Bitcoin Forum

Even though literally every single thread on here is about the coronavirus, I felt like I would change it up a bit and talk about the economic side and the legislative responses.

One of the thing that Trump and the rest of his administration wanted to do as apart of their stimulus package was to get cash directly into the hands of Americans. We know that this is now the law of the land, and 90 percent of Americans are going to be receiving checks from the government within the next few weeks.

While we've accepted this as happening now, I don't think anyone could have ever thought that the republican party that had the teaparty revolution 2009 about fiscal conservatism, would've just left all of that behind 11 years later when Donald Trump is their President (even saying that is pretty crazy) This entire stimulus package was what, $2.5 trillion -- there's no fiscal conservatism in that at all.

What does everyone think about this happening? Will it work? Eh?


Note: This is a serious post, if you post some random sig spam bullshit I will delete. Thx :)

I've tried to wrap my head around what kind of effects it will have and I'm having a hard time.  It will get millions of people out of a really tough spot and there will be millions that receive it who don't need it or will just blow it.

I guess my strongest opinion on the whole thing is that the $75k/year cut off seems too high and the $500 per kid seems too low, that doesn't even cover a month of child care while schools are closed.  

Giving people that make $95k/year a hundred bucks also seems silly - that $100 would go a lot further to a family of 4 making a combined $55k/year.

In the end, we'll never really know whether it actually made things better or worse overall.

Direct cash payments are necessary when the federal government directs state localities to essentially shut down and place mandatory lock downs in place in order to stop the spread of coronavirus. It's more of a relief package oppose to a stimulus package. People compare this to the stimulus package in 2009 where the federal government started handing out checks for no reason but people don't see the nuance.

In 2009, the government didn't mandate that businesses close. Even though the virus is spreading, certain businesses would still be open providing service if the government didn't force shut downs therefore government intervention was part of the economic downturn thus is justified for providing relief.

I'm not necessarily oppose to some of the restrictions but  I'd argue setting arbitrarily limits at at 75k for a cut off doesn't accurately reflect people's living situation. You could live in California under a multi-person household with that salary and not make it far.

This is a very important point to bring up, and I'm very happy that you did. When the banking crisis happened in 2008 and the Great Recession happened, businesses were still able to be in operation -- it's not like you couldn't go to the pizza place down the street to eat, or the catering hall was going under from a lack of customers. Maybe people were spending less on luxuries because many lost their jobs, but businesses weren't mandated to close -- they closed if they had to.

That's why the Trump admin and Congress is giving money out to businesses to try to prop them up through this time. I know that if you can prove there was a financial loss from the coronavirus to your business, you're able to get up to a 10,000 grant from the US government which is fully forgivable with no string attached and you can get a guaranteed loan from them with loan interest rates for the rest of your loss.

I think the issue is going to end up being in who actually gets the money, here's an example: If you're in Alabama making 75,000 is a lot different then making 75,000 in NYC. In Alabama (or any other LCOL areas for that matter) you're going to get a lot more bang for your buck, compared to HCOL areas.

The only thing i can think from this is inflation. It may appear to be helpful at first, but it will kick back everyone later.

"No such thing as a free lunch". All this "money giving" comes from where again? Certainly not from a productive economy. Print to save? Not gonna happen, print always leads to inflation, and inflation leads to everyone getting poorer. This is like a loan with too much interest at best.

This power of politicians to "print" money when they feel like it is what led to all hyperinflation cases in history.

It's a ridiculous way to handle this crisis. I can't see it as anything other than an attempt to bribe voters and I'm surprised that Democrats went along with it, since it helps mostly Trump (he wanted his signature on the checks LOL). The proper way to do it would be to boost unemployment benefits and possibly some other existing support programs for people who need help. The stimulus bill does some of that, e.g. expanding unemployment benefits to help "gig" workers, but still - giving cash to people, particularly ones who still have jobs is insane.

Also keep in mind that some states will be hit particularly hard and unlike the federal government states can't print money.

The direct cash payments are actually advances on tax credits for the 2020 tax year.

I believe the intention of the cash payments is to prevent people from hoarding money unnecessarily out of fear of a poor financial future. If too many people stop buying things, inventories will start to build up, and suppliers will need to lay off workers because of the lack of demand, and these employers may not be hired back after the economy opens back up.

There are very few people working away from home currently. Many companies that are requiring employees to come into the office have announced enhanced child care benefits that are paying for 'emergency' child care.

