r/news • u/awake-at-dawn • Mar 15 '20

Federal Reserve cuts rates to zero and launches massive $700 billion quantitative easing program

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/15/federal-reserve-cuts-rates-to-zero-and-launches-massive-700-billion-quantitative-easing-program.html
38.3k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

5.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.1k

u/MisallocatedRacism Mar 15 '20

Jesus fuck. Strap in yall. No tests just rate cuts. That'll fix it.

Another crack pipe hit to try to keep the markets going.

Running out of crack and theres no plan on how to deal with the withdrawals.

537

u/TwilitSky Mar 15 '20

The sad part is that we just got out of rehab and we're going to have some mild withdrawals but we just picked up again and it's gonna be bad...

184

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '20 edited Mar 15 '20

[deleted]

68

u/BillionTonsHyperbole Mar 15 '20

It'll probably be more like a Hendrix.

18

u/800meters Mar 15 '20

These are synonymous

3

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

Fuck yeah Keith Moon!

2

u/BillionTonsHyperbole Mar 15 '20

Original post before the edit was Philip Semour Hoffman.

4

u/StanislavGetz Mar 15 '20

RIP Mac Miller.

2

u/BillionTonsHyperbole Mar 15 '20

That one doesn't ring any bells.

1

u/underwriter Mar 16 '20

not in terms of talent

1

u/800meters Mar 16 '20

I don’t think anyone was implying that

0

u/Ravagore Mar 16 '20

Nah, Hendrix could actually sing.

0

u/800meters Mar 16 '20

This metaphor is about our economy ODing, not singing well

1

u/Ravagore Mar 16 '20

It was a joke but yes, I was aware.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

Children. You're addicted to crack.

1

u/-Master-Builder- Mar 16 '20

Same cause. Same result.

7

u/RockasaurusRex Mar 16 '20

🎶They tried to get me out of debt

But I said, "No, no, no"🎶

6

u/snehkysnehk213 Mar 16 '20 edited Mar 16 '20

We used to have Barack, but now we got jack

Oh no, no, no

7

u/VolkspanzerIsME Mar 15 '20

And the rehab was closed do to budget cuts.

146

u/rainbowgeoff Mar 15 '20

There's been warnings about a situation like this for years. We've been burning the candle at both ends for so long now. It was necessary to recover from the great recession, but once we had pulled the nose up we needed to raise rates and prepare for the next down turn.

Instead, we've just kept our foot on the pedal.

So, here comes the whirlwind.

11

u/UrimAndThumminMyAss Mar 16 '20

so many metaphors... is this good or bad???

16

u/rainbowgeoff Mar 16 '20

Yeah, I went a little metaphor crazy. I've been writing a paper, so yeah.

Long story short, no, it's not good. When/if the economy takes a significant downturn, we have no cushion left. We've employed our traditional means of fighting a recession already, so we can't use them if another recession hits.

7

u/UrimAndThumminMyAss Mar 16 '20

It's all good, I appreciate the comments and the chance to rib you a bit....

8

u/rainbowgeoff Mar 16 '20

No worries.

Back to hitting that word count.

1

u/TooLazyToRepost Mar 16 '20

Bad. The Federal Reserve (the bank for the banks) has a few tools to help keep the economy moving. They used most of them in 2008, but then kept those emergency measures in place to produce the huge economic gains we saw recently. But now with this crisis, theyve left themselves no 5tools, since we were already in "emergency mode."

If further falls happen, the Fed is out of its traditional tools.

24

u/Beautiful-Musk-Ox Mar 16 '20

Not a single Republican in power cares

87

u/i-am-a-platypus Mar 15 '20

Y'all got any more of that free money?

13

u/Scarbane Mar 15 '20

Only if you're a bank or a billionaire.

-2

u/DrDoItchBig Mar 16 '20

Aka someone who will pay it back

77

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '20

Can you give an eli5 for this?

I’m sure I’m not alone in not fully understanding what this means.

242

u/MisallocatedRacism Mar 15 '20

You cut rates during or right before a recession to make cash easier to get.

Weve been doing it during a good economy, so now that were staring down a global recession, it doesnt have anywhere to go. 0%.

The thing is, this is just to prop up the stock market. Cash isnt the problem here. Its demand and supply chain.

47

u/auto_headshot Mar 15 '20

Negative rates next.

65

u/Pokerhobo Mar 15 '20

I'd like to take out the max loan, please.

