Dem Watch 2020

Everything's fine!

LOL how has it even been the best week, it's at 23k, which is much lower than it was before, what metric are they using now? The stock market coverage is super WEIRD lately, one day it's "we're fucking doomed" and the other it's like "THIS IS THE BEST TIME WE'VE EVER HAD".

But it really depends on the business, there is zero left of blockbuster for example.

Why would you want to buy blockbuster?

And it ALWAYS goes through "restructuring", which means getting rid of people.

I didn't say a business closing down is gonna be good for the people working there.

There is a reason why the business goes bankrupt, for example, if there are no customers because they are hiding at home. If that situation does not change, the business wont be bought up by anyone, and it will vanish.

That's a temporary situation, it's gonna be over in a couple of months probably (then it might return). We're talking about the recession that will follow it.

But what you are describing happened in 2008 and many people don't think it was a good idea. Massive bailouts to businesses lead to businesses being incentivised to keep making terrible decisions. After this the weaker businesses will be bought up by stronger ones regardless, because even you save them they won't be in a good position. So there won't be much of a difference in that respect. Instead of bailing out the businesses you bail out people and then even if they do lose their jobs they will have income for some time and they can use that to buy what they need. Businesses not getting the bailout they usually count on makes them stop counting on it. The money customers get will go back to the businesses anyways, except it won't be a handout. If you're gonna bail out businesses bail out the smaller ones at least. This is pretty unbalanced. It is a lose lose situation but you can lose more or you can lose less.

Why would you want to buy blockbuster?

Sorry, I thought you where capable of understanding analogies. Was clearly wrong.

People not losing their jobs IS THE POINT of helping business's out. You know, trying to avoid people getting retrenched.

That's a temporary situation, it's gonna be over in a couple of months probably (then it might return). We're talking about the recession that will follow it.

But what you are describing happened in 2008 and many people don't think it was a good idea. Massive bailouts to businesses lead to businesses being incentive's to keep making terrible decisions. After this the weaker businesses will be bought up by stronger ones regardless, because even you save them they won't be in a good position. So there won't be much of a difference in that respect. Instead of bailing out the businesses you bail out people and then even if they do lose their jobs they will have income for some time and they can use that to buy what they need. Businesses not getting the bailout they usually count on makes them stop counting on it. The money customers get will go back to the businesses anyways, except it won't be a handout. If you're gonna bail out businesses bail out the smaller ones at least. This is pretty unbalanced. It is a lose lose situation but you can lose more or you can lose less.

You do realize that bailouts are actually just loans with less restrictions than what a bank would give?
For example, the 2008 bailouts made the US government money. Yes, they made a profit off the bailouts.
Its not free money.
Because loans need to be paid back. So no, its not an incentive to make bad decisions.
You only need to pay people who are unemployed. Employed people already get paid by these evil business's. If you have enough business's that are not going bankrupt, then you have fewer unemployed people AND you have a system of productivity left after the event.

You are simply proposing that you pay people, and when things are under control you will have to keep doing that indefinitely as there will be no business left to employ anyone.

A country should help bail out whoever they can afford to bail out. BUT, if a company can not keep going during its normal operations it should absolutely go bankrupt. Boeing is heading that way, and I feel that they must either turn that broken ship around, or go bankrupt. Ultimately a business needs to produce more than it consumes.

Quote from: Pezevenk on April 11, 2020, 04:12:40 AM

Why would you want to buy blockbuster?

Sorry, I thought you where capable of understanding analogies. Was clearly wrong.

Why do you compare businesses that no one wants any more because they are obsolete to businesses that actually have a function and simply closed because of a temporary crisis?

You do realize that bailouts are actually just loans with less restrictions than what a bank would give?
For example, the 2008 bailouts made the US government money. Yes, they made a profit off the bailouts.

