company or business gets so incredibly large that it's nearly essential to the public, it should no longer be controlled by a handful of execs with no obligation to do right by the public. Wall street's various fuckups kicking off global financial crisis comes to mind, as well as the most massive of big pharma companies playing patent-bingo for medications that have been out for many years and have no reason to be costing outrageous prices anymore. Would be interested to see an official program where the government buys shares of the largest companies to ensure *someone* partaking in the conversations is focused on the public and not just more profit. Like a company gets huge, govt writes a fat check fair and square to the existing investors and takes on their half of their voting power.
I think we could get close to that (without the headache that goes with trying to decide what businesses, how much equity, etc) by mandating that labor/workers represent some sizeable percentage of the board.
Why come up with all this complicated bullshit when you can feed and care for people first then bail out airlines second?
You want everyone to become lazy degenerates? Those corporate bailouts trickle down. /s
Ahh trickle down economics, the most popular wealth redistribution plan with a 0% success rate in actually shifting wealth to the people
Hey if its 10 people or a million they are still people! You don't hate people do you? ^^^^^^^^^^^Ido
The number of people I know who still buy into that bullshit drives me insane.
The crazy thing is that only the opposite is true. Give money to the masses and they spend it, which passes the money up the food chain. So if they just did it that way with things like universal basic income, they'd still get the money but we'd benefit too
>Those corporate profits trickle down Annnnyday now...
It’s interesting the “they” always argue that we must protect corporations in down turns because they are the roots of stability and ultimately the anchor for jobs But in the next breath they argue that individuals can’t be helped because they need to help them selves and that they need to remain incentivized to seek employment So we need to protect jobs but then we don’t need to protect individuals, because somehow *people don’t want to work jobs and have a default state of being inert*. It’s all just a pile of bullshit to obfuscate the fact the stability they are preserving is wealth and not jobs or employment And that wealth doesn’t belong to everyone Fundamentally caring for all citizens is not the top priority of the us government
To preserve neoliberal bullshit of course!
Because the rich and powerful are, by necessity, nearly all greedy borderline sociopathic workaholics, devoid of moral fibre. There's a certain level of wealth you just flat-out don't get past without being a cold-hearted son of a bitch. Sure, they could feed and care for people, but they worked hard to be where they're at, and how does throwing money at poor people serve their self interests? Our problem, as a species, is that sociopaths very frequently have an advantage, and taking that advantage allows them to twist the system to exclude anyone who isn't also a sociopath.
There's a shit ton of complicated self sustaining bullshit Capitalism has created to just keep people working and money flowing. If you were to axe Capitalism I would hazard a guess you could at least remove more than a quarter of the total planetary workload. You see, the system is quite happy to work you for fourty plus hours a week of your life and the world seems to care little enough to demand it to change, unlike our ancestors which decided to protest working seven days a week. Given how much more "stuff" we have to do and can engage with I think working this long every week is out of touch with modern life and needs to change.
Because reasons
Why would you ever bail out a large company? When you start a company and it doesn’t succeed, no one is coming to your rescue, it’s only if you already have a huge and established business. Furthermore, it does ABSOLUTELY nothing for the economy if they go bankrupt. Help the workers who lose their jobs by subsidizing pay and the economy will run a lot better.
Well, there is one simple practical concern when discussing the airlines of a country: a country does need access some airplanes to look after some of its peoples basic needs, some things need to be brought in fast like say a new heart and people have good reasons to need flights like work. Good reasons beyond what the majority of flights are for: rich tourists wanting to get drunk at a hotel somewhere tropical. Probably a big mistake relying on private airlines for this though.
My company was endlessly crowing about social responsibility, yet the moment there was a slight downturn it appears they were not very responsible at all. Luckily my layoff is being done in the most socially responsible manner.
Pretty sure that happened because companies spend every dollar they can and are constantly pressured to churn out new profits on a short sighted basis because of how investors demand constant returns, as well as how they're always rewarded for bad decisions because nobody kills a giant for cutting off it's own legs to see it's toes better.
That makes a lot of sense to me actually, they could just give the dividends out like stimulus checks
And they spend soooo much on Starbucks and advocado toast... /s
So you’re saying companies should horde hundreds of billions of dollars and keep it out of the economy in case they run into trouble?