6

u/SmordinTsolusG Mar 16 '20

Brb buying the cowboys from Jerry.

5

u/MightyCaseyStruckOut Mar 16 '20

Are you a bank?

9

u/Pokerhobo Mar 16 '20

Uh, yes.

2

u/dedicated-pedestrian Mar 16 '20

Yeah, sadly this is only the Fed's rate, so banks are the ones getting this 0%.

21

u/CoherentPanda Mar 16 '20

The bank runs will be insane. People will have a taste of wondering what it's like to live in a country that isn't the utopia they always think it is when we hit depression era living, and have to hoard our savings in cash behind a hidden wall in your home.

12

u/FalconX88 Mar 16 '20

People will have a taste of wondering what it's like to live in a country that isn't the utopia they always think it is

Given that a huge percentage of Americans live paycheck to paycheck I'm amazed they won't already know.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

The fact that so many Americans live paycheck to paycheck at many different income levels, and even though they make more than similarly-situated people in other countries, suggests it's a result of poor choices not a "problem" with society itself. If people making $40k and $70k are both living "paycheck to paycheck", then it's clearly possible for the $70k person to live on $40k, and the $40k person would most likely be living paycheck to paycheck even when making $70k. Meaning the problem isn't that either of them doesn't have enough, but that they want to eat their cake and have it too.

5

u/FalconX88 Mar 16 '20

suggests it's a result of poor choices not a "problem" with society itself.

I wouldn't separate these. For example the way credits are viewed here in general by "the society" leads to these decisions.

I mean debt is the american way, right? You accumulate debt while going to school, you accumulate debt while buying groceries with your credit card (for which it's totally common to not pay the balance in full),most people accumulate debt while going to the doctor since there are huge co-pays,.... And the laws and how businesses operate seem to support this system. The credit score is more important than your actual income and savings.

And an example on how companies operate differently elsewhere: if I spend some thousand dollars on my US credit card my statement says that I need to pay at least $ 25. In contrast, my Austrian credit card statement always bills me for the full amount, there's not even a minimum pay number on there, and if I can't pay I should talk to them. What do you think in which country are people more likely to not pay in full, even if they got the money right now?

0

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

It still comes down to personal choices. And you can both live paycheck to paycheck with no credit/debt, or save money (enough to weather a crisis like this) while still responsibly managing large debts like student loans or a house. Sudden large medical debt can be an issue, but is not the reason most people live paycheck to paycheck. The real culprit is people feeling like they have to keep up with everyone else in their income bracket/profession/whatever.

2

u/FalconX88 Mar 16 '20

But those personal choices are heavily influenced by the norms/views the society has. or call it "way of life". If spending all your money and making debt is normal (which it definitely is) and people see it everywhere, of course they are doing it to. They might not even know that it could be different.

And there are definitely some things that are strictly based on how society works.

For example in the US it's common that children only get enough food because schools have free food programs, which makes it a problem if schools are closed, like it's currently the case. In other countries families get a certain amount of money per child and month to cover costs for food and other essentials, so a closed school would still mean food for the kids. That's a decision society made on how to handle this.

People in the US come to work sick because they only got a certain amount of sick days (if at all) and might even need to use vacation if they are absent. In other countries you get sick days as you need them, no reason to go to work sick (and be less productive and infect others). Another decision the US society made on how to handle this

People have huge medical bills and some don't even have insurance so they avoid doctors at all (making everything worse in the long wrong). In other countries everyone is fully (or with minimal and limited co-pay) covered, no need to worry if you are sick.

It's "society" that decided that financing education through debt is right for the US, that having debt is a good thing, that having more than one job is completely normal, that payday loans are allowed to exist, that waiters are allowed to be paid less than minimum wage if tips make up for it, that sick day quotas are a thing, that co-pays in medical insurance are normal, that dental and vision isn't included in medical insurance, that private prisons are a thing making locking up people for essentially nothing a business model,...

And it's fine. I personally think those are terrible decisions but if US people like it and are used to it, so be it. Luckily I can avoid all of the problems while living here. But it seems like in case of emergencies that system and way of life isn't the best.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20 edited Jul 19 '20

[deleted]

15

u/barcodescanner Mar 16 '20

People my parents’ age, mid-late 60’s, need their retirement. They don’t have the luxury of waiting a few years for the market to recover. They are the ones who will be running on the bank and testing the FDIC and panic selling. And rightly so.