The bill also provides unemployment benefits that are probably dangerous, and harmful to the long term economy. In general, state unemployment will pay 50% of your earnings up to a maximum benefit of $300-$400 or so. The stimulus bill will pay $600/week above what workers will receive under normal unemployment circumstances. Someone working full time earning federal minimum wage would receive benefits equal to wages working out to $18.725/hour, and someone earning $15/hour full time would receive benefits equal to wages working out to $22.5/hour. This creates a disincentive to look for work, and there are over a million newly opened temporary jobs resulting from the additional demands caused by the coronavirus. I would expect Amazon, CVS, and grocery stores to have difficulty filling these jobs.

The stimulus package has been described by many as a "wartime bill" and in many ways it is. Based on projects on how much the US economy will shrink, the federal deficit may reach 15-20% of the GDP in 2020. By comparison, the deficit reached 27% in 1943 in WW2, and was above 20% throughout WW2. What people are willing to accept in wartime is different than what people are willing to accept in normal circumstances.

I don't think so.  I think it's pretty much no strings attached cash, but I'm not sure.  Where did you read that?

The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-stimulus-package-questions-answers.html)
I have not read the text of the law, however, my reading of this FAQ is that payments will be sent based on the most recent return you have filed, and the actual amount will be based on your 2020 income.

Ah yeah, that makes sense.  I thought you meant it would be deducted from 2020 tax credits.

I heard that when they calculate it they will use your 2018 return if you haven't filed yet, and you get to keep it even if your eventual 2019 return would lower your payment or disqualify you.

Conversely, I think if you didn't qualify in 18 or 19 (made over $100k), but you do in 2020 (made under $100k), you would also be able to claim it when you file in 2021.

I guess they really want people to not worry about having to give it back.

I think that is actually how it is going to work. I'm going to provide a bit of an example to make it easier, look below for that.

Imagine you're married and you and your wife made 185,000 on your most recent tax return. Great, that means that you're entitled to some money due to the stimulus package -- not the full payment of $1200 a person, because your income is too high, but you'd get something. Problem is in 2020 your tax return says that you've made 200,000 as a couple. The phase out was 192,000 (somewhere in this realm) and now you're going to have to return the money you got back to the government.

I think this is how it works, as this was supposed to help people who didn't make money in 2020 -- people that lost their jobs and such due to the virus. Not people that lost their jobs in 2018,2019.

There are other programs out their though, unemployment across the nation has an additional $600 a  week for people (up to July 31'st), which is very substantial to people who weren't making much before this and were only thinking they would get like $300-400 a week from unemployment.

Lots of stuff out their for small businesses to try to keep as many employees on as they can -- tax credits, loans for payrolls, 10k grant for those with damages, etc.

Is my stimulus money in the mail yet?     8)

In my opinion this is just a bailout from a collapsing economy from my perspective they're handing out free money in order to make the economy go round. And even though some people may see this as a good deed, but in my perspective the fed/banks are just printing out trillions of money out of nothing injecting into the monetary system lowering the purchasing power of USD.

Dumb. Suspend income taxes indefinitely. Don't take money from people and hand it back to them. This is not only of limited benefit, it also creates a dangerous dependence on government. The government should be dependent on the people, no the people dependent on the government. People dependent on the government = slaves, not free men.

The people who didn't lose any income would receive the most assistance.
The people who lost their jobs would receive none.

Do you understand the motivation for the stimulus package?

Yes! They are using this to push Socialism! It is awful!

Concerning the economy, remember that our money system is based on loans and repaying those loans, and most importantly the interest on those loans, using even more borrowed money. The system can never end unless the debt is legally abolished, since the only way to have enough dollars to pay the interest on the debt is to borrow more money which is created out of nothing.

So what happens is when people get scared they stop taking out new loans. Business loans stop, home loans slow down, car loans slow down, student loans stop, etc. So this creates a deflationary condition as money is sucked out of circulation to pay the interest on existing loans, and big economic trouble follows. Eventually either every dollar in circulation will disappear or people will default on the loans. If newly created money in the form of a stimulus checks being sent to everyone is done, this injects new money in to the economy and stops the run away deflation situation.

And Capitalism!  At the same time!

I hope it works.

Just the bad parts of Capitalism.

Do you have some examples of Capitalism that is being pushed due to this crisis?

I think the reason it got so much support from republicans is because they think it could prevent the economy from collapsing from the bottom, which would take much longer to recover from.

In other words, the socialist bill could result in a much stronger economy a couple years from now, which means we have more 'room' for more capitalism sooner.

Of course, we don't know for sure the economy would collapse without the bill, or that it won't with it.  But - the fact it got so much support from Republicans really says something (I don't think they're all secret socialists - but if you do that would completely negate everything I just said)

The way I read it, it's an attempt to avoid a repeat of something like the Great Depression.