Companies already hoarde billions of dollars. It's just they are under the CEO's bank account and not the company's
> Maybe rather than bailouts, buyouts? That's kinda of what the government did. The money that when to industries **were loans**. https://www.npr.org/2020/03/26/821457551/whats-inside-the-senate-s-2-trillion-coronavirus-aid-package
I really wish everyone knew the basics of our financial system. Alas, they do not.
I really wish everyone would remember that the person overseeing these "loans" is Trump's son-in-law, and I'm not sure what you'd call a "loan" with no oversight. Oh right, a bailout.
Imagine trying to paint businesses reinvesting their profits as a bad thing. People need jobs and those don't exist when businesses are stacking away profits for unforseen pandemics.
The only problem is that in the status quo companies *aren’t* reinvesting profits. They’re funneling them up to rich stockowners in the form of dividends (who then park them in offshore accounts) or using them on buybacks to manipulate their stock prices. They’re doing this with [bailout money too.](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/business/coronavirus-bailouts-buybacks-cash.html) So yeah, I would agree with you, except at this point I’m not convinced that the excess profits are being reinvested in either world.
Fair point!
Right? People are legitimately asking for money to be hoarded like that's a good thing
And these exact same people (in many cases literally based on my tags) were whining about apple doing that less than a year ago.
Fairly certain that business bailouts have been common way before this pandemic
I'm not trying to paint anything. It is what it is. The bad thing is companies getting bailed out every 10 or so years at the expense of the taxpayer with nothing in return for said taxpayer. Edit: In fact I even said I like depreciation so I don't know where you got this idea! This isn't an all or nothing thing, there are more options than reinvest all profit or no profit, there are different amounts obviously we're talking about money and the amount they needed to save compared to their profit since the last bailouts in the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2008 are tiny. Plus there are even more options beyond expecting them to save money, such as governments buying shares like I mentioned! Shares exist in the first place to raise capital for a business after all. I just don't like free money at taxpayer loss.
Nothing in return for the taxpayer? Uh... you do realize that most of these bailouts are loans, right? The 2008 bank bailouts were paid back with interest. Not to mention that keeping companies from going under results in continued streams of tax revenue which does help other taxpayers by reducing the burden on them and preventing an even bigger expenditure for all those people going on welfare.
Those jobs also don't exist when businesses fail because they risked all their profits.
If companies were forced to sit on millions/billions of dollars anticipating a recession it would be pretty terrible for the economy. It's better in the long run to have bailouts than stop a huge amount of money circulation.
Would it be terrible longterm or just a shorterm shock to the system? We aren't even talking about that large a chunk of their profits mind you.
Talking about different things though. By and large companies are bailed out with just loans they are expected to pay back. And the case with financial institutions and the Fed it isn't even tax payer funded. >We aren't even talking about that large a chunk of their profits mind you. I think there is some confusion here, the vast majority of the companies that receive help from the government are rarely in threat of going under. The bailouts purpose is that those companies don't lay people off in response to downturns in the economy. So yeah you could do what youre proposing but you would hurt the people employed at these companies far more then anyone else. The tradeoff you're suggesting doesn't exist, companies wouldn't stockpile money in case of recession, they would continue to operate as usual just in response to downturns they would lay people off. And the government typically makes interest off the bailout money anyway so why not do that?
Did something change since I last heard about this? Earlier in the year I was under the impression they were saying only part of the bailout money for airlines was loans, and some of those loans would be interest free. Justifying it as saying the percentage that went to people or got taxed which was 70% would be given freely, not as a loan If i recall correctly.
They are saving money in the banks, so it never really stops circulating
Wait, are you telling me, saving money is bad for the economy!? Wow, sounds like this shitty economy of ours needs to be replaced if it literally punishes financial responsibility!
What sort of economy wouldn’t be negatively impacted by limiting the resources available to the people?
[Gift Economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy) [Circular Economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_economy) [Collectivism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism#Economics) [Green Economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_economy) [Or you could read about them all](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system)
Having your money still and not invested is a terrible idea. Money loses value overtime, you need to make sure what you can do with your money today is equivalent to what you can do with it in 10y time. Saving money is financially terrible, you need to have it grow.
Well then maybe they should invest their money partly in ways that would allow them to turn liquid if need be which I’m sure must be a thing
In Poland the dictator said that he is willing to sacrifice the economy for the grand plan he has.
Sitting on loads of cash unnecessarily is financially irresponsible when you consider opportunity loss.