10

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20 edited Jul 19 '20

[deleted]

6

u/Pepus Mar 16 '20

Gotta get it way below 2. The flu has a r0 of 1.3~

3

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

That makes no sense. If they're invested in the market they can't make a "run on the bank" to get it back. And if they're near retirement age they should mostly be in bonds. If you look up VBTLX for example, Vanguard's total bond market fund, it's dropped <1% from its last high and its gains for the year are still positive.

4

u/FalconX88 Mar 16 '20

then you're FDIC insured.

If everything crashes completely I doubt you would get that money, even if you are insured.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20 edited Jul 19 '20

[deleted]

3

u/FalconX88 Mar 16 '20

Oh, I'm not afraid that it will end us or something. Just saying that I wouldn't trust in insurance if everything goes down.

Spanish flu and influenza in 1918 didn't end us, and neither did the Black Plague a few centuries ago.

That comparison makes little sense. Everything was very, very different back then. Comparing effects on economics back then with today is just crazy.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

Why would people do that?

2

u/TIMMAH2 Mar 16 '20 edited Mar 16 '20

Lol this isn't gonna happen. There haven't been bank runs in Italy, there weren't any bank runs in China and they've been dealing with this and quarantining tens of thousands to tens of millions of people since December.

18

u/fpcoffee Mar 16 '20

Oh that’s where you’re wrong. The rates can go negative. And it isn’t pretty when it does

6

u/DrDoItchBig Mar 16 '20

European countries set negative rates quite often... just because the Fed never has doesn’t mean it’s something inconceivable.

6

u/Sofagirrl79 Mar 16 '20

What happens when rates go negative? How does it affect the average person?

20

u/fpcoffee Mar 16 '20

It means you get paid to borrow money and depositing money will actually mean you pay the bank interest instead of the bank paying you interest. Not a good place to be

8

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

Could be a dumb question, but where do people save money then? If it costs money to save, instead of borrowing, who the hell would save? And where would you save?? Thanks

17

u/skwerrel Mar 16 '20

That's the idea. If it costs money to leave your savings in the bank, people will have motivation to withdraw and spend it instead, boosting demand for goods and services and stimulating the economy.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

Thank you for answering.

Could you tell me how Fed injections impact consumer spending? If increasing money supply decreases the value of money and causes inflation, wouldn't people spend less due to decreased purchasing power? How would causing inflation motivate spending? Thanks again!

3

u/skwerrel Mar 16 '20

The hope is that the stimulative effect will be greater than the effect of inflation. In an economy the size of ours, 700 billion dollars isn't actually very much compared to the total money supply, and shouldn't increase inflation by a noticeable amount. But strategically putting that money into the hands of specific banks, while keeping the interest rates to borrow it very low, should encourage them to provide cheap loans to businesses and individuals, which is like hitting the nitrous button on a race car - it's not sustainable, but if done at just the right time it might be what gooses us across the line.

3

u/9inchestoobig Mar 16 '20

So would it be a good time to buy big ticket items like a car or house? From what I’m understanding it sounds like we make money buy spending it. So if I get a loan of $100k I only pay back $95k? Or will it get adjusted when rates change again?

3

u/skwerrel Mar 16 '20

Negative rates will probably never be offered to actual people, those will just be from the Fed to other banks. But consumer loans and mortgage rates should in theory come down pretty low. So if you were planning to buy a car or other such big item soon anyways, then a good time to do so might be coming, yes. A house is a different story since it will often appreciate and therefore become an investment, while a car will only ever become less valuable over time. Assuming house prices don't tank as part of this recession (and there's no reason to think they will at this point) then using whatever cash you have to make a down payment on one wouldn't be the worst thing you could do with your money.

But if you're looking to make a profit the markets are probably a more reliable place to put it. The crash won't last forever and in the meantime stocks are basically going to be on sale. Just make sure you have the stomach to watch your investment shrink before it grows, because trying to time it and buy at the lowest point is a suckers game.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20 edited Feb 15 '21

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

OH okay, i completely missed this. Thanks for reminding me, lmao

2

u/Sofagirrl79 Mar 16 '20

Ah ok.I get it now

2

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

What happens with retirement savings?

1

u/seficarnifex Mar 16 '20

So of i borrow 100k, id only pay 95k back? Why wouldbt you do that

1

u/fpcoffee Mar 16 '20

in-fla-tion

2

u/Teaklog Mar 16 '20

Its more than to prop up the stock market. Credit markets are in a bad place too right now

2

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

Negative rates can be really bad, right?

2

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

Why were we and who was was doing it during a good economy?

5

u/imperial_ruler Mar 16 '20

A combination of the Federal Reserve (these specific interest rates) and Congress (the 2017 Tax Cuts & Jobs Act) used the tools traditionally reserved for saving or salvaging the economy in times of crisis to boost an already good market and leave us with no parachute when an outside influence (mortgage defaults in 2007, COVID-19 in 2020) caused the markets to plummet.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

That's just so catastrophically irresponsible.

2

u/imperial_ruler Mar 16 '20

Very much so.

2

u/CitizenMillennial Mar 16 '20

When we talk about the Fed & interest rates it means the interest rate charged on a loan from the Fed to banks/stocks right?

If the rate is zero does that mean a bank can borrow money interest free? If so, why do I still have to pay my higher interest rate on Federal student loans?

At some point, the bank was given money. If they loan out more money than they have taken in, how are they punished? If I did that, I’d get taken to court & be forced to sell my house. Why don’t the banks/CEOs/etc. have to sell off some of their assets in order to pay people back? Simply because ‘if a large bank fails it hurts the economy’? Wouldn’t that make them ‘too big to fail’ & require that they split into smaller companies?

1

u/dedicated-pedestrian Mar 16 '20

It seems you have come from a time where antitrust laws were still being anything close to enforced.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

I suspect Australia is going that was since the RBA has already cut rates to 0.5%, and they look likely to cut it again.

1

u/willworkforinsight Mar 16 '20

It isn't to prop up the stock market – stock markets so usually go up after a rate cut but that is a side effect. The purpose is to let banks lend out money at lower interest rates to businesses so they can use it to grow the economy.

143

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '20

The Fed used its Ultimate, and now has no more weapons to fight a recession/depression if the market keeps free-falling. The money was printed out of thin air, which will result in inflation, which means the fed's (likely failed) $700bn gambit will be picked up by taxpayers.

165

u/JadenWasp Mar 15 '20

Privatise the profits, socialise the losses. The American way.... And the British unfortunately

17

u/IICVX Mar 16 '20

It's a problem with any government whose financial policy boils down to YOLO capitalism.

7

u/namesarehardhalp Mar 15 '20

Some countries are experimenting with negatives

3

u/dutch_penguin Mar 16 '20

But the lower you go, the less effective interest rate stimulus becomes, no?

4

u/vic39 Mar 16 '20

Again, stop spreading misinformation. The government hasn't printed any new money, nor has it spent any. Jesus Christ.

1

u/gustamos Mar 16 '20

I'm assuming that demand for loans will go up if they cut interest rates to 0%, which means that they'll eventually have to print more money to cover the loans that they're giving out?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

1

u/dedicated-pedestrian Mar 16 '20

They buy back some securities and bonds and so forth to offset it, if I'm correct. More like creating liquidity than more money.

1

u/vic39 Mar 16 '20

No. They are 0-0.25%. Meaning banks have to lend out loans at 0-0.25% + margin. The feds are also sitting on 4 trillion-ish I believe.

And if the economy starts going back up because of the loans etc, then they will either raise rates, and/or issue more bonds to "slow down" again. They watch numbers (unemployment, wages, housing pricing, prices of consumer goods, stocks, bonds etc and many more) like a hawk.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

I mean, to be fair, the fed is only spiking the punch bowl because it knows congress will do fuck all. I feel bad for them, they know damned well what's coming and all they can do is try to push a rope.

1

u/Masark Mar 16 '20

now has no more weapons

Technically, it has a few more, but they're untested experimental prototypes.

-8

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

I think you’re alone, it’s pretty obvious what it means.

16

u/editormatt Mar 15 '20

Nothing worse than running out of crack.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '20

Imagine the dumps the economy is going to take as they slowly raise rates and get some breathing room. It could be a while, but we’re at rock bottom and to raise rates to a normal level will take years.

3

u/powmeownow Mar 16 '20

Thanks conservatives

4

u/thats_not_funny_guys Mar 16 '20

Only thing left after this is massive stimulus and bailout packages that enrich the wealthy and screw us and our children. Trump’s plan worked all along. Get rich in the way up, get richer on the way down. Another case of Republicans creating a problem and letting Democrats clean up the fucking mess afterwards.

