Is your entire knowledge of U.S. politics based on watching CNN or something? You talk like someone who just soaks up lefist media talking points and spits them back out, even down to regurgitating the long-ago proven bullshit talking point that the president called the virus a hoax. Even Snopes admitted that one is crap
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/ .
…. sorry friend, but what is this? "Leftist media talking points"? Pointing out a Donald Trump fact... when I never mentioned Donald Trump? Who are you responding to here?
You claim you've proven the incompetence of the woeful American government by spitting out more leftist talking points, how the stimulus package just was for businesses and not the people! Yet, if these businesses aren't helped the economy crumbles further, more jobs are lost, less jobs are there to go back to and people suffer directly as a result. Broaden the vision - it is bigger than just businesses, who works at these businesses? What happens when even less businesses are around as society opens back up?
"Leftist media talking points"? Is that a go-to dismissal you keep in your backpocket? You are, of course, aware you're talking to international people from around the globe on an international discussion board? Do you think everyone who disagrees with you can be dismissed with "leftist talking points"?
You're argument boils down to one sentence: "if these businesses aren't helped the economy crumbles further". That's the spine of your points, if I've understood them correctly. You go a little further here: "
What happens when even less businesses are around as society opens back up?". This is a good question and actually worth talking about. I'll ignore the above and actually respond to this in earnest in the attempt to have a real discussion here.
So, let's deescalate and have a chat.
For me, a key factor I'd like to highlight in my thinking is that every country faces this same basic question: how do we keep our society from crumbling while we wait out the virus? So, there's actually a wealth of different answers employed around the world we can look at. I'll use civil unrest, health care system load, and projected longevity as the metrics for success for countries approaches to that same basic question. So, basically: how happy are the people, how bogged down are the hospitals, and how long does the Government think it can continue with COVID-19 restrictions in place. That seems pretty fair to me.
Glancing around, we see the most successful nations are the ones creating emergency policies that provide wage replacement services for people, and provide tax exemptions as well as small-scale subsidies for businesses. This combination creates a budget deficit, however it's mitigated by the spending of the population, because their wages were replaced by government allowances. It means people, even those who can't go to work or don't have a job, have money to spend on things they need/want, while also ensuring that businesses have their staff costs reduced to zero, owe no taxes, and receive Government funding to cover their non-negotiable operational costs. The businesses don't make a profit, but they don't lose any money, either. Because the people are still pumping money into the economy, thanks to their wage replacement, the country can kick along for months and months under these conditions - waiting for that vaccine to make this all go away.
Ok, with that in mind, let's return to the US. It has taken a rather different approach: it's provided bailout money to business to
replace consumer spending and offset current damages. Few other countries took this approach. The US also provided a percentage of it's population a small one-off "stimulus" to encourage more spending, to keep the economy mobile. Using the above metrics, the US's approach has largely been unsuccessful. This is because the type of approach they took was designed to cover the impact of COVID-19
to date. This has resulted in people spending their stimulus, and then just using up their savings and going into debt, while companies close because people don't have money to spend. It's not a longer term, sustainable approach, which is why the US is hurting pretty badly now.
To bring this all back to your points, no one is going to come out this unscathed, so the best we can do is limit the damage. I think we can both agree on that point. You're concerned about businesses collapsing and going out of business. Fair enough. So, let's get real: for some businesses, this is simply unavoidable - and, frankly, that's the free market: businesses don't have a right to not fail. All we can do is limit damage to keep as many folks in business as we can. And, for a business, that's all about providing income. It actually doesn't matter if that income comes from trading goods and services, or just from a Government cheque in the mail, they just need income. With the above solutions employed in other countries, people still have money to spend, so the majority of businesses can actually still trade. In fact, several industries are currently experiencing a boom - especially those that can trade online. With the US' current solution, however, businesses have until their bailout money runs out, and then they're cooked. The population simply doesn't have wage replacement, so they don't have any money to spend; there's no income to be had.
If we're looking to mitigate damage across the board, we need to get money into the hands of business owners. I think we can agree there. So, either the Government pays them directly - which the US Government did... and that money's just about used up - or we give money to people, let them spend it, and let that money keep the economy moving. This allows the Government to give greater assistance to the businesses who cannot trade at all, which is offset by the mitigation in assistance needed for those business who can still trade. This is what the countries above did - and it's what has allowed them succeed where the US has failed.
The problem with the US Government's approach is that it directly provided the vast majority of it's COVID-19 assistances to
businesses who simply aren't injecting that money back into the economy. With everything said, I believe the best solution is give the people money and let them spend it. It's the best method for keeping as many people in business as possible, in my opinion, which I believe I've explained.
Now, if you don't agree here - that's ok. I'm actually curious about why you disagree, and what you might think is a superior approach and why.
I also find it interesting you've just dropped the vaccine point entirely, which was your main talking point in the thread. What happened there? It was the crux of your argument and now it's just been abandoned for a more vague and general "well all the other countries I listed are in better shape" statement.
Ignoring the fact that it's not actually the "crux" of my argument, the simple fact is you didn't say anything to respond to on this element. So, yeah, the countries I listed are in better shape, and yeah, no country should be dropping their restrictions until a vaccine is available. What else should I say? In the interest of a good discussion here, I'll elaborate and say that the reason for my thinking here is that dropping restrictions creates the potential for a large number of easily preventable deaths. Saving lives is the actual crux of my argument.
Taking a look at the global climate, the countries that are easing their restrictions are those faring best against the virus - the least cases, the least deaths. Unfortunately, this does not include America - they're looking at easing their restrictions despite being the worst impacted nation on Earth, with no signs their current measures have curbed the spread in a statically significant manner. It's also worth noting that every nation that is easing their restrictions is also doing so against the leading experts professionals advice. Sure, some countries are being smarter than others - however, given the rapid spread of the virus, I actually believe once the restrictions are eased back to relying mostly on social distancing, we'll see it spread rapidly again. And then we're back to square one, only with more bodies.
If you disagree with this position, why? From your perspective, is saving lives not the most important focus? If not, can you explain why?