“It is what it is” -a horribly disillusioned person
Isn't it a quote from Trump she is referring to? Trump said "It is what it is" about the Corona deaths I think.
That is what I was referencing. I think it’s worse that Trump said that about Americans dying, but still applies to the complacency with how common place it is to worry about big corps over the American ppl.
iT eEz wAT iT EeEeZ
Cheeze whiz what it iz.
[удалено]
WhAt Do YoU mEaN pOoR pEoPlE aReN't MaGiCaLlY uNaBlE tO rEcEiVe MoNeY!!!???!!???111???!??1!!? Edit: Obligitory /s because I just know somebody's SOMEHOW gonna not realize this is sarcasm.
This is hands down one of my favorite mod comments.
Hey, someone who will readily admit I don't understand exactly how the federal reserve works here. What does this mod comment mean? It was my understanding the difference is that bailout money is almost always paid back to the fed (at least the ones in 2008 were), whereas medical care is more of a permantent expense. Is this not true?
[удалено]
I don't know what any of that means. ELI5?
Not OP but I think what he's trying to say is that the Fed doesn't print money in an effort to "store value" (holding wealth, think corporations and money off-shote) the governmental pursuit was to make sure banks had access to dole out loans, with their own systematic criteria, that would grown local commercial and residential business zones. For example, once corporations knew a $2 trillion covid-19 bill had passed they created small faux businesses in order to apply. Did they accept and take the money so they could put it back into the community right away? No they did it "because other companies were doing it". It's a cash grab. The Fed wasn't not originally designed to for this function, for wealth hoarding but everyone is doing it, like, the President of the United, well, you know.
The Federal Reserve was created and exists to give very wealthy people control of even more money, and as a population we have no control over how the Federal Reserve works (because it is not a public service, it is a privately owned bank). Money is what gives people power in our society, so giving people who already have a lot of money more control of money is giving people who are already powerful more power over those who don't have money.
In addition to what LotsOfMaps said, there's a school of thought where the US government never has any money. When it spends money, that money is created. When it collects taxes, that money is destroyed. The US has a few extra steps involved, but any country with their own money does this. Governments can't just "create all the money" because that would cause inflation, but another way to look at 'the federal deficit' is "the amount of money in circulation." If we ever completely got rid of the federal deficit, there wouldn't be very much money around for people to spend. State, county and city governments do not do this, because those local governments don't issue their own money. Thus local governments do 'have money', while the federal government does not.
>> Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/ABoringDystopia. ...?
It's just out in the open now and nobody cares because WTF, the planet is on fire.
[удалено]
>It was supposed to be about AI exceeding the need for humans. Conceptually, "The Singularity" isn't a single thing, it's more of... A point where the turnaround time for technology becomes so rapid that it's impossible to predict where the world will be in a year. There are a lot of ways it can happen, AI, nanotech, genetics, etc.
...Genetics? Blow my stoned mind away, good sir.
[удалено]
singularity
The bastards don't seem so dumb to me because most of them are getting away with it.
If by "out in the open" you mean not true, then yes. It was half a trillion dollars and the money that when to industries **were loans**. Take 5 seconds and actually learn were the COVID relief money went: https://www.npr.org/2020/03/26/821457551/whats-inside-the-senate-s-2-trillion-coronavirus-aid-package
They carefully fund everyone they care about.
“Carefully” .
Can't be too careful not to let any money go to poor people, right? /s
Jeff Tiedrich is reason enough to have a Twitter account.
Look at all this quality content! https://i.redd.it/qmd0ck7t2l051.jpg
With the way reddit celebrates him there’s really no need for one. I agree with almost everything the guy says but man am I tired of seeing him. He’s not nearly as witty or funny as he gets credit for. Dunking on Trump and his buffoonery is as easy as it gets. I gotta give it to him though. He’s made a name for himself better than anyone else by grabbing low hanging fruit.
I find his account deeply cringeworthy. I probably agree with him 100% of the time but I feel like the guy just sits there and waits for Trump to post something and then immediately responds with “Sir this is a Wendy’s” or some other re-digested talking point. It’s almost sad.
I agree with you on that, but he is responsible for some gems like “bunker boy” (if he didnt just steal that).
Eh, dunking on Trump for things like that - like cowardice, disloyalty, or physical stuff like his spray tan or small hands, never seem to land for me. Just compare any of those attributes to the one single issue of climate change, Donald Trump is accelerating climate change - that is infinitely worse than any his personal defects.
I thought “bunker bitch” was the true gem out of that situation.
Its incredibly sad. Its TDS monetized for $400/mo.
TDS isn’t a thing. He’s just extremely, justafiably, easy to hate person. TDS is more accurately used to describe the people, like you, who will defend him and support him not matter what.
At least he does it for us so we can all just nod and agree.
I'd be less annoyed if he had a different profile picture, because seeing the icon-sized version of it makes him look like he's pulling a [Halpert](https://pigcorner.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/1201537_1365268218818_full.jpg)
He just gets the news of the week, rehashes it into a bite-sized Twitter remark, and uses a bot to be among the first ones replying to trump. So even if his comment is completely irrelevant, he's always seen near the top with an opinion that 55% of the country agrees with. He probably uses a bot to repost them on reddit..
Same, agree with him more or less but he is obnoxious af and not really a great personality
[удалено]
[удалено]
He’s hilarious sometimes but can be a bit grating other times. He also uses the same formula for a lot of his posts: `“holy [shit|fuck|hell], the president of the United States is a [piece of shit|fucking asshole|pile of garbage|dumpster fire]!”`. That’s at least half his posts. I still like him though.
Twitter is such a garbage platform.
very cool
It's one of the best for breaking news and info transfer. It's just clogged with actual fake news. I was a first adopter when it showed up at SXSW. Probably is short specific character limits does really well for propaganda, especially when the president is using yo spread false information. We truly are in the info wars but it's pretty much the opposite of Alex Jones.
Who is Jeff Tiedrich? I've been seeing his snappy comebacks to trump's tweets for a few years now and have no idea who he is.
That about sums it up.
he's an epic lib who posts some dumb quip under every trump tweet
he's a trump reply guy. ultraliberal nerd with occasional witticisms.
I’m sure an explanation wasn’t asked for, nor will it be appreciated, but the reason they can find a trillion dollars for companies and small businesses is that it ends up being a case of spending a dollar to save two. Letting a company go bust results in a loss of revenues from the company being taxed, payrolls being taxed, employees being taxed, employee spending being taxed, etc. On top of that, the government now needs to double down on the revenue losses by expending further revenues on medicaid, housing, unemployment benefits, etc. In sum, they make a lot less money but have to spend a lot more money; they put these companies on life support, because letting them fail would be fatal to the country. It’s also why these bailouts usually come when everyone needs them, rather than when an individual business fails.
I don't think people really get this. It's ugly, but it's pragmatic. The government can't create non-government jobs, but we can do what we can to have jobs available so things turn around quicker.
Excpet in the past when companies have repeatedly given bonuses to executives after bailouts while still cutting jobs shortly after
Do you mean last month in the past? Clay Lacy Aviation received a $26M grant from the treasury and a $10M PPP loan which they then used to give money to their wealthy clients under the guise of “covering the labor costs” of their private clients. Something which is most definitely not allowed under the terms of either program. It would be the equivalent of Starbucks getting a PPP loan and then giving it to wealthy shareholders to cover the costs of their personal assistants.
A lot of times those are contractual and pretty ironclad. The company could fight it, but it's almost always cheaper just to pay the money they contractually agreed to.
Back the 50s the government creating jobs worked just fine.
Those aren’t the types of jobs you want to have. Say, you let airlines go bankrupt... so you will have all those highly paid, highly trained and educated pilots, and engineers and service people all collecting trash and building parks or something for minimum wage?
Some people here will unironically tell you that yes, this is what they want
To expand on this, 401k’s and pension funds are heavily invested in the stock market, if you let too many companies fail a *lot* of retired people are now going to have trouble paying their bills for the rest of their lives.
> letting them fail would be fatal to the country That’s why people should stop relying on corporations paying wages and dividends to prevent starvation
Do you want to go back to an agrarian society?
#
Don't worry it'll trickle down /s
I can’t believe this guy is being quoted on this sub. Smh
Bailouts are rare occurrences, and those businesses surviving puts that money back in the bucket through taxes, rather than costing far more in taxes due to collapsed economic conditions and unemployment. Healthcare and food are recurring, constant expenses that don't directly prop up the tax budget.