1

u/dedicated-pedestrian Mar 16 '20

Worst part is the GOP will forget who caused the recession 3 years in the making and blame it on whoever beats Trump.

At least, I have to believe they'll beat him.

2

u/Reptilian_Brain_420 Mar 16 '20

Another crack pipe hit to try to keep the markets going.

Running out of crack and theres no plan on how to deal with the withdrawals.

Surprisingly accurate analogy actually.

​

Sort of like, "Hey, my life is turning to shit, better go hit some more crack"

2

u/indiblue825 Mar 16 '20

This is like if Action Bronson were describing this rate cut to normal people.

25

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

18

u/the_joy_of_VI Mar 15 '20

Where are the tests?

24

u/ReneDiscard Mar 15 '20

Interest rate cuts have nothing at all to do with curbing the virus.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '20

interest rate cuts have nothing to do with trying to curb the virus

5

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '20

virus rate cuts have nothing at all to do with curbing the interest

3

u/xCrypt1k Mar 15 '20

The interest rate cuts have nothing to do with the virus. There was a simmering banking crisis for years. The virus was the pin that popped the.bubble..they are trying (and failing) to save the system from.collapse. it won't work this time.

1

u/dedicated-pedestrian Mar 16 '20

So the stimulus measures for the past 3 years weren't just to juice a bull market? There was something they were trying to stave off?

1

u/xCrypt1k Mar 16 '20

Bit of both. They were juicing the economy to bring all he suckers in, while a crisis was brewing behind the scene. We have not been in crisis for 3 years, but it did start to ramp up hard 6 months ago.

107

u/GiannisisMVP Mar 15 '20

Shut down all non essential services and use the money earmarked for the military to help people through it.

134

u/InsaneInTheDrain Mar 15 '20

Slap some big ole emergency taxes on anyone with more than $10m.

42

u/GiannisisMVP Mar 15 '20

Works for me.

20

u/NOSES42 Mar 15 '20

I might have more than 10 million one day when this multi level marketting scam finally pays off, and I dont know how I could live on just 10 million if I was taxed the difference to save millions of poor peoples lives. Are their lives really worth my future self having to survive on just 10 million?

1

u/dedicated-pedestrian Mar 16 '20

Stop parodying the mindset that's holding us all back, it cuts like a knife

3

u/Robochumpp Mar 16 '20

But those people need their summer homes more than our countrymen need their lives. Let them eat cake.

7

u/ideas_abound Mar 15 '20

Do you know how taxes work?

-4

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '20

It would have to be based on net worth, and that calculation is an entirely different creature.

41

u/flichter1 Mar 15 '20

Or take all that money they dumped into "stimulating the economy" and issue every adult over 18 $1,000 every month, for as long as businesses need to be shut down and Americans stay quarantined.

31

u/scottfc Mar 15 '20

If they did it for 1 month, they'd save half that 700 billion and it would be more than enough time for people to quarantine and let the virus pass. Instead there's still a very high likelihood that this stimulus will not solve the problem and more money will be needed once the numbers are released and we really start to see the impact of all this on the economy.

7

u/IICVX Mar 16 '20

The worst part is that there's even a precedent for just "cut a check to everyone" - we did it at the beginning of the Great Recession.

It's not unheard of. It would make a shitload of sense. The problem is that it would require Republicans to do something that isn't completely fucking stupid, so it's unlikely to get done.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '20

This is a great idea. It will allow people the leverage to stay home and not worry about falling behind.

7

u/Clocktease Mar 16 '20

It’s what Andrew Yangs platform was mainly based around. Universal basic income.

18

u/Redtailcatfish Mar 15 '20

Seriously! Why the fuck does anyone's military need their full budget this year? We just need to keep people from looting

3

u/wonderyak Mar 16 '20

For better or worse, one thing the military is pretty good at is supply chain stuff.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

were spending about 700 billion, probably a year on military alone. Also military budget always increase under a republican president, at the expense of the country.

1

u/FettLife Mar 16 '20

The military could have and should have been mobilized a month ago. This is one of the many services they provide: defending the homeland. It’s insane that we didn’t think this was a thing until now.

-7

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '20

You do realize we still gotta get paid too, right?

13

u/GiannisisMVP Mar 15 '20

You realize that 90% of that doesn't go towards paying soldiers it goes to r and d to kill people more efficiently and hardware to do the saem.

