Molson Hart

It's so much more complex. You need to bail out millions of businesses as opposed to a handful of financial institutions. While expressly forbidding business and spending from taking place. Trillions of $ need to be helicopter dropped very soon or the economy will collapse IMO.

You drop the helicopter money and then what? Here’s a gift card to Mickey D’s! Oh sorry Mickey d’s is closed and we’ll fine you if you leave your house.

So everyone doesn't lose their home and business.

Unemployment insurance? Sure. But it's not clear to me how handing out checks to everyone, both restaurant workers who will be suffering, and WFH tech employees who won't, will solve the problem.

Say your business had high fixed costs like rent or interest. And the government said, "You cannot conduct business for 3 months." And so you lose everything. I think many people in that situation feel cheated and never return to business. Rightfully so, in my mind.

Helicopter money doesn't solve that problem though. I'm all for unemployment insurance for the employees who lose their jobs, but I'm basically against bailing out the business owner. Business owners must take the good (chance of outsize returns) with the bad (this).

I'll try to think of a good example to win you on this. It's specificly: forcing a biz to shut down, but telling them to eat costs. That isn't capitalism. These businesses would be fine if folks were free to do what they want. They'd just inadvertently kill 4 million.

Actually you kind of are winning me over. If government says “restaurant shutdown” government ought to foot that bill. That said, what a clusterfuck that will be to manage.