Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Larssen
Member
+35|607
Besides all other potential issues basic income does not solve the problem that is trillions in corporate debt...
uziq
Member
+326|2171
so let's double it in a week?

but yes, great idea, let's endure great depression levels of unemployment and the collapse of ordinary civic life for average working people. think of the corporation's debt!!!

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-28 15:46:58)

Larssen
Member
+35|607
The current measures are intended NOT to increase corporate debt. If a cascade of corporate bankruptcies occur that's great depression levels of poverty coming. UBI does not address this issue. UBI also needs far more trialing/research.
uziq
Member
+326|2171
boeing just borrowed like $40 billion at the fed's super cheap bond rate and then laid off 16,000 workers or something.

lol. we already have great depression levels of unemployment and poverty for the lower-middle class. meanwhile the bond market is being propped up by guarantees from the central bank. gimme the loot!
Larssen
Member
+35|607
I'm pretty sure that was an emergency loan scheme because boeing was already in heavy financial weather due to the 737 max software issue.

Another thing you'll have to consider is that boeing is a rather important part of the US defence industry, making and supporting huge amounts of military tech/equipment. Hence their continued operation is of more importance to the state than any other random company.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+381|2439
I rather have had the money go to producing stuff, repairing things, and building new infrastructure than propping up a fake consumer/service economy. Does America need so many chain restaurants, fast food places, movie theaters, bars, and nightclubs? Not really. Could most of those workers be retrained to do other stuff like installing drywall, agriculture, collecting garbage, working PPE factory machines? During the New Deal/World War 2, we produced a new tank every few seconds. There is no reason why we can't do big stuff like that again.
uziq
Member
+326|2171
it's not an emergency loan scheme, it's a new arrangement by the federal reserve. companies like boeing passed on the rescue bill money because it came with too many stipulations and protections about how they were to use the money -- i.e. protecting jobs.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+381|2439
Boeing's commercial aircraft division doing poorly wasn't going to stop making military sales profitable and sink the whole company. There are a lot of companies that produce heavy military equipment and make a lot of money that also don't need to produce civilian products to keep the lights on. Ford isn't making battle tanks. Oshkosh who makes light combat vehicles does just fine without having to sell SUVs on the side.
Larssen
Member
+35|607
I don't think a contractor like Boeing has a very strict separation in revenue and investment streams, esp. when the company was already incurring financial blows before the current crisis began. I can imagine a separation is mandated by the government in this case but I'm not sure.

As for it being a new arrangement - didn't know / expect that. That's odd.
uziq
Member
+326|2171
it's not odd, it's exactly what happened in 2008, with the same lack of oversight and transparency.
Larssen
Member
+35|607
Which is why it's odd to me because I'd expect career federal reserve type of people to recommend against that. I mean it's the reason the emergency loan scheme was created in the first place, why discard it a couple months later? I'd need to do some reading because it doesn't make sense
uziq
Member
+326|2171
really? i'd expect the 'career' federal reserve people to be part of the same political-financial elite and to precisely call upon the 'expertise' of bernanke et al to navigate this crisis.

the bailout act was put together in a hurry and was in need of more funds within 2-3 weeks. the fed effectively stepped in and said, in at least so many words implicitly, that they'd guarantee the bond market. that's why the markets rallied: back to 'too big to fail' territory, only this time applying to most corporations in the united states as opposed to fannie mae or whatever.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+381|2439
Federal Reserve is separate from the Congress who passed the law providing the bailout money. The Federal Reserve had no say in how much money was put together or how it was distributed.
uziq
Member
+326|2171
yes, which is why several corporations like boeing didn't take the CARE act money and instead got a cheap bond from the federal reserve. duh.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+381|2439
The federal government needed to save Boeing from downsizing. How will they ever make our Standoff Land Attack Missiles if they don't have a commercial aircraft division producing planes that crash themselves?

But seriously, if you accept that competition is good for the market and consumers, bailing out Boeing however you do it is a mistake. Bailouts are corporate welfare. If a corporation is too big to fail and needs a bailout then they should be nationalized.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,873|5351|949

It is the biggest wealth redistribution in  United States history. Crickets from the usual people opposed to that sort of thing. I wonder why?
uziq
Member
+326|2171
larssen's confusion over the bailout and 'infinite quantitative easing' thing really gets me. 'but UBI is impossible! what else can we do but keep propping up mendacious speculative high-finance?'

the centrist imagination is now completely divorced from all notions of productive labour and tangible investment, not to mention average people wanting mortgages, stable jobs and available credit. apparently we have no other option now but to continue redistributing what wealth there is left upwards to mammon.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4077|London, England

uziq wrote:

so let's double it in a week?

but yes, great idea, let's endure great depression levels of unemployment and the collapse of ordinary civic life for average working people. think of the corporation's debt!!!
if people don't have jobs to return to, when would they ever get off the dole in your plan?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4077|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I rather have had the money go to producing stuff, repairing things, and building new infrastructure than propping up a fake consumer/service economy. Does America need so many chain restaurants, fast food places, movie theaters, bars, and nightclubs? Not really. Could most of those workers be retrained to do other stuff like installing drywall, agriculture, collecting garbage, working PPE factory machines? During the New Deal/World War 2, we produced a new tank every few seconds. There is no reason why we can't do big stuff like that again.
you are unimaginably stupid
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+381|2439
No you.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,873|5351|949

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

so let's double it in a week?

but yes, great idea, let's endure great depression levels of unemployment and the collapse of ordinary civic life for average working people. think of the corporation's debt!!!
if people don't have jobs to return to, when would they ever get off the dole in your plan?
If companies are using low interest loans from the government for stock buy backs while at the same time cutting jobs, how would those companies be creating jobs?