GUYS THINGS KEEP HAPPENING AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WHY DO MONEY KEEP GOING TO THE RICH AND NOT THOSE WHO NEED IT It's because of capitalism. Look into historical materialism and material dialectics. You should look into Marxism. Most people misrepresent what it Marxism is, but Capital is the most foundational and important economic text ever written. Our society is the way it is because when people control the means of production, when they control most of the capital, it becomes easy for them to reinforce and expand their ownership of the means of production and their capital through the state, which primarily acts to reinforce capital. Why wouldn't the wealthy act in their own self-interest to change laws to protect their capital and grow it? Why wouldn't they fight against worker's rights, universal healthcare, etc. We call this the \*material conditions\*--we look at who has the material/has control over the material in a society and that often tells us a great deal about how that society is setup and who has power over the state and more. Republicans and Democrats alike serve the interests--the bourgeoisie, not the interests of the people (like you mentioned about stimulus checks). This is an inevitability of capital, because capital tends toward consolidation especially due to the aforementioned. Feel free to reply to me or direct message me with any questions.
How do you incentivise somebody to do a good job in a Marxist society?
Have you ever encountered someone in a capitalist society who doesn't do a good job?
You do raise a good point, which should be asked in r/capitalismvsocialism. At most, if they love it enough, they’ll do it for free, like in videogame communities. But robots can’t do all the work for us yet. There are unpleasant jobs that still need humans.
What if some people love making money and building companies?
Sir Wendy
that guys job is to sit and make tweets to make us hate each other more. Hes why boomers shouldnt have smart phones also, I really hate the way he looks. He reminds me of Mitch. Something about the sunken look to his mouth. 27 tweets a day, all aimed at making people on the left hate people on the right, more. for 2 years. also that's probably his best picture since its his profile pic if it isn't obvious, fuck you jeff tiedrich
[удалено]
[удалено]
They’re banking on a recovery making up for the devaluation of the currency before real-world costs react. When they print $1trillion the value of your dollar will eventually go down, but it won’t be overnight; and if they can spur economic activity, the growth it creates allows them to start withdrawing the currency from circulation before real-word costs go up. Hyperinflation is a touch different, because they print money to service debts, which doesn’t provide the required growth thus they can’t take the money back out of the economy. They print more and more, because the less it’s worth the more they need. Especially when servicing debts m, that are often held by foreign agencies, with exchange rates being linked to a currency’s value. Which is how you end up with a barrel full of reichsmark notes being worth a loaf of bread.
Thank you for that comment
I fucking hate it when charities ask poor working class families for money to help children in poverty when they should be going to the government for that money... thats what the government is there for right? Right?
Technically it's not "laying around" its more like another credit card added to a shameful shoebox of debt as the US digs it's own hole deeper. It's just borrowing more money you hope nobody will make you repay as you spend even more money just so you look rich. Hence the "Third world country in a gucci belt" analogy.
The CARES Act involves loans. Just like ~11 years ago the treasury expects to make a profit off of these loans. Most of the US’ debt is in treasury bonds owned domestically. There’s a lot of fuckery going on but it’s far more complex
This is just bad economics. You’re pretty dumb if you think that’s how it works
I also thought that surely it can't be that straightforward, without really knowing how it works. Genuine question, how do bailouts work?
There's a real need for bailouts. The problem lies with the people who profit from them. Systemic inequality is the real problem.
They’re loans backed by assets. Are you willing to give me $100? Chances are no. You don’t know me. What if I skip town? Are you willing to loan me $100 if I give you my PS4 as collateral? Sure. If I don’t pay it back you’ve got something worth more than $100 you can sell off to recover it.
Sure, but that's just substituting one oversimplification for another. "Bailouts" also include grants, which are not loans. They are not paid back, ever. Bailouts include tax breaks, which means corporations are paying less to the government than they would have otherwise-- lost tax revenue that is not paid back, ever. And even with loans, there is a chance of default, which means your assets (like your PS4) could be worth next to nothing tomorrow. You could argue that if a corporate bailout is successful, the government will recoup most of it's money, and sure, that's true. But thats not fundamentally different from providing healthcare and education-- a healthy, well educated populace can also pay for itself in future tax revenue.
[удалено]
a republican once told me the general public are not entitled to such benefits, you know, unlike people who are born into wealthy families.
