COVID-19 Stimulus

[Belsnickel]

(03-27-2020, 10:47 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I keep seeing and hearing people on both sides of the political aisle talking about how bad it is to be bailing out corporations. Part of me agrees with that logic, but another part of me is stirred to ask the question "What in the hell are you talking about?".

Like it or not, corporations are the very reason that you enjoy life in the fashion that you currently do. Corporations employ the majority of Americans, provide most of the goods and services that everyone finds essential to current life. Are they in it to make a profit? Hell yes they are. Have you benefited from their very existence? You bet your Iphone loving ass you did.

So, let's say we allow the corporations to fail. What then? Are you prepared to take on farming, making your own goods and tools, devising your own communication. energy and travel systems as a way of life? (Don't kid yourself, the vast majority would be lost without modern life in place)

Face it, the corporations are important. They need our help, as we all depend upon them. Not just for the jobs that they provide, but for the very services and life that we have all become accustomed to. So, unless you want to go back to digging rows for crops, and beating molten metal all day to forge tools, I'd say you should get behind the bailout of the corporations. (as ugly as it seems, just turn your head and swallow hard)

So here are some of the critiques of what you are saying:

1. Those who are in power all too often harp on how important it is for individual citizens to take responsibility, set aside savings for a rainy day, not rely on the government teat to support them in times of need. However, they don't discuss that same logic when it comes to corporations. Instead, as soon as there is some economic instability that threatens the economic situation there is a cash infusion into Wall Street and/or corporate America while the small businesses and citizens see far less directly. These leads into critique number two.

2. The whole premise of the cash infusion to corporations is based on supply-side economics, or what people often term as Reaganomics or trickle-down theory. The idea being that if there is a cash infusion at the top it will make its way to the bottom. The fault in this thinking, though, is that we haven't seen that born out in the 40+ years we've been trying it. The rich have gotten richer and the poor have remained poor. So the idea in a situation like this to push the cash to corporations is that they use it to continue to pay workers and produce goods and services. But what if they don't? What oversight is in place to see they do with their money what they should do to help the economy? Well, there are now certain stipulations attached to the money at the insistence of the Democrats, but honestly they aren't much at all. If I read correctly, it's only a couple of months that they can't lay off workers. The IG is going to be toothless which means the oversight is a joke.

So while the general language is "bailing out corporations is bad," the more specific message is that we should be putting the money on the demand side of things, the workers, and letting them boost the economy with their spending power. If they have money to spend then they can keep corporations afloat. If they are laid off and facing economic hardships of their own, then the corporations are existing to do what, exactly? With people incapable of purchasing goods and services then what is the function of a corporation other than to just exist?