War Room Lounge v151: Between drinking and burning, I don't need another vice in my life.

[xcvbn]

Yea, it wouldn’t the premise of socialism as it is what incentives are we changing, (just like with taxes) is this a progressive or regressive benefit to society (rich people have more debt to have forgiven but will stay at their high income positions), and is this really necessary to address compared to how things are working now. Policies shouldn’t just be about throwing money at everyone and acting like that was a good move.

The US actually has a fairly low R&D credit compared to most countries and I wouldn’t see that as a bad thing just because it’s given to corporations. If you had a massive uneducated workforce, I could see a reason for that but the fact is the majority of people already see the long run incentive of higher education and are going. There are tax credits/deductions for tuition and student loan interest too.

The reason you do blanket across the board measures is it's infinitely easier to implement and will cover the bases it was intended to cover from the get-go. I don't think you'll have a mass of people on the lower income scale complaining that doctors or lawyers also had their loans forgiven. If they do complain they're just assholes.

Look at the $600/week benefit- it was implemented because it hit the majority of folks by guaranteeing roughly the median US wage, and the state systems would have taken months to implement any sort of income percentage system beyond what they already have(~50% of income).

I understand the positives of corporate tax credits. I just find it hard to support when poor and working folks can't even earn a wage to live, let alone save and invest with.

 

[TeTe]

The Fed

Same place that $5T magically appeared from to stop Wall Street's free fall

So the money tree basically.

Lets just say for the sake of easy math here there are 200 million people of working age between the ages of 15 and 64 (the number is more like 206). If we paid everyone $2000 a month in UBI for a year, it would cost the Fed 4.8 trillion a year... so really close to that 5T number you came up with. So lets say I was on board with the assertion that the billionaires in this country pay for this endeavor. Do you think they could even cover a year's worth of this UBI? Maybe... how about two years, three years, etc. Sooner or later the funds will run out.

Then, those rich people employ us in our legitimate money earning ventures will run out of assets and capital and close up shop and a huge swath of the population will be unemployed and not even getting their $2000 UBI anymore.

I have no problem with companies paying their employees more across the board. I think what like Dan Price are doing is admirable. This whole, the Billionaires will pay for it all scheme is unrealistic though. It's like the people who complain about CEO pay compared to everyone else is making within the company. Look at a company like Exxon, or Yahoo, etc where the CEO is making $30+ million a year. People are calling for the head of these people but to what end? If you fired these people tomorrow and evenly distributed their salary among every person in the company.. it'll give them a bump in salary of what... a couple hundred dollars a year?

If you want to argue that the minimum wage should be higher, I'd be willing to do that. But the workers receiving the additional profits should be contributing the success of the company and the company should expect a higher ROI on those employees in return.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I hope 100% of the stimulus goes to more air to air fighter jets. ‘that’s really important imo

 

[xcvbn]

Let’s take your example there with consumer stimulus. Just as you would do that, doesn’t it make sense to for stimulus for industries that may collapse under short term pressure if they aren’t given anything? That keeps jobs which also helps people consume. There’s multiple fronts you have to address during an economic downturn like this one.

Well that was the whole point of the PPP "loans" right? They weren't actually loans because they don't need to be paid back. Businesses(supposed to be small) were given money to cover their expenses for x amount of time.

Problem is, as always seem to be the case, it didn't hit all small businesses and we're already seeing something like half? of restaurants closing permanently.

 

[TeTe]

You won't be laughing when the consumer economy continues to implode because consumers can't afford to consume. The Fed just gave it away- people spending empowers the economy. If you inject a bunch of money into the system you can keep things afloat while the virus runs its course, and the resulting savings/low interests rate will make this stimulus pay for itself.

The alternative is a complete disaster.

Now wait a second here... maybe I misinterpreted your statement.. are you suggesting a UBI as a permanent course of action or just until this pandemic is over?

 

[Trotsky]

 

[Anung Un Rama]

If the money tree can afford $7T to kill brown people in the Middle East fir no reason, and bail out billion dollar corporations who spend their money on stock buybacks and refuse use their assets as collateral for loans at record low interest rates, and an already disgustingly bloated military budget then fuck it I want $2k/mo.

 

[xcvbn]

So the money tree basically.

