@no1marauder saidReally? Three quarters of the money was wasted, according to the best economics journal in the world.
Even the most critical assessment of the program concedes it saved millions of jobs.
That's enough for me.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidThat's not what it says.
Really? Three quarters of the money was wasted, according to the best economics journal in the world.
And all the Monday Morning Quarterbacking in the world doesn't change the facts that were known at the time. The program was created in a time of economic emergency and it did its job, keeping millions employed and businesses open.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidNot all economists are as critical of the program as the authors of that article:
Really? Three quarters of the money was wasted, according to the best economics journal in the world.
"Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the PPP increased employment at small businesses by 2.3 million people by mid-June. Additionally, an early study by researchers at Harvard Business School found that the program increased small business’ confidence in retaining employees. In April, small businesses reported that their employment would decline 40 percent by December, but once they were told about the program, they reduced their projected reductions in workforce to 6 percent.
In addition to reducing job losses, one of the PPP’s goals was to prevent business closures by helping businesses pay for expenses. Analysts at the American Enterprise Institute suggest that the program was successful in achieving that goal, as firms that received PPP funds were less likely to go out of business. Likewise, a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper using data from April found that the PPP loans increased the likelihood of a business’s survival by 14 to 30 percentage points."
https://www.pgpf.org/article/how-did-the-fiscal-response-to-coronavirus-help-small-businesses/
Similar results were found in this Bureau of Labor Statistics study:
" I show an 8% increase in employment,11.5% increase in wages, and a 5.8% decline in the likelihood of closure within one month of PPP approval.7 months after PPP approval, I find a 4% impact on employment, a 3.8% effect on wages, and a 3.5% decline in the probability of closure. "
https://www.bls.gov/osmr/research-papers/2021/pdf/ec210080.pdf in the "Conclusion".
Perhaps these gains weren't quite what was hoped initially, but still millions of jobs saved and thousands of business closures avoided by one government program doesn't deserve your sneering.
@wildgrass saidBTW, the Economist is a magazine, not the "best economics journal" in the world. Economic journals contain peer reviewed articles written by specialists in the field and are meant for an academic audience. Some examples are here: https://www.aeaweb.org/journals
Really? Three quarters of the money was wasted, according to the best economics journal in the world.
@no1marauder saidHow many dollars did it cost to save 1 job for 1 month?
Not all economists are as critical of the program as the authors of that article:
"Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the PPP increased employment at small businesses by 2.3 million people by mid-June. Additionally, an early study by researchers at Harvard Business School found that the program increased small business’ confidence in re ...[text shortened]... and thousands of business closures avoided by one government program doesn't deserve your sneering.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidIt is what it says. I quoted it. You call it monday morning quarterbacking, but it's also referred to as film study, learning lessons about what not to do.
That's not what it says.
And all the Monday Morning Quarterbacking in the world doesn't change the facts that were known at the time. The program was created in a time of economic emergency and it did its job, keeping millions employed and businesses open.
PPP kept the middle class from mortgage default by heaping riches upon the super wealthy from the taxpayers. Other countries did it better for less money, and we should use that model for the future. Although based on your responses here I think probably we will just have the same thing all over again.
The rich get richer. Everyone else stays floating.
@wildgrass saidMost of the writings of you (Socialists) imply that no one can .....get rich??? Am I hearing you right? Your kids? They can't get rich.? Sorry, that does npt compute>. I guess that is why I don't pitch in on your insanity discussions,,,,,Carry on. Next you will be comparing your kids. Creepy. How one works harder than another one, you will become enemies, bad neighbors!!! "heyyy!, wait a minute!!!!"
It is what it says. I quoted it. You call it monday morning quarterbacking, but it's also referred to as film study, learning lessons about what not to do.
PPP kept the middle class from mortgage default by heaping riches upon the super wealthy from the taxpayers. Other countries did it better for less money, and we should use that model for the future. Although based on ...[text shortened]... will just have the same thing all over again.
The rich get richer. Everyone else stays floating.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidNo one should get rich... because of a government handout.
Most of the writings of you (Socialists) imply that no one can .....get rich??? Am I hearing you right? Your kids? They can't get rich.? Sorry, that does npt compute>. I guess that is why I don't pitch in on your insanity discussions,,,,,Carry on. Next you will be comparing your kids. Creepy. How one works harder than another one, you will become enemies, bad neighbors!!! "heyyy!, wait a minute!!!!"