That sort of thing really happens in the minds of the people, not in the basic economic facts. Can things go back to normal? Semi normal? How about normal without cruise ships?

The government is trying its best to encourage a positive attitude in the people. I have to agree and support that.

People are being taxed, that means they are losing income. People who just now lost their jobs will still owe taxes later on what they already earned. Individuals and businesses operating without income tax would be a HUGE economic incentive for EVERYONE to keep working and create more jobs. Do you not understand simple concepts of economics?





And experts are mostly in agreement the government intervention into the great depression is exactly what caused it to last much longer than it would have otherwise.

I want my money >:(

 ;D

Most employees have their income tax withheld by the employer. Losing a job may put them in a lower tax bracket and make them eligible for a tax refund, not make them owe taxes later.

And clowns MIGHT fly out of your ass. I guess we should put more taxes on circuses just to be sure.

Simply file the W-4 with the employer, filling out the form with:
1. N-A on every line other than name, address, SSN;
2. Write "EXEMPT" or "EXCLUDED" across the form;
3. Sign it "non-assumpsit, [your signature.

Do the same with any income tax return you are requested to file.

8)

Suspending income tax on unemployment benefits sounds like a good idea.

But suspending all income tax would mean giving the bottom 50% of the country 3% of the benefits.

The motivation behind the stimulus package is to help people that were already cutting it close with their rent/mortgage payments so that once the this whole thing is over they'll be able to get back to work immediately.  Waiting till next April when they file their taxes won't help much.

Handing out free money sounds like a good idea... until hyperinflation and socialism become the norm, no one gets paid, and your pets become meals.

It's a shit situation for sure.

Shutting down all non-essential businesses and telling people they can't leave their home without helping people who were living month to month till we figure out the global pandemic sounds great... until millions of people lose their homes and go bankrupt and the economy collapses.

Telling people to keep going to work and allowing all businesses to remain open during a global pandemic sounds great... until the economy collapses, millions of people die and millions of others lose their homes and go bankrupt.

It is almost like the world is hard and some problems have no good solutions no matter how much you pretend there is a simple solution.

Solid argument, but how does that make people who lost jobs owe taxes later?


Didn't we already have a massive tax cut a year or two ago? I wonder what happened to it and why didn't it save us from this catastrophe.

How does your solution help out of work haberdashers? It doesn't? Well then clearly since it doesn't include everyone it is not worth doing!

Perhaps because you are more interested into turning this into a self serving political device rather than examining the situation realistically.

What's "my solution"?

You still haven't explained how out-of-work people would owe taxes later.

The premise you support of free cash handouts, that "solution". You still haven't explained how out of work haberdashers are effected by your plan. As a result of this single area of focus being unaddressed, all other logic is null and void.

I see it as an interest free loan. Something will happen to taxes so that they can recollect the debt they are producing. Its probably not fantastic fiscal policy, but I figure if we had a half way decent government (regardless of party, they're all clowns right now), we can fix the economic problems after we're no longer busy fighting to keep people alive.

You never miss a beat do you?

Ok then, I take it you made up the part about unemployed people owing taxes later. Sad.

I take it then you make a habit of raping clowns because you didn't answer my question about haberdashers. Debate is easy when you just invent things and use your imagination!

In general, the lower and middle class has more income tax withheld from their paycheck than they owe, so this will largely not affect the most vulnerable. Higher earners are better suited to weather the economic storm, and the enhanced unemployment benefits will pay higher income earners what works out to just under $47k on an annual basis.

Trump suspended interest on student loan debt and suspended payments on student loans. I don't believe he gave a justification for this, however, this results in people with student debt being less desperate to work to service their debt.

The consensus among policymakers appears to be that having incentives to work is not especially important right now because of efforts to stop the spread of the Chinese Coronavirus. Further, in wartime, prescribed policies are different than in peacetime, the reason being is that you are pulling out all the stops in order to fight for your survival.

This is slightly off-topic, however, I am concerned about the amount of UI benefits and how this will affect employers who need to stay open, and our country's ability to continue to produce and transport supplies and other necessities. When you are not working, you no longer have expenses such as gas (for driving to work), dry cleaning, eating out for lunch (if your employer does not pay for this), and other expenses related to working. It would probably be more appropriate to limit UI benefits to something closer to 80 or 85% of earnings. If the economic shutdown lasts long enough, eventually those that remain working will get fed up with effectively working for free.

I can see that.

So people who already worked 3 months this year will not owe taxes on that income? Cool story.

This situation is fucked no matter how you cut it. Destroying future economic prospects for maybe short term gain is little more than pawning off the future of these people for 30% of its value to give them $5 today. Life is hard. Disasters are hard. Solutions that cause more problems than they solve aren't solutions. They are economic warfare on this nation sold to dimwits like you who think feelings = facts.

Some won't.  Probably millions of people won't.

It depends on a lot of factors.

Great then. Thanks for validating my point that it will help some, but not all people, and is not an invention of my imagination.

You're welcome.  And you're right - it's a fucked up situation.  Hundreds of thousands will die (hopefully not millions) and the global economy will be set back years (hopefully not decades).

There's nothing anyone can do to make things as good as they were just a few weeks ago.  And anyone that tells you they know exactly what to do now is full of shit.  There is no option that doesn't come with a huge risk.   It sucks.

You're the one making the claim so shouldn't you know that?


Please read up on income tax withholding instead of continuing to spread false information.

~90% of workers (non-self-employed / not filing 1040-ES) have already paid the tax and will not owe it "later".

I gotta wait 'til the 16th or even later? O drat. I want it now.

 ;)

I asked because you are a weasel with no scruples and I wanted you to be faced with contradicting yourself or making a blatantly false statement to catch you up in your own weasel game. Of course the weasel you are you just skip that part and pretend like it is a sign of ignorance and I don't know the answer.

What I said is true. I don't need to defend your interpretations of what I said weasel.


https://i.imgur.com/t3Oxfaz.jpg

There is no interpretation that could make this true for 90% of the workforce:

Imagine that 95%+ of people on Earth were forced to stop working for years, but the government paid everyone's old income. What would happen? ~Nothing would be produced, so the world would become a zero-sum game. Prices for everything would approach infinity: due to storage, maybe there'd be enough to keep prices sort-of sane for a month or two (though they'd rise due to expected scarcity), but quickly there'd simply be nothing to buy at any practical price. If the government wanted to increase their payment to people in order to account for this, then they'd have to exponentially increase the payment, and very quickly there would either be hyperinflation or a bankrupt government. Moving money around does not create value.

What's happening now is still pretty far from that situation, since 50-85% of people still seem to be more-or-less working, and imports from more productive countries are also possible (especially since USD is the world reserve currency). Still, it's important to realize that government payments are not creating any value whatsoever, but are merely moving around now-more-limited resources. The virus and the response to it took a bunch of toothpaste out of the tube, and now the government is squeezing the tube in various ways. As with the extreme example, I would expect to see price inflation (perhaps to infinity; ie. shortages) in areas where production/supply have been stopped/curtailed, though in the short-term this may have been counteracted by a one-time cratering of demand due to shifted lifestyles.

So when the government gives everyone $1200, they're moving value around, not creating anything. An important and difficult question is where is that value coming from? The economy is complicated, and I'm not 100% certain, but AFAICT the main way the value will be transferred will be something like this:
 - It's not really coming from tax revenue, since taxes have not been increased and probably won't be increased due directly to this spending.
 - On the surface, it will be funded by issuing bonds, and the cash will come from the buyers of bonds. Buyers of bonds are mainly the Fed (ie. money creation), other central banks, other banks, pension funds, and other institutional investors.
 - But the interest payments on the bonds are long-term-unsustainable, and are almost certainly going to be paid for with money-printing long-term. Basically the government prints money, gives it mainly to rich people, borrows it back from those rich people a little later, and the cycle repeats. You get an endless cycle of people who already hold assets getting increasingly more assets via money-printing, while it will be increasingly difficult for anyone else to become rich in the future, since yields on future investments will be reduced, and the economy will slow down due to misallocation of resources, debt "crowding", etc.

I certainly don't support tax increases, but in some ways it'd be more fair if this sort of thing was actually funded through past or future taxes instead of the Fed monetizing the debt. MMT increases inequality.

---

The bailouts for companies (including small companies) and the Fed's efforts to reduce volatility across every area of the market are really bad. Businesses that can't survive should die, even in a black swan event. That's how capitalism weeds out bad businesses. Businesses should either structure themselves to be able to survive this sort of thing, or they should buy insurance. But since the government keeps bailing out companies, it creates moral hazard: companies think (correctly) that they'll get bailed out, so they increasingly don't prepare for disasters (by eg. having sane amounts of debt), they don't buy appropriate insurance, and they don't properly hedge their investments against black-swan volatility. In fact, some in the mortgage market lost a lot of money (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/29/mortgage-bankers-warn-fed-purchases-of-mortgages-unbalanced-market-forcing-margin-calls.html) because they were hedging against interest rate increases, and the Fed's MBS purchases screwed them; maybe they've "learned their lesson", and will in the future just rely on the Fed to save them from volatility. All of this intervention causes mispricing of time (ie. interest rates) and risk, leading to the increasingly-widespread existence of companies which don't actually provide optimal value to the economy, and may in fact be net drains on the economy. It's a (long & slow) path toward economic collapse.

The stated justification for the business bailouts is to save jobs. If that's the goal, then they should just give everyone a UBI payment for 6-12 months. The bad businesses will fail, and the newly-unemployed-but-not-starving people will find something more productive to do, such as starting businesses that won't fail and are maybe more useful in the post-recession environment. If you want to stop people from losing their paycheck, just give them a paycheck: don't prop up garbage businesses to act as a middleman. It seems as though a lot of people view businesses as immovable machines which distribute money to the immovable proletariat class, when in reality things are and should be much more fluid.

An additional largely-unstated reason for the business bailouts is to keep the stock market from crashing even more. Members of Congress and their donors tend to have large net worths, almost all of which is in the stock market. A lot of Americans also have a lot of money in the stock market, and they will not be happy with their representatives if their retirement fund is cut in half. But bad businesses should fail, and if you're not prepared for this, then you shouldn't invest in them.

On principle, I don't support the individual relief (ie. the $1200 checks and expanded unemployment benefits), either: people should save for disasters on their own, and if they can't/won't, private charity should be the answer. But people have been trained to load up on debt and rely on the government to save them from disasters, so they don't generally have a lot of savings, and in these conditions, something like the individual relief was politically inevitable. Without it, a lot of people would be totally hosed. So I don't mind the individual relief too much, though I don't think that it'll have much effect aside from keeping (some) people afloat for a month or two, and the longer the government wants to keep people at home, the more they'll have to pay due to the inflation/production effects I mentioned at the beginning of this post. The economy is basically halted, so it won't really stimulate the economy. Even though the total spend is large, because it's so widespread, I suspect that the payment itself won't have many long-term positive or negative economic effects, though the lockdown/virus which prompted it is economically disastrous, of course. Short-term:
 - Since the individual relief is actually going directly into the real economy, unlike a lot of what the Fed does, maybe we'll see some inflation from it. Probably in food and other Walmart-type stuff.
 - Since the unemployment insurance is pretty generous, employment numbers (and therefore production / economic growth) will probably be somewhat depressed for as long as the boosted benefits last.

I think that Trump will take and get credit for the payment. Maybe people will call it the "Trump check" or something, even. It could be pretty helpful for his campaign.

(Unrelated to the payment: I keep thinking that this would be a really bad time for some other black swan event, like an attack by Russia on a NATO member or something like that. It could happen, though.)

No weaseling will make the fact that this is a huge incentive for 100% of the income taxed earning population less true, regardless of already taxed income .




You hit some of the main points, the primary one being that this "free money" actually is just debt placed on all of us collectively, rewarding those who did not prepare, and punishing the productive elements of society for preparing. I disagree with your prognosis that this will have little effect though. This is how conditioning and Fabian Socialism works. It is all about incrementalism, I.E. boiling the frog slowly. This program is effectively conditioning the US population to accept these UBI type payments so they can be expanded in the future, and create a complete dependence on the government for food, healthcare, housing, protection, etc. In this way no one can ever afford to resist the government, because if you do you lose access to society almost completely.

https://www.quotemaster.org/images/e4/e4c61a1f3478c503b8b1faf91cbabc7a.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/FXBubjG.jpg



Freedom and responsibility are indivisible.

If someone in this thread believes that money can just be  printed on a printer that makes brrrr - then for him the payments are good and there is nothing wrong with them.
But in fact, we are waiting for the acceleration of inflation and later understanding that such payments are not so good from the point of view of the money supply economy lol

I agree and it's actually worse than you might think.  Assuming I understand how it works (I might be wrong, haven't read the actual bill), if your unemployment claim is approved you'll receive whatever you'd normally receive from your state plus an additional $600/month.  It will also be very easy to get approved - 'I have a sore throat' is a perfectly acceptable reason to not work a couple weeks and if you don't have any paid sick leave, you qualify for unemployment.

In other words, if you're making close to minimum wage, you have the chance to earn more money by not going to work.

They also expanded it towards self employed/gig workers.  So if you're an uber driver, or anyone that isn't employed by someone else that can show they had income over the past 12-18 months, you can claim unemployment and generate income by keeping any other income off the books.

Yeah that's terrifying.  Right now America is more vulnerable than ever - could be a golden opportunity for any country that would benefit greatly from any American failure.

911 is looking like not that big of a deal right now.

Any natural catastrophe over the next few weeks would also be magnified by a lot. 

Trump Authorizes Defense Secretary Mark Esper to Order National Guard and Reservists to Active Duty - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/03/27/trump-authorizes-defense-secretary-mark-esper-to-order-national-guard-and-reservists-to-active-duty/.

8)

Do you check your bank every day to see if the stimulus money is here, yet?

8)

Not that I think the stimulus plan is a great one, but I do think its possibly better than nothing. I'm not very pro socialism, but what I hate more than socialism is poorly done socialism. Thats what the US has now. Our public medical care is socialized to a degree already whether anyone likes it or not. The reason emergency room visits cost as much as they do is because they can't turn away people that inevitably will not be able to pay, so the extra cost is spread out to everyone else to make up for it. Well that and other issues with healthcare costs. People scream we don't want something socialized, when in reality we are already 95% there and that 5% that we don't commit to is just making it horribly inefficient and expensive.

My point wasn't actually about health care, but just something to consider is that the cost of not giving everyone something to buy food while they're out of work very well potentially could have a greater financial effect than the printer brrrring out 2 trillion dollars. We've survived a few quantitive easings, which again I wont say I'm too on board with, but human lives have a lot of value. And I dont mean the sappy, "everyone is special" sort, I mean that there is a calculable cost to the government for each person that gets sick. There is a calculable loss to GDP, tax collection, etc etc for each person that dies. You'd hope that there were some fancy economists that looked over what information they had at the moment and saw, ok if we do nothing this will likely cost us $3 trillion, but we can reduce that by printing 2 trillion now.

Even if it wasn't the optimal move, its probably reasonable to believe that the cost of inaction may be higher than the cost of action now. They can always say alright, we want our $1200 back 6 months down the line and burn it (not that that'll happen) but they can't bring people back to life.

We need government to drop regulations for any small person/business to make any products, and provide any services. If this were the case, small product producers would have to make quality, or people will go somewhere else.

The result would be that business could get back to normal.

8)

I've been trying to make epinephrine and insulin in my back yard, and they've been telling me no  :'(

In addition, I got my nuclear reactor shut down years ago while I was still building it. DHS' concern was more that I was using a local river for cooling, even though it was a closed loop system! Damn government.

Congratulations! If you can do this as a small business, think of all the success millions of other small business people would have if government regs were gone!

8)

I know, I could produce 14 trillion joules at a cost of 0.68 cents per Kilowatt Hour. Epipens are $800 last I checked, and I can make my own for under $10 + time (and whatever an autoinjector costs) making insulin wasn't actually that profitable but it was interesting.

The cost of doing it and not knowing what I was doing would be hundreds of millions of dollars at a minimum though, so I guess I kind of understand why there weren't thrilled about it.

Interesting you brought up insulin, as one of the main reasons it is so expensive is explicitly because of overbearing regulations designed to be a feeding trough for the big pharmaceutical giants.

https://www.healthline.com/diabetesmine/why-not-more-affordable-generic-insulin

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, our healthcare system is absolute garbage. Theres so much stupid legal red tape and profiteering at the expense of citizens. Something is absolutely wrong when you compare all of the countries in the world and see plenty with very comparable healthcare standards at 1/10th the cost where the government isn't footing the bill, its just between the patient and the hospital which charges a fair amount to compensate their staff and equipment. I have a friend who is a young veterinarian that ended up with a lifetime of medical debt for a 3 day visit for admittedly a fairly serious surgery, but on the other hand she had performed the same operation on horses for 1/20th the cost. While horses can't sue you for malpractice if something goes wrong, you still stand the risk of getting kicked in the head so that should count for something.

I have a fully functioning lab that has home built equipment on par with functionality on par with big pharmaceutical companies. I use X-Ray spectroscopy to verify crystalline spacing at the atomic level to verify that what I've synthesized is what it should be. Even still, I'm still not comfortable giving anything I make to humans as I can't be 100% certain about purity. Some legal red tape is there for a reason, and some of it is nonsense. No one seems to be willing to go case by case and evaluate what makes sense to stay on the books from a human safety standpoint, and what was the result of some lobbiest finding out a congressman had an affair and extorting them into getting something passed.

I've read that Egypt uses simple coriander essential oil to control diabetes, because they are too poor to buy insulin.

