View Single Post
  #33  
Old 03-24-2020, 01:44 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
$1200 a person won't motivate a company to keep you employed, either. You can't create jobs by handing money to companies. They have no reason to hire people because they get handouts; if it made sense to lay off X employees they will keep doing that even if you give them a bag of money. (Why wouldn't they?) You can try to base the bailout money on them keeping a certain number of employees, but such deals are complex and rarely end up saving jobs. You're also creating, of course, a gigantic moral hazard. No supporter of free markets and capitalism should support that.

Giving money directly to the individuals inevitably means that money will be spent on... stuff. The companies that provide that stuff will be rewarded for running effective businesses, and THEY will employ people.
First of all, both the Senate and House bills give money both to individuals and small businesses.
It is not true that if you give money to people they will spend it. They can also save it. They can pay down debt. Neither of these helps the economy. Plus, at the moment I have a problem spending anywhere but Amazon and the grocery store, both of which seem to be doing fine.

Money for businesses that involve keeping workers employed saves on unemployment and also keeps the workers covered by health insurance, which could be vital. We're not talking about creating jobs, we're talking about preserving jobs.

And speaking of moral hazards in this situation is bizarre, unless you think not pumping money into the economy will discourage the next virus.
Now, giving money to companies (or lending) without a requirement to preserve jobs does not have any of these benefits. Still not a moral hazard, since no actions by any of the companies created the problem.