Wrong.
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/heres-how-much-2008-bailouts-really-cost
http://gcfp.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/BailoutsV12.pdf

Also, a bailout isn't necessarily a less restrictive loan. A bailout is financial help to get you out of a tough spot. It could be a loan, it could be the purchase of toxic assets (which also happened in 2008), it could be free money, it could be many different things.

So no, its not an incentive to make bad decisions.

The entire point of a bailout is to prevent you form going under. If you are never in real danger of going under, you'll take greater risks. There's already so many zombie companies around, next time there's gonna be even more of them and they'll demand a bigger bailout.

You only need to pay people who are unemployed. Employed people already get paid by these evil business's. If you have enough business's that are not going bankrupt, then you have fewer unemployed people AND you have a system of productivity left after the event.

If you pay the people, they're gonna purchase products from said businesses so they won't go under, unless they've taken bad decisions. That's the concept.

You are simply proposing that you pay people, and when things are under control you will have to keep doing that indefinitely as there will be no business left to employ anyone.

That's an imaginary scenario and will never happen. If you have people with money they're gonna want to spend it somewhere. They're gonna spend it on businesses. Said businesses will grow. New businesses will spring up. It's basic economics. There is no way for all businesses to literally just go away. If there's people spending money there is people working to make the products. These people are being paid.

If you have people with money they're gonna want to spend it somewhere. They're gonna spend it on businesses. Said businesses will grow. New businesses will spring up. It's basic economics. There is no way for all businesses to literally just go away. If there's people spending money there is people working to make the products. These people are being paid.

You could give me a million dollars in this current climate. I wont be spending it on small businesses and the like because so many of them are closed by order of the government. You can 'bail out' those businesses by giving them enough funds they can continue to pay the rent/overheads while we do this social distancing thing. That way when we can relax a bit and they are allowed to open back up, the transition is seamless and society can continue as normal.

Giving me, an individual money, will not help our economy. I'm just going to shove that money to my exiting debt. It may help the economy in 15 years when my mortgage is finished earlier than it otherwise would be but it will not help the economy today

This crap is unprecedented. Bailing out the affected sectors and businesses is not encouraging bad business practices. These businesses aren't shut because of inept management and high risk taking. The government has literally ordered them shut

Millions of people are out of work. That's a shit load of money lost in the economy. That's also a shitload of lost tax revenue. So bailing out these businesses, keeping workers employed or on the books etc also helps the government in the long run as a) They continue to pay tax and b) They aren't bleeding the government for welfare

You could give me a million dollars in this current climate. I wont be spending it on small businesses and the like because so many of them are closed by order of the government.

Very few industries are closed by the order of the government. It is understandable to bail them out. For instance airlines, restaurants, cinemas, etc. The issue is the long term recession this will spark.

You can 'bail out' those businesses by giving them enough funds they can continue to pay the rent/overheads while we do this social distancing thing.

I agree in that rents should be frozen as long as this will go (rents for everyone, both people and businesses).

That way when we can relax a bit and they are allowed to open back up, the transition is seamless and society can continue as normal.

This won't happen no matter what, you gotta be prepared for a recession.

Giving me, an individual money, will not help our economy. I'm just going to shove that money to my exiting debt. It may help the economy in 15 years when my mortgage is finished earlier than it otherwise would be but it will not help the economy today

You in particular? Maybe. But all those people going out of work due to the crisis?

This crap is unprecedented

The cause, maybe. But it's not unprecedented at all.

Bailing out the affected sectors and businesses is not encouraging bad business practices. These businesses aren't shut because of inept management and high risk taking. The government has literally ordered them shut

Again, that only applies to airlines, public spaces, etc. The rest are getting bailed out because of a temporary decline in customers, or a temporary decrease in the availability of some resources.

Wrong.
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/heres-how-much-2008-bailouts-really-cost
http://gcfp.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/BailoutsV12.pdf

Also, a bailout isn't necessarily a less restrictive loan. A bailout is financial help to get you out of a tough spot. It could be a loan, it could be the purchase of toxic assets (which also happened in 2008), it could be free money, it could be many different things.