8)

I agree with a good amount of what is here. Always happy to see a long Theymos post as well. Starting with the money printing side of things, I've read a good amount of articles and such talking about how this isn't going to cause inflation beyond typical levels due to the fact that spending is HEAVILY depleted here. One of the things that would typically happen in a time like this, without any government intervention, would be deflation. But we don't live in a world anymore where government intervention is foreign -- the only REAL data point we can use in the Modern Era is the Obama Stimulus package and the Great Recession, which saw inflation peak around 3.5 percent even with an 800b+ stimulus package.

These two circumstances obviously aren't exactly the same as I do think there were some tax decreases in the Obama stimuls packages. See here for info on what exactly those were - https://www.thebalance.com/what-was-obama-s-stimulus-package-3305625

Couldn't agree more when you talk about businesses getting bailouts and expecting bailouts. That's something that was talked about after the bank bailouts, that banks were taking on increased risk b/c of the fact that they knew the government would bail them out. If you know you have a free pass, is it really your fault if you use it? I'm not going to talk about the fact that the government actually did profit from the bailouts, because they could've used this money more effectively -- lowering taxes for the middle class.

Very interesting tracker for the bailouts is going to be here, by ProPublica - https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

Businesses that are in industries that are VERY susceptible to this sort of thing should be ready for this to happen. Plus the fact that these companies have been highly profitable for decades and have been taking this cash and rewarding shareholders with it. Money that they COULD'VE set aside to ensure that they were ready for a black swan event.

Even though we're having this great discussion here, politicians are still only going to care about the short term job losses b/c the voters care about the short term. When most Americans can't afford a $400 expense, politicians are going to focus on ensuring that they have a stable income, even if it's not the best choice. In a perfect world you'd be rewarded for being ready for a black swan, not being rewarded for doing the opposite. But we're not in that world I guess.

:)

The problem with being ready, particularly from a business perspective, is that you would be at a disadvantage vs competition for 99 years out of 100 when a black swan event doesn't happen if you e.g. keep massive cash reserves, don't borrow, insure up the wazoo etc. In other words such a business probably wouldn't survive to reap the benefits. Should the government mandate extreme preparedness so that no one is at a disadvantage? Or just bail them out when it happens, i.e. act as a last resort insurer/lender.

I'm all ready for the big fiat crash. Hope my funds get here shortly, so I have time to buy more gold, silver and Bitcoin before they literally go to the moon.

8)

You're without a doubt right, I did forget to mention that I think providing loans to these companies as very low interest rates is alright, though I don't agree with massive cash infusions.

I don't think the government should mandate this sort of thing, though I don't think you should be able to run to the government for xb when you've spend somewhere close to that on share buybacks in the recent years. Just using American Airlines as an example here, look at what they've spent on buybacks - https://ycharts.com/companies/AAL/stock_buyback

Loan guarantees and loans at low interest rates are fine IMO. With some strings attached relating to how they're spending this money and oversight. I'd rather not see these companies push this cash into buybacks.

I am seeing at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g4u1LJQ7_k that some countries are going to be lifting aspects of the lockdowns by April 14. That's 2 days before stimuluses should be starting. I sure hope they don't cancel the stimulus money.

8)

It's the 12th. Many reports have said that the payments could start by the 16th - when taxes are normally due, or thereabouts? We don't have long to wait for reports to start coming in one way or the other.

Has there been an official update on the date that I have missed?

8)

I was so hoping it would be coming soon. Drat! I wanted to buy a little chunk of property away from the big crowds. And I'm almost out of air from holding my breath.

But one thing is for sure. It our stimulus checks don't come, after everything government promised us, why would we believe that government is on our side in anything? Since government allows us to form our own PMA, and essentially set up our own government thereby, right within this government, we better do it before the BIG shtf. But maybe we should do the PMA thing even if we get our checks.


When Will I Get My STIMULUS CHECK??? You Probably Won't! (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/280795-2020-04-13-when-will-i-get-my-stimulus-check-you-probably-wont.htm)




When Will I Get My STIMULUS CHECK??? You Probably Won't!
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UL8XUmygauM/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEjCNACELwBSFryq4qpAxUIARUAAAAAGAElAADIQj0AgKJDeAE=&rs=AOn4CLBZvez5sRDsyUGnygnfyqk_GvuOCg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL8XUmygauM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL8XUmygauM)


8)

IRS has a website that you can use to track the progress of the coronavirus payments. See here - https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/economic-impact-payments

I know they stated somewhere that people who were on social security and filed their 2019 taxes already, are going to be first in line to getting their stimulus check payments. Just wanted to update people here.s

Looks like there is movement. I'll have to check my bank account.