If companies don't have any incentive to mitigate financial risks and imrpove cash flows (or access to private loans), when would they ever get off the dole?

Both solutions do not create jobs but are transfers of wealth. I can only guess that you're not criticizing the corporate welfare because in pretend-land those companies will use the money to create more jobs (even though they have done the exact opposite)?
uziq
Member
+326|2171

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

so let's double it in a week?

but yes, great idea, let's endure great depression levels of unemployment and the collapse of ordinary civic life for average working people. think of the corporation's debt!!!
if people don't have jobs to return to, when would they ever get off the dole in your plan?
most of the companies taking advantage of the relief are financial corporations. is the entire american economy now just speculation?

by the way, all the companies taking the fed bonds are bypassing the oversight of the care act arranged by congress. that came with stipulations about protecting jobs. instead, they have taken huge amounts of public money/tax relief and axed tens of thousands of jobs. just like what happened after 2008.

companies downsizing, thinning out, ejecting staff and putting the money/breaks given to them into more speculation rather than productive re-structuring. o k

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-29 13:55:24)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4077|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

so let's double it in a week?

but yes, great idea, let's endure great depression levels of unemployment and the collapse of ordinary civic life for average working people. think of the corporation's debt!!!
if people don't have jobs to return to, when would they ever get off the dole in your plan?
If companies are using low interest loans from the government for stock buy backs while at the same time cutting jobs, how would those companies be creating jobs?

If companies don't have any incentive to mitigate financial risks and imrpove cash flows (or access to private loans), when would they ever get off the dole?

Both solutions do not create jobs but are transfers of wealth. I can only guess that you're not criticizing the corporate welfare because in pretend-land those companies will use the money to create more jobs (even though they have done the exact opposite)?
Yes, it is a wealth transfer, but I see it as a one off event necessitated by a massive government shutdown of the economy.

The loans are a separate issue from the extremely low interest rates we've had for over a decade. You could point at the low interest rates and say they were a bad thing because they allowed stock buybacks, but they also kept credit card rates and mortgage rates low. How can you say jobs were not being added when unemployment was so low? Trump was doing the wrong thing when he pressured the Fed to stop raising rates, as we were in fact overheating a bit with record employment levels, but the buybacks didn't preclude job creation. They're just a nice whipping boy for the Sanders/Warren people.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,873|5351|949

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

if people don't have jobs to return to, when would they ever get off the dole in your plan?
If companies are using low interest loans from the government for stock buy backs while at the same time cutting jobs, how would those companies be creating jobs?

If companies don't have any incentive to mitigate financial risks and imrpove cash flows (or access to private loans), when would they ever get off the dole?

Both solutions do not create jobs but are transfers of wealth. I can only guess that you're not criticizing the corporate welfare because in pretend-land those companies will use the money to create more jobs (even though they have done the exact opposite)?
Yes, it is a wealth transfer, but I see it as a one off event necessitated by a massive government shutdown of the economy.

The loans are a separate issue from the extremely low interest rates we've had for over a decade. You could point at the low interest rates and say they were a bad thing because they allowed stock buybacks, but they also kept credit card rates and mortgage rates low. How can you say jobs were not being added when unemployment was so low? Trump was doing the wrong thing when he pressured the Fed to stop raising rates, as we were in fact overheating a bit with record employment levels, but the buybacks didn't preclude job creation. They're just a nice whipping boy for the Sanders/Warren people.
We had a wealth transfer 11 years ago. We had one during the Savings and Loan Scandal. That's 3 in 40 years. It's not a one-off solution.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4077|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:


If companies are using low interest loans from the government for stock buy backs while at the same time cutting jobs, how would those companies be creating jobs?

If companies don't have any incentive to mitigate financial risks and imrpove cash flows (or access to private loans), when would they ever get off the dole?

Both solutions do not create jobs but are transfers of wealth. I can only guess that you're not criticizing the corporate welfare because in pretend-land those companies will use the money to create more jobs (even though they have done the exact opposite)?
Yes, it is a wealth transfer, but I see it as a one off event necessitated by a massive government shutdown of the economy.

The loans are a separate issue from the extremely low interest rates we've had for over a decade. You could point at the low interest rates and say they were a bad thing because they allowed stock buybacks, but they also kept credit card rates and mortgage rates low. How can you say jobs were not being added when unemployment was so low? Trump was doing the wrong thing when he pressured the Fed to stop raising rates, as we were in fact overheating a bit with record employment levels, but the buybacks didn't preclude job creation. They're just a nice whipping boy for the Sanders/Warren people.
We had a wealth transfer 11 years ago. We had one during the Savings and Loan Scandal. That's 3 in 40 years. It's not a one-off solution.
This was one not of their own making. I was against the 2008 bailouts. This is different.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard