Mark Cuban, "spend it or lose it" idea.

[Brian37]

I am having debate with normally a guy I agree with 99% of the time. I think this guy is smart and hates the GOP as much as I do.

But here is the idea, tell me what you think of it.

Mark Cuban of Shark Tank agrees with giving middle class workers , the poor and mom and pop shops bailouts. And in the short term, I agree with him. What I do not agree with is forcing people to spend what you give them. I fail to see why it would be a  bad thing, to say, after you get the important things, like rent and food and child care paid, what would be wrong with putting what you don't spend in the bank.

I even agreed with this guy that you should spend locally as much as you can. But I don't think desperate people who have a shot to save for the future should be denied that either. People in the middle and working class, have had their long term plans disrupted too. Many do save for the future, but now they cant. 

It is a matter of prioritizing to me.

First things first. Pay your bills.
Help out others when you can. 
Then, and only then, if you have anything left over, bank it. Odds are, especially on the low end, you won't. 
And if you don't need it, don't take it.

Mark is merely offering a short term bandaid. Structurally long term it doesn't change the 40 years of bad policy that put us into this position. You cant simply consume your way to prosperity, even if you are helping out mom and pop shops. The big guys are still going to pick on anyone not in their weight class.

[arewethereyet]

At least Cuban is offering a plan that doesn't include injecting disinfectant.

His idea is to get the money moving within the economy in an immediate and direct way.

It would have been nice to provide some sort of link.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcohen/2...d99ea266b0

[Brian37]

At least Cuban is offering a plan that doesn't include injecting disinfectant.

His idea is to get the money moving within the economy in an immediate and direct way.    

It would have been nice to provide some sort of link.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcohen/2...d99ea266b0

My friend most likely thinks Cuban is truly being altruistic, but if that were the case why wasn't he saying what billionaire Nick Hanauer was saying over a decade ago? Getting ahead of a problem is far more effective and cost efficient than waiting for something bad to happen then reacting. 

Nick was being bluntly honest about his wealth, not apologizing for it, but also thinking long term in that worker stability matters. I don't see Mark Cuban thinking like that while saying use it or loose it. While the bandaid is unfortunately needed now, it still doesn't change the long term structural problems that will still exist even after a vaccine is found. 

Point being we cant simply throw bandaids at everything everytime an economic disaster happens. 

For now, but then what? Mark is simply going to go right back to doing what he has always done, and most in his class will, after this virus is gone, and it won't stop the next one.

Humans need to think long term, instead of short term. It isn't good enough, simply to keep repeating short term band aids, even if needed now. 

It still remains that the stock market is widely fluctuating and sometimes even going up despite high unemployment, and illness bankrupting more and more regardless of what the stock market does. The stock market doing well sometimes only means investors are doing well, and most of them are already billionaires and millionaires. And that is unsustainable long term.

---

I wish I could remember the guy's name who was on MSNBCs KasieDC show. 

Long before this virus, this author was warning about "too big to fail" and giant companies constantly merging with other companies. Corporate farms are a prime example right now that this author brought up,  as to why big is not  always better. You have one company with a lopsided monopoly in that industry and it has to shut down, you have to work harder to find other sources. Tyson shutting down it's plant is a prime example. Because it is such a big company, that shutdown made meat harder to get and drives up prices for the meat that does make it to market. And farmers are stuck with excess livestock they now cant feed and have to put down. 

This pandemic is proving the need for anti monopoly laws. Breaking companies that get too big up, insures that if one fails, they don't all fail.

[arewethereyet]

At least Cuban is offering a plan that doesn't include injecting disinfectant.

His idea is to get the money moving within the economy in an immediate and direct way.    

It would have been nice to provide some sort of link.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcohen/2...d99ea266b0

My friend most likely thinks Cuban is truly being altruistic, but if that were the case why wasn't he saying what billionaire Nick Hanauer was saying over a decade ago? Getting ahead of a problem is far more effective and cost efficient than waiting for something bad to happen then reacting. 

