mech1234

Try not to confuse the Federal Reserve (the Fed) with the Federal Government.

Take note that your state of residence may or may not have done the same.

Your argument can be extended infinitely. It's pretty easy to understand that Tesla (and any other assembly plants that fit in this window) is simply getting special treatment here.

The factory that makes hydraulic fluid for Tesla's presses that stamp out car parts is also part of the transportation supply chain, As is the oil refinery that supplies feedstock to the hydraulic oil vendor.

It is not delaying the inevitable. There will be many profitable restaurant businesses who find their business lacking liquid cash over the next few months. Being thrown a credit lifeline means that they can make it through this period of time and come out on the other side as a profitable business again. Paying down the debt is a common business practice that people do all the time.

Throwing out a credit lifeline can be a practice that benefits everyone in times of crisis.

Spreading the problem out over a long period of time keeps the company in business. It's a no-brainer good idea for the SBA to do this. Not sure what you would prefer instead.

Typically, For every dollar a bank "keeps" in your bank account, they are allowed to loan out some fraction of the dollar. Let's say that this is usually 90 cents. The amount of cash your bank actually has on-hand is 10 cents. This process is known as fractional reserve banking. Now, with 0 reserve requirement, the bank can lend out the whole dollar.

Fractional reserve banking has produced a tremendous amount of wealth for the world over recent centuries. It encourages assets to be used in a productive manner rather than hoarded, which is essentially wasteful.

Typically, the loans get paid off to the bank over time, and the bank originates new loans to continue to make a profit. Currently, there are two systemic risks:

1. If borrowers begin to default, the bank still must cover its expenses. Under stressful circumstances, they would normally not be allowed to draw down their reserve to meet their expenses. This change allows this. Once the economy recovers, the reserve requirements will be reimposed.

2. It encourages banks to continue issuing new credit to borrowers. This keeps economic activity flowing and prevents a situation where borrowers have nowhere to turn to find money to keep their business afloat until profitable times return.

There is a large risk of inflation under UBI. You cannot make an honest argument about UBI without accepting this risk.

1. On the margin, UBI reduces employment and production. This contributes to inflation.

2. On the margin, UBI increases consumption of consumer staples. This contributes to inflation.

3. On the margin, UBI increases the velocity of money. This contributes to inflation.

4. Under most assumptions, UBI increases government spending. Either taxes will rise, increasing the real cost of goods and services, or the money supply will increase, contributing to inflation.

UBI advocates should not dismiss these effects outright but should argue that they are small in comparison to the benefits of UBI. The lack of proper consideration of these arguments (and other arguments) by UBI advocates is pretty dang spooky.

The zero reserve requirements are intended to prevent the problems caused by a potential bank run. Once the economy is running smoothly again, reserve requirements will be made more stringent again. It seems likely that the Fed is more well informed of how quickly lending is drying up than most people are, and their injection of ~$1.5 trillion must have been prudent.

QE was the bullet the Fed still had in 2008, and it is the bullet the Fed still has in 2020. It seems that QE worked better than the negative interest rates Europe used.

Bokeh is both a feature and a bug. I kinda figure if cameras never had bokeh we would never miss it.

What mechanism other than litigation and the consumer protection bureau do you think should enforce against false advertising? How much resources should be expended to fight it? Do you have an alternative to propose, or do you prefer instead to attack a known-to-be-imperfect system?

There's only 3 confirmed cases of the virus in Ohio. UD is being very proactive here.

I think punishing or firing the employees is appropriate. It is often, but not always, also appropriate for those employees to have criminal punishments imposed on them.

I suppose you think that current norms for these punishments are too lax. It's not easy to tell what you actually believe though. If you want to tease out your own actual beliefs on this, look up some advertising fraud cases and find one that was punished too loosely, and find one that was punished too severely.