IRS Deposits First Batch Of Coronavirus Stimulus Payments To Broke Americans (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/280838-2020-04-13-irs-deposits-first-batch-of-coronavirus-stimulus-payments-to-broke.htm)




8)

I agree that many Americans need help right now, and that help is coming.  According to this article, there isnt a ton of pork in it, which surprised me.  

https://nypost.com/2020/03/27/heres-a-breakdown-of-the-2t-coronavirus-bailout/

I really hope those loans to industries remain loans.  I am not a fan of bailing out the airlines again via grants.  

Mine is pending for Wednesday. 

Your bailout?!?!?!?!?     :D

HAHA.  I have been a taxpayer since the age of 16.  I see it is a kickback for being a productive member of society.  Makes me feel better about it.  ;)

Are you 17, yet?     ;D

LOL not a ton of pork in it. It is literally 98.6% pork. The 1.4% accounts for the checks people will be getting.

Short term consideration:
1) It will help some people bridge over.
2) It will increase confidence and morale that the crisis will pass over, lowering the impact on economy (as opposed to a panic crash)
3) Judging "who needs it most" is always trouble. Flat payment is fair and goes well with keep it simple principle.

Long term consideration:
1) Giving everybody money does not make everybody richer. It is just a fake number. It is going to show, just later.
2) The real damage to production (supply chains, businesses) was done. Printing money covers it up and does not change that.
3) As it always goes with "boosting the economy", it only bridges over problems, not fixing them, and grows the bubble.
4) The loans incurred in this time - by households, businesses and whole states, worldwide, will have to be paid. Nominally, everybody is more rich, why in reality, everybody incurred hard damage. This will eventually show. Hard to say how exactly, but as some for of crisis in the coming years.

That reminds me. I didn't check my bank account today yet.     8)

I wouldn't say its that much. Good amount of money going out to small and large businesses if you're smart enough to apply for either the EIDL or the Paycheck Protection Loan, both are fully forgivable and allow people to continue paying payroll to keep employees on.

Unemployment benefits have been beefed up by the US government, giving people another $600 a week on top of whatever your state was giving you, to ensure that the millions of people who have filed for unemployment are able to pay their bills and such, as this is an unprecedented situation where no one is able to find work for the coming months if you got laid off.

While yes, it's expected that there is going to be some beef. But the stimulus checks aren't the only things that regular everyday people are getting here. Many things people can get to keep them afloat.

I don't live in USA but according to what I have read, this stimulus package is not enough for a single household, the reason that I think about the stimulus not being enough is that overtime the cost of living increased drastically for the past decade and there is also the inflation rate that increased the prices of products. I can't represent  what my country is doing and I am not saying they are doing a good job or not but I think that focusing more on relief operation would rather be helpful, in my city, including the financial help, the city welfare divisions are also giving away 4-day worth of food packs depending on how many family is living in the house.

It's the universal basic income scheme.
You know who also has it, the pigs in the pigstall.
Free food, roof over the head, company....paradise, until day x.

Stimulus package isn't just this one time payment. I'll break it all down for you:

If you currently make under $150k as a couple living in the US, and you have two children you'd be entitled to $2400 ($1200 per person, and you're married) and then $500 per dependent child = $3400.

But that's not the only part of the stimulus package. If you were let go from your job, you're entitled to your normal unemployment benefits (which is going to depend on your state) plus an additional $600 per week from the federal government. I'd say on average people are getting $700-800 a week if they're unemployed right now per person. Those benefits last until July 30th.

I think there there should be more done to help everyday people, though I think a lot of that surrounds getting people to sign up for benefits that are already present. Making the sign up easier.

I was pretty surprised to see the cash payments  and unemployment only make up ~30% of the stimulus package combined.  (closer to 20-25% if you factor in they just added more money for small businesses)



https://i.gyazo.com/fe8449411ad05e6ac9fcc84801bd40e2.png

Edit: I guess technically some of the business loans are kind of the same as unemployment since if a company doesn't fire any workers, they don't have to pay the loan back.

Yeah PPL are pretty much just unemployment as they're not firing people. I know they only have to use 75 percent of the loan (forgivable, so it's kinda just a grant) for payroll expenses, but it does make sense that that's the number they picked as they're giving employers 2.5x what each employee would've been getting paid prior to this.

PPL is honestly been one of the biggest portions of this, as Congress just authorized new money towards it yesterday. They actually just added new protections in the bill to ensure that only SMALL BUSINESSES are applying for it, and not just big businesses that separated their employees into entities that all have under 500 employees.