He's not wrong...

He's not wrong. If all the stimulus packages that Congress was throwing at Wall Street went to the average citizen instead, we likely wouldn't be seeing the wide scale economic collapse that we are right now. It's hilarious to me that people who can barely afford to put $10 a month away in savings are essentially being told they should have saved four months rent for these kind of situations - but the people WITH money are having their crocodile tears dried with $100 bills by the government. Let THEM prop themselves up. Take care of the little guy instead.

Attached: ghf.jpg (982x827, 143.05K)

I actually agree with this. It means all stimulus would be used in a way that doesn't distort natural incentives.

Reckless companies would fail while consumers buy what they actually want, and cautious companies would be rewarded since they're the only ones that can sell to those consumers.

If you give money to a rich person, he'll likely hoard it, but if you give money to a poor person he'll likely spend it. If you agree with this, which do you think improves the economy faster?

>which do you think improves the economy faster?
from their point of view? whatever kills all the plebs with as little fuss as possible

rich people do not hoard money... they invest it, that's how they stay rich and get even richer. poor dumbasses do spend it and that's how they stay poor.

investments improve economy, poor dumbasses don't.

What those on the right seem to forget is that states are corporations in their own right, and they are effectively employing their citizenry to uphold the state.
You can't have a non interventionist state, as it will always be undercut be bullshit merchants offering gibs in exchange for supporting their rise to power.
A minimally invasive state that is stable for a given population must still be able to undercut the offers made by other potential states in exchange for the people's support.
This ofc depends on the people themselves, as some people will, due to inherent disposition, place more value on liberty than others.

In some sense, you can view liberty as being inherently deflationary.
More unclaimed land means more options for the common man to put their liberty to use.
Once everything has been claimed, voluntary dissociation becomes impossible due to there being nowhere left to go, and the common man will find their liberty much less useful.
The common man can thus be more easily convinced to exchange their liberty for other goods that are increasing in value relative to it.
Liberty should be treated as a resource in it's own right, and it's value from the perspective of the common man should be seen as something that can vary in response to market forces just like any other resources, rather than being assumed as sacred.
If everyone unconditionally viewed liberty as sacred, there would be no need for political engagement for the purpose of upholding it.

All of this 100%. Bailouts incentivize reckless behavior within corporations. VW is a great example of this. They engaged in wanton reckless behavior and the brand should've died. Instead, the ECB bailed them out and they'll make similar mistakes in the future, most assuredly.

The rich "hoarding" wealth isn't exactly what you think it is. Nor are their "investments". The kind of investment that really drives the economy is investment in innovation (R&D), physical assets (like manufacturing hardware or computers), labor skills, and social responsibility. These actually drive our economy, in a fundamental way, because there are intangible benefits that don't go away during a downturn. The research doesn't evaporate, the newly skilled labor doesn't evaporate, and the 50 ton steel press doesn't evaporate. Compare this to "investing" in the 21st century. Investors speculate on the value of stocks (debt), and corporations use this debt not to buy anything or innovate, but instead to enrich the board with neetbux. It's literally just a cheatcode to get more numbers from one place to another place. Never mind the business itself, because that's tertiary at most.

I don't see the problem, they're gonna spend it and pump money back into the economy either way.

Attached: 17687687678.jpg (499x481, 27.94K)

investing is hoarding

This is how communism starts and fags like that brownie will hope to be the new commissars.

I wouldn't let companies fail, because then there would just be more unemployed people. Instead, force said companies to raise wages of workers and reduce wages for management if they get bailout money.

Based Pajeet

>>Wealthy investor buys XYZ stock and holds for a few months, to increase the investment by an arbitrary %.

>> Consumers increase purchasing candybar XYZ, demand increases, to meet demand, company making candybar XYZ buys more machinery and hires more labor to increase supply to meet demand.

One of these results in a fundamental increase in economic capability.

NOOO! SAVE THE COMPANIES, SAVE THE JERBS! IT WILL TRICKLE DOWN! GIVING MONEY TO THE ONES WHO NEED IT IS GOMMUNISM!

>give the money to people without doing any work instead of giving it to the business so that they can pay people to keep working
Nice try, accelerationist

nice try satan, you and i both know that money is a jewish trick and we need to return to the barter system.

The point of this money is to be spent in consumption. Literally the purpose. There is no "better use" of it, you can have a second pile of money for investment unrelated to the pile for consumption.
Consumption=Rent and food.

Why give money away for free? Stupid pajeet. He's a communist.

>"Bail me out of my poor investments, I may have to work again" -rich faggots. They don't deserve the gain when things go well if they don't take the loss when it goes bad. Also, they don't employ people to help society. They do it for money you boot licker.

chamath is sorta based. except he is always whining about whitey within silicon valley venture capital

How about we don't give useless people money and let hedge fund Jews drown?

When someone breaks their leg, or gets in a car wreck and they can't afford the bill, they are often told that they should have had an emergency fund.

Why aren't huge corporations held to the same standard? If companies like American Airlines can afford to spend 97% of their profits on stock buy backs, why can't they afford to also have a rainy day fund for an event that seems to happen every ten years?

Oh, right. Because they KNOW the government will bail them out every time.

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE user YOU'RE MAKING TO MUCH SENSE

Attached: 12767678768.jpg (400x298, 20.51K)

They cannot break their leg, because the corporation has no arms or legs
If the owner is sick, someone else can do the job
The problem is the government has been saying for the last month they're not allowed to do their job. That their employees are to stay at home. The government may consider your business to be non-essential, but it is still your livelyhood

Pajeets are the psuedo-jews of Asia.

So? Should have had a rainy day fund, just like we should have had 400 years worth of rent saved up.

Fuck reCAPTCHA

Attached: Smuggest small.png (421x476, 351.3K)

where do you think company gets the upfront money to buy said machines autist?

lol

Even in the bank, money reaches 10x lending capacity; there is a reason the fed can give 4.5 trillion USD worth of loans with the 500 billion liquidity pump but cant do anything with the 290 billion down the hole gibs to useless monkeys

see the problem with that is the 'average american' is not producing wealth they are simply consuming so giving them money will create inflation. the hedge funds and investors are trying to allocate money toward making a profit which is by investing in an enterprise that produces things or delivers services. This activity keeps prices down and also is sustainable

checked and fuck Trump for bailing out his buddies

Actually, since giving money to the common man is a one time thing (as bailouts are supposed to be), the inflation would be minimal in the long term.

You have to think - if you gave every American who makes under $100,000 a year something like $5000 in stimulus, they're not all going to spend it on the same things. Some of them will be niggers that go out and buy a bunch of bling shit, some will be typical middle class and invest it for retirement, some people will simply use it to pay off debts, some people might use it to get s new car, and so forth.

Different people have different priorities. Such a stimulus would only have a massive inflation effect if everyone was buying the same basket of goods. Since they won't, the effect will be minimal.

As a former libertariantard I still see no reason why earned income (payroll) is taxed. When the US was founded, the government was lean and funded by moderate tariffs. Politicians back then weren't career politicians though so, go figure.

KEK I saw a bit of this interview this morning. The talking head doing the interview about blew a circuit when he said "SO WHAT" about wiping out the companies.

>the hedge funds and investors
have failed. Which is why they're bankrupt and need a bailout in the first place. If you keep giving these retards more free money eventually your country is going to turn into venezuela north and your aircraft carriers are going to be sold off to thailand as scarp metal.

What is there to "spend it" on? Many stores are closed to sale of non-essential goods, you cannot leave the house except for specific circumstances-the last thing they need is to give a large sum of money during a "stay at home" order. Every idiot would be out shopping.
White people might be more prone to saving it, niggers will be trying to mail order grills, Air Jordans, and Louis Vuitton.

Issuing stock and the secondary market are different things, holy shit.

Trading stock already issued doesn't nothing for the underlying company.

But that isn't what happened. Many companies took the bail out meant to keep their workers working-they let the workers go and pocketed the bail out and told the workers to sign up for unemployment! Apparently the bail out came with NO stipulations on how it was to be used.

>666
Bad thread. Stay out.

Attached: call.jpg (1000x1000, 52.88K)

A human is not an abstract entity
A human can break their leg. A corporation cannot.
The only reason that many have ceased operation is because the government is threatening to arrest them if they didn't.
This is not a market caused problem. The business's didn't end up in this situation because of poor financial decisions like 2008.

I would agree with this but it will never happen because boomers have all their money in investment funds.

What the fuck is that name? He looks Indian but I’ve never heard that name and surname.

>Trading stock already issued doesn't nothing for the underlying company.
what if the company wants to buy or sell some shares? then it needs people to buy and sell it's stock. you are dumb. also stocks usually pay dividends, people depend on those dividends.

Sure. But look at it now. If they receive it the same day, and the store shelves are half empty, one of two things will happen.
Either the shelves will empty, or prices would rise
You already see this phenomenon in cities with a lot of people on welfare. This is going to make it even worse.

>don't let big rekt companies to fail by bailing them out
imagine thinking this is not a shit tier socialism. lmfo

Attached: What.gif (320x238, 3.98M)

>hoard
Have you heard of the banking system, cucknada?

>zero substance rich kid has the courage to stick up for the little guy and the environment, really he believes in nothing but getting claps
read taleb's idea of Skin in the Game instead.

Hedge funds probably are raking in billions because they saw this coming or got tipped off by congressmen and Chinese elites who have accounts with them

bump

>they saw this coming
Of course they saw it coming. LOTS of people knew there was going to be a VIRUS-elites-Look at Jeff Bezzos-sold up stock, fled to NZ, hired Amazon Fresh delivery people-the Pope smacking away that Asian lady's hand-the virus had only been in the wild in China since October and not wide-spread until December-why did Bezzos think this virus was going to go global? How did the Pope know not to touch an Asian back then?
WHO DIDN'T KNOW? at the early time Bezzos knew? Those four congressshites that sold up stock AFTER a Wuflu meeting..but that was LONG after Bezzos and the Pope knew. SO we can assume that many if not most Congressassholes on either side-did NOT know or have access to the information that alerted Bezzos and the Pope.

Really makes you think about THE PLAN.

Very Thisse

True and Based

also before someone hurr durr Big Companies provide jobs

They provide jobs for SJW and GloboHomo shills
Those are the ones getting the big bucks
if you think Gun companies are getting anything you are wrong !

The FED has been feeding the snake of globohomo and it's corporate bitches for over a century
All of them wouldn't survive a day alone in the market
remember that

at this point we pretty much live in a plutocratic society. The middle class was the stabilizing agent here and as the middle class recedes, we WILL see an increase in volatility.

The left is the most in tune with this, Their anger was kept in check by a historical connection to pacifism and the anti-war movements of the 20th century, but that is starting to change.

America is a handful of viral posts away from going full yellow vest, the only thing keeping that in check is the identity politics they have been feeding us. They want you to identify first based on things much less important than class alignment.


The sad thing here is that capitalism can and should work, but it starts to fail when things grow from the interstate level to the global.

based

This thread is full of leftists that want to give money to "normal people," by which they mean low iq, poor browns and blacks. They don't want money to go to rich whites.

Fuck you leftypol faggots.

Attached: leftypo.jpg (951x599, 105.03K)

it is our money after all.

not that i agree with the bailouts.

Universal Basic Income would eliminate poverty, but the slaves of Jews love being poor.

not wrong, the top 1k are the problem, not the top 100k people

Printing money only works if not everyone gets it, otherwise prices rise to accommodate the increase. UBI is retarded.

Attached: 1586240087098.png (684x3227, 517.21K)

He is right. What message is this sending to boards? That no matter how poorly managed their companies are the gov will bail them out? Bad precedents.

Based Pajeet

Based Jew

Based leaf

Based hohol

>i think billionaires should give away billionaires money
Sure, anyday now

>investment
ah yes, like how the airline companies bought back their own stock for executive bonuses instead of expanding operations or keeping it to weather something akin to a pandemic event.

“Investing”
Investing in politicians to redistribute wealth from taxpayer to billionaires so they can afford shitting business decisions

People who spend their entire lives sitting on a couch, playing video games and browsing the internet with no drive for success literally don’t deserve absolutely anything in life.

Companies should fail. Companies that cannot find markets for their business need to fail.

That would cause even more inflation (think of the housing bubble)