Fixed it for you. I'm not Tom Brady so I don't get a million dollar check from the government.
I'm the socialist for disagreeing with a government welfare program that distributed $800 billion to wealthy Americans???
@sh76 saidAww man. If only I had started a one man LLC and declared myself it's only employee, I would have received a $20,000 check from Uncle Sam that I could use for payroll i.e. myself.
I don't know about Brady, but I do know the government gave me ~ $20,000 for basically no reason. In 2021, I simply filled out a form on the sites of one of these PPP service agencies, telling the 100% truth on every line (my main source of income was self-employment) and boom, I got a note saying that I was eligible for a ~ $20,000 PPP loan. So I took it. Hey, why not? At worst ...[text shortened]... ously loosely administered program.
I have no trouble believing that PPP bought Tom Brady a boat.
@wildgrass saidYet, with all this disdainful free money, for lack of a better way to say it, you and the Shavs and Bernie’s of the world back Mamdani ideas. Free stuff? You don’t likePPP but you will take ‘free stuff’ ? PPP was free stuff. Children…… follow professor AvJoe for a moment. Free housing, buses, more money in wages, frozen rents, tax the producers into Hell? Housing next?
Aww man. If only I had started a one man LLC and declared myself it's only employee, I would have received a $20,000 check from Uncle Sam that I could use for payroll i.e. myself.
Are you hypocrites. What? are you?,?,,.
PPP bad, but, Mamdani, is he good? Tell us, where do we go to get YOUR handouts?? See how we level headed conservative self_reliant types view you.
Some work harder than others.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidOk, free food whatever.
Yet, with all this disdainful free money, for lack of a better way to say it, you and the Shavs and Bernie’s of the world back Mamdani ideas. Free stuff? You don’t likePPP but you will take ‘free stuff’ ? PPP was free stuff. Children…… follow professor AvJoe for a moment. Free housing, buses, more money in wages, frozen rents, tax the producers into Hell? Housing ne ...[text shortened]... ee how we level headed conservative self_reliant types view you.
Some work harder than others.
The money that govt used for PPP which went almost entirely to wealthy people could have funded SNAP for years. But we can't afford it? Your politicians say we can afford it but the reality is that they would rather provide welfare for multimillionaires.
@wildgrass saidWe all agree PPP was intended to help things, just like your man Biden, inflation reduction ACt, Obama’s Obamacare,, and Biden‘s other disastrous projects, which cost us a lot of money. Obama, , your man, said it will save us $2500, but it actually cost us more than that. He said you could keep your doctor, I which was a lie. So there you have I’m getting tired of talking about it. So ppp is just another debacle. Both sides made mistakes.
Ok, free food whatever.
The money that govt used for PPP which went almost entirely to wealthy people could have funded SNAP for years. But we can't afford it? Your politicians say we can afford it but the reality is that they would rather provide welfare for multimillionaires.
Obama meant to misrepresent to us that we can keep our doctors, his architects later admitted he knew it was a lie! and I quite disagree that PPP was meant for the rich
Take this all up to Sonhouse ,else he will agree with you
@wildgrass saidYour article talks about the majority of benefits going to households with yearly incomes over $144,000. You've somehow twisted that into benefiting the "super wealthy". I suggest you actually look at some Census data.
It is what it says. I quoted it. You call it monday morning quarterbacking, but it's also referred to as film study, learning lessons about what not to do.
PPP kept the middle class from mortgage default by heaping riches upon the super wealthy from the taxpayers. Other countries did it better for less money, and we should use that model for the future. Although based on ...[text shortened]... will just have the same thing all over again.
The rich get richer. Everyone else stays floating.
Even if I agreed with the methodology, obviously preventing a business from shuttering its doors is going to benefit shareholders and owners in monetary terms more than the employees who lose their jobs. That's hardly a reasoned critique of the program unless you think businesses shutting down would have been a "good" thing for the economy during COVID (or at any time for that matter).
@Suzianne saidBut Suzanne, hold on, who I think they are is quite irrelevant. Some people do work harder than others. Go to any location where more than two people are working, and one of them will be working harder than the other, and you are right , I would not know who they are
Yes, but they are not who you think they are.
Debates on forum are just not debates.