THREAD/ Look, this isn't complicated. There are 3 options for moving forward w/regard to health & the economy. Sadly, almost all mainstream discourse acts as though there are only two, both of which are understandably inadequate or awful for certain people. Let's explore them...
2/ First, is status quo: keeping largely shut down to prevent an uptick in viral spread & with the existing level of public support for those economically sidelined (i.e., these one time payments, temporary boost to UE benefits & maybe PPP loans if we get that figured out)..
3/ Second is opening things back up and letting folks roll the dice, because people need to pay their bills and need the option of going back to work so they can do that...(largely the message of the protesters, right wing talk show hosts, and open-everything militias)...
4/ Choice #1 obviously has huge economic impacts on millions, which in turn pose other types of health risks, about which we should be concerned. Choice #2 risks massive health consequences, which in turn pose additional economic risks, about which we should be concerned...
5/ But largely ignored in all of this is a third choice. This would NOT force people to choose their jobs/income/family economic survival or their health/lives, or choose their economic well being at the risk to other people who might get sick if there's a massive uptick...
6/ This choice respects the valid financial concerns of millions & the consequences of those to mental/emotional & physical well-being, AND protects public health. Yet, this gets ignored bc the media and political culture limits our vision and doesn't countenance choice three..
7/ Namely, we could stay largely shut down, w/ slow and gradual re-opening but use MASSIVE government intervention to support individuals who cannot go back to work safely bc of pre-xisting conditions for self or family members. Not one time payments and uncertain loans...
8/ But monthly payments of $2k per mo per adult, $500 per mo per child, extended fed unemployment benefits (added to state UE) of $600 per wk, throughout the crisis (not just end of July as is the case now), immediate freeze on mortgages and rent for 6 months and Medicare 4 All..
9/ This would be funded by passing legislation sponsored by Rashida Tlaib, supported by progressive lawmakers to mint two $1 trillion coins, put that amount on the books of the Fed, allowing release of $2 trillion in cash into the economy. Yes, normally this would be a bad idea..
10/ Bc printing money in this amount & distributing it would be inflationary: too much $ chasing too few goods, causing producers to hike prices to meet demand. But currently w/ trillions being sucked out of the economy this risk is minimal...it would balance the loss of money..
11/ And if temporary price and purchase controls were imposed (on certain goods/items), as well as freezes on key costs like rents/mortgages, it would be hard for prices to spike. It's not as if landlords, for instance, could just jack up rents they can't collect anyway...
12/ So too w/other goods if there are controls in place (just like we do now in stores, telling folks they can't buy unlimited toilet paper, etc)...there are ways to control costs even w influx of cash. This option would a) protect health, b) keep people stable economically..
13/ And reduce the stress for everyone. But it isn't even discussed. Why? Because media/political culture is so wedded to free market ideology and inherent opposition to "big government" action we can't even countenance it..and the right is scared to death to allow such a thing..
14/ Not because it wouldn't work but precisely because it would, thereby discrediting for all time conservative economic theory and reliance on the market to save us...END
