Both are direct expansions of the M1 money supply, which generally speaking will increase demand. Although sustainably stimulating the economy requires sustained investment on the supply side of the demand equation.
The government shut down businesses so it makes sense to compensate them. The government didn't force people to go the college or take out loans to pay for it.
Actually government does. It makes sense to nudge people towards acquiring more skills and they routinely do that. Also, the economy is punishing for those who don't have a college degree (it always was, but perhaps not at this level.)
And how did we reach here? Government policies. I am not saying that these policies were bad. But there can be no denying that government is the major reason why more and more people are going to college. And definitely, if college is not free or subsidised, they will be forced to take loans. Again, because economy is punishing for those who don't have a college education.
I agree the government does nudge people to go to college. The problem is there is a difference between nudging people and arresting people. Nobody is putting a gun to your head requiring you to go to college.
I agree the economy is set up against non college educated people. We should work to change that. Promoting trade schools as legitimate alternatives to college might help. I am not sold that would solve much though. A lot of young people don't want to get into the trades. How many 18 year olds who just graduated high school want to be a plumber?
One thing I will say is that I don't think it is solely the government to blame. Companies require degrees for jobs that don't need it. They probably do it since there is a massive amount of people with degrees so they may as well get one of them to work for the company. We need companies to step up and stop requiring degrees. At the company I work at there are people with degrees who are working in data entry.
The government didn't force businesses to take out loans either. Complying with the law doesn't automatically mean you deserve compensation.
Nevertheless, the government allowed businesses to take out loans, and in many cases forgave those loans, because it benefits the country. The government allowed students to take out loans, and in many cases forgave those loans, because it benefits the country.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be college loans. I am saying the job of the government is to help people, and both kinds of loans, an both kinds of loan forgiveness, fall into that category.
Correct. The subsidies were supposed to go for retrofitting builds, covering employment costs due to lower demand, and to cover costs due to being shut down. All of which were due to government policies.
==covering employment costs due to lower demand, and to cover costs due to being shut down.==
Except that there wasn't lower demand across the whole economy, only very specific industries. Most businesses were not shut down. Lots of businesses continued running, and had increased demand. They still got forgivable loans.
Perhaps the perception it has more to do with who signed the legislation (a Republican President and Senate) than whether it was actually "socialist" (it was)?
>Except that there wasn't lower demand across the whole economy, only very specific industries
Obviously some industries weren't impacted. Many were though. The GDP also declined.
You can probably say the same about every recession.
>Most businesses were not shut down
I never said they were. I've seen some estimates at 200,000 businesses. A huge number of businesses went out of business as well.
>Lots of businesses continued running, and had increased demand.
And lots of businesses who continued running had decreased demand.
Even if the demand remained the same or increased they might not be able to meet the requirements like outside eating or distancing which would limit their revenues.
>Perhaps the perception it has more to do with who signed the legislation (a Republican President and Senate) than whether it was actually "socialist" (it was)?
It is not socialist. Socialist can mean either state controlled or worker controlled. This is corporate welfare.
Just to be clear. I am not defending this policy. I am strictly saying that this is more justifiable then paying off student loans since the government literally shut many businesses and put other rules on businesses.
But they didn’t only give loans to business who were shut down. That’s the point.
You claimed businesses got loans because the government forced them to close. I am saying that plenty of business that didn’t close (and saw record demand) sought and received loans. Nobody made them take out PPP loans. Once you acknowledge that, it looks a lot like student loans.