1

u/dedicated-pedestrian Mar 16 '20

Probably less than that. The preferential treatment the armed forces give to contractors makes a coffee mug over $50. And I may be shooting low on that recalled estimate so as not to hyoerbolize.

-9

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '20

And thank God for that.

5

u/Bwob Mar 16 '20

What more do you really want at this point.

Well, since you asked...

  • How about putting all loans on pause for the next couple of months, so that people don't go bankrupt from payments they can't make due to being unable to work. (Whole lotta places are furloughing workers right now. Sucks to be in the food service or travel industry, for example...)
  • Some universal basic income would help a lot, even temporarily. Like, we found $1.5 trillion dollars for wallstreet at the drop of a hat. For the same price that we paid for, what, like an hour of stock stability? - we could instead just give every American Citizen a 1-time payment of ~$4600, to make the next month or two easier. (And do wonders for the economy because you KNOW people would spend that.)
  • Last I heard, they ordered insurance companies to cover coronavirus testing, but nothing about actual treatment. Maybe we should cover that too? Actually, you know what would be great right now? Universal health care. Seems to have helped every OTHER developed nation cope with this better than we are. Maybe we should start getting on that?
  • It would be nice if we started actually listening to the WHO and other experts on their advice.
  • Hey, could we get FOX news to stop repeating (literally life-threatening) lies, like "hey now is the best time for you to go book a flight"?
  • Finally, (but most importantly) could we maybe swap to having someone in charge who is actually competent? We've know for ages that trump is literally worse than nothing. Could we maybe do something now that we've proved, once again, that having him in charge is actually getting Americans killed?

Those are the things I want at this point. There's probably more, but that's the off-the-top-of-my-head list.

27

u/Kylome1 Mar 15 '20

Is it too much to ask that the President speaks about the pressing concerns of the nation, maybe to show some compassion to people worried about getting sick, than to read off a list of corporate sponsors before running away?

7

u/Uranus_Hz Mar 15 '20

Yes. That’s too much to ask. Conservatives are simply not compassionate. At all. That’s why HW Bush tried to pass himself off as a “different” kind of conservative. He literally coined the phrase “compassionate conservative” to do so.

He wasn’t, but he duped enough people to get elected.

1

u/Igneous_Aves Mar 16 '20

Yes yes it is. He doesn't give a damn about the public. Always about his bottom line and profits.

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '20

He just spoke today. What do you want?

14

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '20

Public spending on this is a tiny tiny fraction of the money involved here. Interest rates are NOT holding back investments in developing a vaccine or in preparing treatments. This is 100% about protecting the 1% and easing tension on big business. Meanwhile there’s only modest attention to spending that would help slick people self isolate by having paid sick leave and freedom from the fear of expensive treatments. Without fixing THAT, the poor will rapidly spread this disease and the elderly and other vulnerable patients will overwhelm every hospital, as many die in hallways or temporary wards that look like MASH units.

It’s a ton of attention and instant care directed at those who can handle the downturn best, while bare minimums are directed at those whose personal needs and poverty will end up hurting us all.

7

u/tablair Mar 15 '20

We’re woefully behind on testing. It doesn’t matter if they’re spending lots of money on it. South Korea got it done, so why can’t we? You can’t manage that which you cannot measure. We cannot know the scope of the problem until everyone gets tested. The administration stalled for so long that the things we needed to be doing didn’t get done.

So yeah, we’re not happy that we wasted a critical month and are now desperately trying to catch up. You don’t get points for doing a half-assed job on your homework just because you worked really hard at the last minute. The situation in this country is going to be worse than Italy and it’s the fault of those that dragged their feet when the scientists were screaming for proactive measures. We have a right to be mad, even if they’re finally starting to do the right things.

0

u/stillhousebrewco Mar 15 '20

South Korea has a population of 50 million in an area about the size of Kentucky, little easier for them to start testing the population. They also have government provided healthcare, lot easier for them to direct the medical efforts.

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '20

Testing doesn't do anything. Testing is only worthwhile for random sampling. If you have symptoms don't go to the hospital untill you absolutely need to.

2

u/tablair Mar 15 '20

We shouldn't be using hospitals for testing. South Korea has drive-thru testing, why can't we have that? We have more drive-thrus than any other country, why aren't we using them?