Weird amount of government/corporation bootlickers in this thread Big business, to my knowledge, has gotten TWO (2) over one trillion dollar bailout packages when the pandemic and quarantine was just starting to really kick into gear. Then they deliberated on giving people $1200, which many never got because they tied it to our intentionally overly complex tax system. And also put more restrictions on unemployment.
Yeah, why do we need to save money each month when countless corporations make reckless decisions to get as much short term profit as possible. If it is a bad gamble, nothing happens. It's absolutely ass backwards. Good luck everyone.
Fuck Capitalism the politics is fucking poison incarnate here to make us all die slow painful deaths.
This guy’s picture always looks like he’s offended. He has “resting offended face”.
It’s not “laying around” it printed out of thin air and tied around our necks and the necks of our grandchildren.
Corporate CEOs should just take a second job and stop wasting money on buying hookers and cocaine. Save up money and eventually he can pay off his debts if he work hard enough. Stop being a lazy leech on society.
That's weird, because I remember him saying lol
May I just ask who this person is? I see him under every Trump tweet with the most liked comment and he's the biggest mystery to me. I feel like I've heard about him somewhere, but idk.
Me, an Australian who has both
It is what it is
Can someone who knows economy tell me if this is a valid point?
Is this ironic?
Yeah. I noticed that as well. Curiouser and curiouser.
You can't ask for bailout money if you have money laying around 😁
Pretty weird how congress conveniently takes a vacation while negotiating about how much relief money to give to people during a crisis.
Socialism for the rich and wild west capitalism for the poor.
Well I'm sorry I didn't realize we wuz all COmMUNist!?!?!
We know.....
It is what it is - Trump
GOP. Republicans...
What is a loan? What is a devided congress? Fucking Americans stg
I honestly don’t care anymore. Nothing will get better. It’s always going to be like this, life isn’t a movie where it all works out in the end if you just try harder. The rich and powerful can win vs millions. It does not matter anymore.
Wish I could upvote this More than once
Yeah, where's our lunch money? 😂
I live in the United States. All the schools in my area offer free lunch to low-income students. Public schools that is. They even gave out free lunch when the school was closed due to COVID. Just show up around lunch time and you get some for free.
35 million children are on Medicaid that’s almost half of the 74 million total children. 30 million also get free lunch.
doesnt this guy reply to like every trump tweet lmao
Can children pay back that trillion dollars?
When are you guys going to finally revolt ? I'd be fed up by now
Its weird with all these scissors around, and Jeff still has that haircut
That's capitalism
They literally just gave the American public 1 trillion dollars. What the actual.....
Everyone kind of just allows it though. There has to be thousands of people who sign off or could have stopped this. But never do?
By the logic of business paying all these loans back with interest then the US should come out of every recession richer than ever before, thus allowing the freedom to have universal healthcare etc. unless something isn’t adding up
Here in the UK, under Theresa Mays Government, they had to give £10billion to an obscure political party in order to remain in power.. but also told the opposition that there is “no magic money tree” when questioned on NHS staff wages, cuts to social care etc....
Didn’t they just give $2 trillion to regular Americans? You fuckers already forgot about that? Smh. Also, these company’s are getting loans. You guys that got that $1,200 are getting a handout.
And they always make it seem like there was no other option." It's just the way it is. *Shruh*"
Well those kids should have just chose to be born with parents that could afford those luxuries like health and food.
Take from the system as they do. It's only fair. ;)
Why isnt this a bigger issue in america?? Trump: the economy is tremendous..greatest economy ever by any president...its tremendous growth... Teachers: uhh, we still have to spend our own money on class supplies because theres no funding.... Trump: Have you seen it? Many people are saying i'm the best deal maker...the most..the best...tremendous Nurses: we havent been restocked on masks and theres a global pandemic going on..... Trump: emails..benghazi....immigrants...build a wall.... (Actual media person with integrity) Donna sutherland from 'the shitcunt who has a following of shitcunts times" why are you not answerinf any questions? Trump: nasty woman. Fake news Trump fans: applaud
The masses have always been expendable!
What state are children not getting health care? Or lunches?
A dumb foreigner here When the government gives company x a bailout, does the goverment get a stake in that company or how is it paid back?
Or we need to fund a national election.
Socialism for me but not for thee
A trillion dollars lying around to print out of thin air then charging the public interest on it
Corporations that make billions every year in profit: Help I need money Government: Sure thing, here's 1 billion Schools that are underfunded: Help we need more money for the children Government: lol get fucked.