Lets just say for the sake of easy math here there are 200 million people of working age between the ages of 15 and 64 (the number is more like 206). If we paid everyone $2000 a month in UBI for a year, it would cost the Fed 4.8 trillion a year... so really close to that 5T number you came up with. So lets say I was on board with the assertion that the billionaires in this country pay for this endeavor. Do you think they could even cover a year's worth of this UBI? Maybe... how about two years, three years, etc. Sooner or later the funds will run out.

Then, those rich people employ us in our legitimate money earning ventures will run out of assets and capital and close up shop and a huge swath of the population will be unemployed and not even getting their $2000 UBI anymore.

I have no problem with companies paying their employees more across the board. I think what like Dan Price are doing is admirable. This whole, the Billionaires will pay for it all scheme is unrealistic though. It's like the people who complain about CEO pay compared to everyone else is making within the company. Look at a company like Exxon, or Yahoo, etc where the CEO is making $30+ million a year. People are calling for the head of these people but to what end? If you fired these people tomorrow and evenly distributed their salary among every person in the company.. it'll give them a bump in salary of what... a couple hundred dollars a year?

If you want to argue that the minimum wage should be higher, I'd be willing to do that. But the workers receiving the additional profits should be contributing the success of the company and the company should in turn expect a higher ROA on those employees in return.

We're sort of conflating a couple things here. I don't actually support a permanent UBI. I just think in this moment of an unpredictable pandemic raging across the country that we should be paying people to stay home until we get it under control as other countries have done.

But yeah going off that 4.8T figure- much of it's going to be circulated right back into the economy whereas the 5T may actually be sat on or even pulled out as investors flee.

As for billionaires yada yada yeah I don't think there's a workable system to shake down all the billionaires. The goal should be transitioning to an economy where it's incredibly rare for one person to obtain such obscene wealth, but an economy where many people could potentially obtain a sizeable wealth through actual innovation, hard work, etc.

 

[TeTe]

If the money tree can afford $7T to kill brown people in the Middle East fir no reason, and bail out billion dollar corporations who spend their money on stock buybacks and refuse use their assets as collateral for loans at record low interest rates, and an already disgustingly bloated military budget then fuck it I want $2k/mo.

The military budget should be drastically reduced regardless of this whole pandemic. All foreign police actions ended today.

 

[Lead]

The reason you do blanket across the board measures is it's infinitely easier to implement and will cover the bases it was intended to cover from the get-go. I don't think you'll have a mass of people on the lower income scale complaining that doctors or lawyers also had their loans forgiven. If they don't complain they're just assholes.

Look at the $600/week benefit- it was implemented because it hit the majority of folks by guaranteeing roughly the median US wage, and the state systems would have taken months to implement any sort of income percentage system beyond what they already have(~50% of income).

I understand the positives of corporate tax credits. I just find it hard to support when poor and working folks can't even earn a wage to live, let alone save and invest with.

This is a horrible example. The bills passed during this disaster did cast a wide net but the reason was timing. Overpaying in those situations is acceptable because you need to send it out fast for it to complete it’s intended purpose. Something like an ongoing program casting a wider net just because people are too lazy to administrate it is a completely different story. Simplicity is important but you can have measures in place to have it target the right people. That’s where I draw a strong line with farther leaning dems/ progressives. It’s like they just want more government involvement for the hell of it.

 

[xcvbn]

I hope 100% of the stimulus goes to more air to air fighter jets. ‘that’s really important imo

Sounds like you're gonna need some fucking aircraft carriers buddy so you better break off a piece

 

[Gregolian]

@Gregolian. Ever since he paid off his truck, he's been killing it.

Eeeehhhhhh, I’ve been saving like mad to get my own spot.

And been searching for a place for my folks.

 

[Lead]

So the money tree basically.

Lets just say for the sake of easy math here there are 200 million people of working age between the ages of 15 and 64 (the number is more like 206). If we paid everyone $2000 a month in UBI for a year, it would cost the Fed 4.8 trillion a year... so really close to that 5T number you came up with. So lets say I was on board with the assertion that the billionaires in this country pay for this endeavor. Do you think they could even cover a year's worth of this UBI? Maybe... how about two years, three years, etc. Sooner or later the funds will run out.

Then, those rich people employ us in our legitimate money earning ventures will run out of assets and capital and close up shop and a huge swath of the population will be unemployed and not even getting their $2000 UBI anymore.

I have no problem with companies paying their employees more across the board. I think what like Dan Price are doing is admirable. This whole, the Billionaires will pay for it all scheme is unrealistic though. It's like the people who complain about CEO pay compared to everyone else is making within the company. Look at a company like Exxon, or Yahoo, etc where the CEO is making $30+ million a year. People are calling for the head of these people but to what end? If you fired these people tomorrow and evenly distributed their salary among every person in the company.. it'll give them a bump in salary of what... a couple hundred dollars a year?

If you want to argue that the minimum wage should be higher, I'd be willing to do that. But the workers receiving the additional profits should be contributing the success of the company and the company should expect a higher ROI on those employees in return.

This is something that’s been frustrating me with that proposal. Most people could agree a flat tax is harmful and regressive but for some reason, democrats get on board with UBI which seems fairly similar but it’s just on the spending side. Why have a system that expensive when you could concentrate it at the poor? It just doesn’t make sense. It just has a lot of government involvement with little upside. Our system is already better than a UBI. I know some point to automation but let’s cross that road when and if it happens cause before this virus, unemployment was nearly 0.

 

[TeTe]

We're sort of conflating a couple things here. I don't actually support a permanent UBI. I just think in this moment of an unpredictable pandemic raging across the country that we should be paying people to stay home until we get it under control as other countries have done.

But yeah going off that 4.8T figure- much of it's going to be circulated right back into the economy whereas the 5T may actually be sat on or even pulled out as investors flee.

As for billionaires yada yada yeah I don't think there's a workable system to shake down all the billionaires. The goal should be transitioning to an economy where it's incredibly rare for one person to obtain such obscene wealth, but an economy where many people could potentially obtain a sizeable wealth through actual innovation, hard work, etc.

Okay, you answered my last question so I get what you're saying now.

On the other side of this equation is the inability of our government to run efficiently and actually run surpluses to prepare for recessions or at least not overspend. Especially not since Regean took office. Clinton was the only president in my lifetime that didn't run huge deficits.

 

[xcvbn]

This is a horrible example. The bills past during this disaster did cast a wide net but the reason was timing. Overpaying in those situations is acceptable because you need to send it out fast for it to complete it’s intended purpose. Something like an ongoing program casting a wider net just because people are too lazy to administrate it is a completely different story. Simplicity is important but you can have measures in place to have it target the right people. That’s where I draw a strong line with farther leaning dems/ progressives. It’s like they just want more government involvement for the hell of it.

Are you in any way familiar with American politics? Means testing is constantly used to deliberately fuck up policy. In a perfect world, yeah, nit pick away.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Sounds like you're gonna need some fucking aircraft carriers buddy so you better break off a piece

Sooo, double the stimulus?

 

[TeTe]

Sooo, double the stimulus?

I might watch some Brazilian porn on the hub in a little bit and double my stimulus. Just don't tell my wife.

 

[Trotsky]

If Biden picks Karen Bass, I will be shocked, but pleasantly so. I'm voting for him regardless, but I'd be much happier to with her as VP.

With that said, I'm not sure what she brings to the table electorally.

 

[Lead]

Are you in any way familiar with American politics? Means testing is constantly used to deliberately fuck up policy. In a perfect world, yeah, nit pick away.

Maybe we just see different policy goals here. There are examples of excessive means testing going the wrong direction (drug tests for poor people) but it makes perfect sense to have programs still try to target the group it was intended for. If we have a system like FASFA, do you really think we can’t implement programs for student debt forgiveness? I mean we have something in place already so we are mostly talking about expansion here.

 

[xcvbn]

Okay, you answered my last question so I get what you're saying now.

On the other side of this equation is the inability of our government to run efficiently and actually run surpluses to prepare for recessions or at least not overspend. Especially not since Regean took office. Clinton was the only president in my lifetime that didn't run huge deficits.

The more I learn about economics the more I wonder if the deficit even matters

Exactly who is calling in this debt? And isn't debt just another term for asset?

As long as deficits lead to growth debt is being paid back through an expanded economy. From my understanding where you run into problems is with the interest rate a state pays on the debt.