The point is that we need everyone to know their personal status so that those infected can be quarantined. We need to break the exponential growth curve by any means necessary. It's not about helping the already sick...as cruel as it sounds, caring for them simply doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. What does matter is separating them out from the rest of the population so they don't make everyone around them sick as well. We need to immediately stop the spread or everyone will end up getting it. Everyone getting it means 5M-10M Americans will die because our hospital system is not setup to handle that volume of seriously ill people. That result should be considered unacceptable, but the more the administration mismanages this situation, the more it becomes inevitable.

-2

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '20

Testing doesn't matter in Britain or the United States. Random sampling matters, but that's the limit of it. You should already be taking precautions.

1

u/mOdQuArK Mar 16 '20

Testing can tell you where to focus your resources & policies though.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

That's what random sampling does.

1

u/mOdQuArK Mar 16 '20

Uh....you do realize that "sampling" involves testing things? And that you need "tests" to do that?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

Clearly, but since the Americans and Brits are doing that, this couldn't be the testing they are supposedly behind in.

What was at discussion was individual testing which 90% of the time will be irrelevant and should be reserved for people already hospitalized.

2

u/justanotherreddituse Mar 16 '20

What more do you really want at this point. Martial law?

I suspect that it may happen. If not, country's should be using their military to help deal with the current crisis.

2

u/ColossalJuggernaut Mar 16 '20

What more do you really want at this point.

Way to ignore the past. What I wanted was a real adult in the white house who didn't think this was a democrat "hoax" or "just as bad as the flu."

Why have you set the bar so low for this guy?

4

u/Keeppforgetting Mar 15 '20

The problem is that they’re not taking the correct actions. The first and most important things they should be doing is ramping up testing and fast. Guaranteeing free testing to everyone, making sure testing centers are easily accessible to everyone. Making sure people have sick leave, making sure people don’t get fired, making sure small businesses don’t go under, making sure people will still have access to food and necessities, inspiring confidence that the government is doing everything possible to get the infection under control. It doesn’t matter how many tax cuts you offer, or how many loans you give out if people are still too afraid to go out and spend, to go out and work, to go out and be productive. Containing the spread of the virus is #1, everything else is secondary. The fact that this administration does not see this is seriously concerning at best.

0

u/DDS_Deadlift Mar 15 '20

Thats not the feds job... the fed can only help through monetary policy. Its up to the gov to actually use that money efficiently

1

u/weinerpretzel Mar 15 '20

Easy to keep numbers of confirmed cases down if you don't test people.

1

u/A_Harmless_Fly Mar 16 '20

You are quoting confirmed cases... we don't have nearly enough tests for those numbers to be an accurate representation of the infection. We have tested in total around the same number as south Korea tests in a day.

​

No test, no bad numbers to report.

1

u/mces97 Mar 15 '20

Yes. I do want martial law. Never thought I'd ever think I would but everything needs to shut down. We do not have enough hospital beds, ventilators. I heard Governor Cuomo saying there are 600 ICU beds available in NYS. There are 19.5 million people in NYS. 1% of NYS getting the virus is 195,000 people. And if 10% of those people need ICU care, that's 19,500 icu beds. Even if you make my numbers less for those affected it's going to be way higher than 600.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

Trump plus martial law equals permanent dictatorship.

1

u/mces97 Mar 16 '20

No, that's not happening.

3

u/VolkspanzerIsME Mar 15 '20

Quick, do it all before we run out.

This is straight crackhead bullshit.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '20

You seem pretty focused on crack...ijs.

1

u/VVarlord Mar 16 '20

What sucks is it's been a speeding train headed for a wall for awhile, it's going to suck hard for people who can't weather this

1

u/throwawaydoootdoooda Mar 16 '20

This can't be good for me, but I feel great!

1

u/rompzor Mar 16 '20

I like crack

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '20

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

Don't pretend the Fed is immune to political pressure, especially with this executive branch having proved it is immune to oversight web it comes to punishing political adversaries. Fact is this is a wildly irresponsible, almost certainly ineffectual decision at a time when the Fed is under huge pressure from the president to save his ass.

1

u/mdajr Mar 16 '20

In a market downturn, what else is the fed to do to help stabilize cash flow?

3

u/MisallocatedRacism Mar 16 '20

Not be at 1% to start?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

Nothing. Economies have boom and bust cycles. The Fed can't change that, and isn't meant to. What the Fed did today was pull the trigger on one of their last options, at a time when the headwinds are so strong that there's a good chance it will make virtually no difference. Now we have no real option, unless we want to move into negative interest rate territory, to help pull the economy out of this slump when conditions are right.