Yes, bailouts come in different forms. Paying people that money because their business that employed them went under is also a bailout. But you will have to keep paying them for years now because business's cant just be re-created in a few weeks. You dont order a business online and get a functional SME in a few days.

The entire point of a bailout is to prevent you form going under. If you are never in real danger of going under, you'll take greater risks. There's already so many zombie companies around, next time there's gonna be even more of them and they'll demand a bigger bailout.

You your argument is that these companies hope and pray each day for a global disaster? Because they will absolutely sink in between disasters, which seems to average about 10 years. Or to they go to their Soothsayers and only get reckless when they know the next disaster is a few weeks away? Without their crystal balls they wont last a year.

If you pay the people, they're gonna purchase products from said businesses so they won't go under, unless they've taken bad decisions. That's the concept.

If the business has gone under then you cant spend your money there!
Go online right now and find me one real life to scale working Death Star for sale. Cant find it? Thats because it does not exist! Just like every business that goes under. So when the disaster is over you need to wait for possibly years for those business's to re-establish. The bigger the business, the longer it takes.

If the USA loses Boeing (a company I really hate right now) it will take at least 10 years before a replacement can do what it does. If someone breaks it up and re-purchases parts of it, lots of services will be gone forever, while there will only be a few short years before you get your basic planes like the 777 up and going while they restructure and get rid of the fat. It is possible that it gets bought over by Foreign companies that just suck up the talent and patents. This happens all the time. Go find me a new Mooney.
If Microsoft or Apple go under, there is literally zero guarantee that they will get replaced by a US company. But the US will have to accept Chinese and S Koreans imports going forward.

Quote

You are simply proposing that you pay people, and when things are under control you will have to keep doing that indefinitely as there will be no business left to employ anyone.

That's an imaginary scenario and will never happen. If you have people with money they're gonna want to spend it somewhere. They're gonna spend it on businesses. Said businesses will grow. New businesses will spring up. It's basic economics. There is no way for all businesses to literally just go away. If there's people spending money there is people working to make the products. These people are being paid.

Said business's dont exist because they went bankrupt. If the butcher down your road closed because it went bankrupt, another one does not just repair magically. It takes time to re-establish skill and supply chain, IF someone comes along to want to start that business again. The previous business owner is now deep in debt and cant start up again. So someone else will need to start from zero. Chances are your butcher gets replaced by a Chinese curio store. And no one else can compete with the chain super markets cheap meats.

Under normal economic conditions this is fine, because you have lots of capital to keep opening up new business's as others close. But in a disaster like this takes far more capital away from the system. So it takes a lot longer to restart. The point of bailouts is to restart as quickly as possible.

In many countries EVERYTHING non-essential is closed down, so the only guys that wont need bailouts are people in food production, medical institutions and logistics to make those things work.

In a time of disaster a government needs to mitigate as much damage as possible. This means saving human lives, and long term productivity. Just giving money to people is very short term thinking.

Everything's fine!

He is technically correct. The best kind of correct.

The New York Times: Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html

I would say it's at least as serious and roughly as credible as the accusations against kavanaugh.

Not that it'll matter much. The left wing media will bury it. And conservatives don't really care.

Conservatives care.  They're up in arms that Joe Biden is a horrible human being because sexual assault is evil*


*Only if they're liberals.

Orange rapist vs tan rapist!

I suppose it's too much to ask that we have a president who isn't a rapist.

It's America. Your whole country is one big pathetic soap opera like Days of our Lives or Bold and the Beautiful

Orange rapist vs tan rapist!

Least orange man only harasses women of age....

Would that be a pro for Trump?

I suppose it's too much to ask that we have a president who isn't a rapist.

Be gone with your crazy talk!

Least orange man only harasses women of age....

Do you have a source for this?  I can't even find Alex Jones claiming this.

Don't forget the way he creeps on his own daughter.

The New York Times: Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html

I would say it's at least as serious and roughly as credible as the accusations against kavanaugh.

Not that it'll matter much. The left wing media will bury it. And conservatives don't really care.

The NYT never found anybody who was there at the time who remembered the alleged incident.   I'm calling BS on Tara Reade's claim.

Least orange man only harasses women of age....

Would that be a pro for Trump?

Trump is a well known and proven creep.

On hey, its Epstein the pedophile. In a pic with Trump and his young daughter.

On hey, its Epstein the pedophile. In a pic with Trump and his young daughter.

Makes one wonder who was pimping Ivanka out to whom?

Quote from: Lorddave on April 13, 2020, 01:52:36 AM

On hey, its Epstein the pedophile. In a pic with Trump and his young daughter.

Makes one wonder who was pimping Ivanka out to whom?

Obviously Trump was pimping out Ivanka to none other than Joe Biden!!!!

Clearly we can see that this makes Biden a monster and Trump a very smart businessman who we should reelect.

Jesus is okay with it.

Jesus is okay with it.

Actually, he also pimped ivanka out to jesus, as a bribery gift!

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on April 13, 2020, 10:01:48 AM

Jesus is okay with it.

Actually, he also pimped ivanka out to jesus, as a bribery gift!

Must have been before she converted to Judaism for Jared.

Quote from: Definitely Not Swedish on April 13, 2020, 10:59:51 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on April 13, 2020, 10:01:48 AM

Jesus is okay with it.

Actually, he also pimped ivanka out to jesus, as a bribery gift!

Must have been before she converted to Judaism for Jared.

Perhaps it's the true reason behind her converting?

On hey, its Epstein the pedophile. In a pic with Trump and his young daughter.

Iirc that pic turned out to be photoshopped.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 13, 2020, 01:52:36 AM

On hey, its Epstein the pedophile. In a pic with Trump and his young daughter.

Iirc that pic turned out to be photoshopped.

I actually posted it because trump and his daughter are looking kinda weird, I didn't even know the guy was epstein.

The New York Times: Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html

I would say it's at least as serious and roughly as credible as the accusations against kavanaugh.

Not that it'll matter much. The left wing media will bury it. And conservatives don't really care.

That article initially had a sentence that said "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable", but they got dragged on social media and deleted it lol.

It's interesting the way both sides see this vs Kavanaugh. 

It was a big scene.  Investigations were done.  Congressional hearings.  Sex crime prosecutors asking questions.  And Kavanaugh bringing out calendarts with drinking party dates.

The media would not shut the fuck up about it for 3 solid months.   

That was for a guy who got drunk in college and, i might be recalling this incorrectly, dry humped a girl at party.

Meanwhile Joe Biden thought to himself, "I bet this girl really likes me.  I know!  I'll stick my fingers in her vagina!"  When this turned out to not go according to plan he had her put into worse and worse work situations before just firing her.

How does the media react?  Crickets...

It's just a bit disappointing that the liberal media is operating with this sort of double standard.

Look I'm still voting Biden because despite all that he's the lesser of two evils.  But I'm not going to pretend that Joe didn't do this. 

It's interesting the way both sides see this vs Kavanaugh. 

It was a big scene.  Investigations were done.  Congressional hearings.  Sex crime prosecutors asking questions.  And Kavanaugh bringing out calendarts with drinking party dates.

The media would not shut the fuck up about it for 3 solid months.   

That was for a guy who got drunk in college and, i might be recalling this incorrectly, dry humped a girl at party.

Meanwhile Joe Biden thought to himself, "I bet this girl really likes me.  I know!  I'll stick my fingers in her vagina!"  When this turned out to not go according to plan he had her put into worse and worse work situations before just firing her.

How does the media react?  Crickets...

It's just a bit disappointing that the liberal media is operating with this sort of double standard.

Look I'm still voting Biden because despite all that he's the lesser of two evils.  But I'm not going to pretend that Joe didn't do this.

I haven't even heard the allegations.  Just that they exist and no evidence has come about.
Of course, you'd think it would have cropped up when he was VP, not just running for president.