The Reason We Have To Do A Stimulus Is Because The Economy Was So Top Heavy

[PoliTalker]

If wealth inequality was not so extreme, people would have more savings, more resources, more wealth personally available to be able to deal with this.

You know, it is very good advice to have a personal 'rainy day fund,' enough savings to keep yourself going for 6 months or longer, preferably.

That's very easy for the upper half who have an income which is far greater than their needs.

But for the rest, it is so challenging to do that few have those kinds of reserves.

The fact that, when we have to shut down large parts of the economy, that so many people are so hurting so fast, shows us how fragile our economy was.

If we had a resilient economy which had more equitable wealth distribution we would not even need to do a stimulus hand-out.

Many have wondered what the problem was with having extreme wealth inequality.

Well, here's your sign!

 

[cawacko]

The reason we have a stimulus is because the government shut down large parts of the economy. Many industries and (young) businesses operate on low margins and aren't in position to withstand no revenue for several months. Many young people growing in their career aren't in a position to have months of savings stashed away.

If you really want to talk about inequality talk about the bubbles the Fed has created over the past few decades and who that benefits the most. That's your answer.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

The reason we have a stimulus is because the government shut down large parts of the economy.

Why am I not surprised you are blaming the fragile economy on the government when it is really a function of greed and unrestrained capitalism. The rich and powerful are going to take whatever wealth they can get, and the ones they are taking it from are the weak and poor. That's why our economy is constantly one crisis away from collapse.

Many industries and (young) businesses operate on low margins and aren't in position to withstand no revenue for several months.

How many of those industries are owned by conglomerates which bought out smaller businesses and immediately went on cutting sprees of resources until they were stripped of any and all reserves and positioned for one thing and one thing only: Minimized expense and maximized profit?

I agree that smaller businesses and start ups can't be expected to have a lot of reserves. They are the ones which would logically require assistance during unforeseen events. But larger businesses and well established ones are irresponsible if they don't have the reserves and resources to tap into during a time of no profits. Especially if they have been generating lots of wealth for executives and share holders.

Many young people growing in their career aren't in a position to have months of savings stashed away.

And the reason for that is because they are so poorly paid, but when they go to spend their money on needed living expenses they are charged so much.

If you really want to talk about inequality talk about the bubbles the Fed has created over the past few decades and who that benefits the most. That's your answer.

We both know who benefits the most. It is the rich and powerful who make the decisions which have put is in such a fragile economy that we can't take a pause without crippling millions.

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



Why am I not surprised you are blaming the fragile economy on the government when it is really a function of greed and unrestrained capitalism. The rich and powerful are going to take whatever wealth they can get, and the ones they are taking it from are the weak and poor. That's why our economy is constantly one crisis away from collapse.



How many of those industries are owned by conglomerates which bought out smaller businesses and immediately went on cutting sprees of resources until they were stripped of any and all reserves and positioned for one thing and one thing only: Minimized expense and maximized profit?

I agree that smaller businesses and start ups can't be expected to have a lot of reserves. They are the ones which would logically require assistance during unforeseen events. But larger businesses and well established ones are irresponsible if they don't have the reserves and resources to tap into during a time of no profits. Especially if they have been generating lots of wealth for executives and share holders.



And the reason for that is because they are so poorly paid, but when they go to spend their money on needed living expenses they are charged so much.



We both know who benefits the most. It is the rich and powerful who make the decisions which have put is in such a fragile economy that we can't take a pause without crippling millions.

Why am I 'blaming' the government when the government ordered the shut down? Seems pretty obvious to me. It's like you're blaming the soldier for getting killed when the government sent him to war.

And no economy can take a 'pause' and not have negative economic repercussions. The world doesn't work that way.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

Why am I 'blaming' the government when the government ordered the shut down? Seems pretty obvious to me. It's like you're blaming the soldier for getting killed when the government sent him to war.

Government had no other option. What government did, it had to do. Government didn't ask for this. It responded to an outside event. Government acted responsibly to shut things down. There is no blame in taking measures to flatten the curve.

Because we are primarily a capitalist economy, the focus is on making profits for holders of capital. That's the nature of capitalism. There is no profit in being ready for a crisis, so we were not ready. That's the trade-off of having a for-profit health care system. A government-run system could have foreseen the possibility of a pandemic, had more capacity than needed for making profits, run exercises to test preparedness, identified needs, allocated funds to meet those needs, and positioned our health care capabilities accordingly.

Conservatives would have screamed bloody murder if progressives had advocated for doing this. 'Why should we have so much bed capability and extra ventilators when they are not immediately needed?' They would have asked. Progressives would point to studies and the results of exercises and said 'just in case,' which of course would have been roundly dismissed by conservatives.

Very similar to the climate change argument. Conservatives don't want to spend any money or impact the market unless the danger is already present. Coming dangers are ignored until they hit.

But if progressives had won that battle. If we had a completely different health care system with the goal being not to make money for capitalists, but to provide adequate health care for a 'great country,' then one component of that would have been to be better prepared for something like this. To have a health care system not only to meet immediately profitable needs but anticipated ones.

Once the dust clears from this, we will be having those discussions.

And no economy can take a 'pause' and not have negative economic repercussions. The world doesn't work that way.

You're right on that, but it didn't have to be so drastic.

If we were better positioned and prepared, if we had acted proactively when the virus first surfaced, we would have had more time to prepare and our response would not have had to be so drastic. We would still want to flatten the curve, but it would have been a slower process instead of the big Friday the 13th emergency declaration. As if anything really changed from Thursday the 12th to Friday the 13th. It didn't have to be a big surprise on Friday the 13th.

It's not like when the prez stupidly said "Nobody saw this coming." That was total BS denial. Not reality. We saw this coming. We were warned. We did nothing. This was seen coming for a long time. And the CDC said quite a while before the emergency announcement that it was no longer a matter of if this pandemic was going to hit us but when. Man, if we didn't get mobilized on that day, we were just being stupid.

What if we had taxed the rich at a far greater rate over a long period of time? Decades. We could have paid off the federal debt. We could have built up a surplus. We could have had a national rainy day fund to tap into instead of a national credit card. Like Norway.

 

[PoliTalker]

If our economy was really healthy we would not have needed such a big stimulus so quickly.

Ideally, people and companies should have adequate reserves for unanticipated circumstances.

Operating a 'just in time' business on a razor-thin margin may be great for making profits in an economy where everything hums along, but can be disastrous when things go awry.

It would be foolish to operate a household or a business on a basis of spending everything that comes in as fast as it comes in with no margin for error.

Sadly, that is exactly the way much of America operates.

Budgets may pretend nothing will ever rain on their parade, and they may think they are being free and avoiding socialism, but if their plan for when the you-know-what hits the fan is to go crying to the government for a bail out then they are ultimately closet socialists.

 

[Scut Farkus]

Hello cawacko,



Why am I not surprised you are blaming the fragile economy on the government when it is really a function of greed and unrestrained capitalism. The rich and powerful are going to take whatever wealth they can get, and the ones they are taking it from are the weak and poor. That's why our economy is constantly one crisis away from collapse.



How many of those industries are owned by conglomerates which bought out smaller businesses and immediately went on cutting sprees of resources until they were stripped of any and all reserves and positioned for one thing and one thing only: Minimized expense and maximized profit?

I agree that smaller businesses and start ups can't be expected to have a lot of reserves. They are the ones which would logically require assistance during unforeseen events. But larger businesses and well established ones are irresponsible if they don't have the reserves and resources to tap into during a time of no profits. Especially if they have been generating lots of wealth for executives and share holders.



And the reason for that is because they are so poorly paid, but when they go to spend their money on needed living expenses they are charged so much.



We both know who benefits the most. It is the rich and powerful who make the decisions which have put is in such a fragile economy that we can't take a pause without crippling millions.

the fed is privately owned gimpy.