Nick was being bluntly honest about his wealth, not apologizing for it, but also thinking long term in that worker stability matters. I don't see Mark Cuban thinking like that while saying use it or loose it. While the bandaid is unfortunately needed now, it still doesn't change the long term structural problems that will still exist even after a vaccine is found. 

Point being we cant simply throw bandaids at everything everytime an economic disaster happens. 

For now, but then what? Mark is simply going to go right back to doing what he has always done, and most in his class will, after this virus is gone, and it won't stop the next one.

Humans need to think long term, instead of short term. It isn't good enough, simply to keep repeating short term band aids, even if needed now. 

It still remains that the stock market is widely fluctuating and sometimes even going up despite high unemployment, and illness bankrupting more and more regardless of what the stock market does. The stock market doing well sometimes only means investors are doing well, and most of them are already billionaires and millionaires. And that is unsustainable long term.

---

I wish I could remember the guy's name who was on MSNBCs KasieDC show. 

Long before this virus, this author was warning about "too big to fail" and giant companies constantly merging with other companies. Corporate farms are a prime example right now that this author brought up,  as to why big is not  always better. You have one company with a lopsided monopoly in that industry and it has to shut down, you have to work harder to find other sources. Tyson shutting down it's plant is a prime example. Because it is such a big company, that shutdown made meat harder to get and drives up prices for the meat that does make it to market. And farmers are stuck with excess livestock they now cant feed and have to put down. 

This pandemic is proving the need for anti monopoly laws. Breaking companies that get too big up, insures that if one fails, they don't all fail.

I recall you being pissed that Cuban was going to continue to pay his hourly employees even during the shutdown.

We have already established that you think he can't be a decent guy because he's wealthy.

Rave on.

[Brian37]

My friend most likely thinks Cuban is truly being altruistic, but if that were the case why wasn't he saying what billionaire Nick Hanauer was saying over a decade ago? Getting ahead of a problem is far more effective and cost efficient than waiting for something bad to happen then reacting. 

Nick was being bluntly honest about his wealth, not apologizing for it, but also thinking long term in that worker stability matters. I don't see Mark Cuban thinking like that while saying use it or loose it. While the bandaid is unfortunately needed now, it still doesn't change the long term structural problems that will still exist even after a vaccine is found. 

Point being we cant simply throw bandaids at everything everytime an economic disaster happens. 

For now, but then what? Mark is simply going to go right back to doing what he has always done, and most in his class will, after this virus is gone, and it won't stop the next one.

Humans need to think long term, instead of short term. It isn't good enough, simply to keep repeating short term band aids, even if needed now. 

It still remains that the stock market is widely fluctuating and sometimes even going up despite high unemployment, and illness bankrupting more and more regardless of what the stock market does. The stock market doing well sometimes only means investors are doing well, and most of them are already billionaires and millionaires. And that is unsustainable long term.

---

I wish I could remember the guy's name who was on MSNBCs KasieDC show. 

Long before this virus, this author was warning about "too big to fail" and giant companies constantly merging with other companies. Corporate farms are a prime example right now that this author brought up,  as to why big is not  always better. You have one company with a lopsided monopoly in that industry and it has to shut down, you have to work harder to find other sources. Tyson shutting down it's plant is a prime example. Because it is such a big company, that shutdown made meat harder to get and drives up prices for the meat that does make it to market. And farmers are stuck with excess livestock they now cant feed and have to put down. 

This pandemic is proving the need for anti monopoly laws. Breaking companies that get too big up, insures that if one fails, they don't all fail.

I recall you being pissed that Cuban was going to continue to pay his hourly employees even during the shutdown.

We have already established that you think he can't be a decent guy because he's wealthy.

Rave on.

Where was I slamming everyone in his class? I can think of other wealthy people, I would believe, like Nick Hanauer. who is are also in his tax bracket whom I do think get it.

Now even if I were to give Mark the benefit of the doubt, paying his employees during his shutdown, still doesn't address the long term picture. This virus wont last forever, and after it gets tackled or managable you are still left with pay inequity. I have yet to hear him talk about the long term picture and that matters. 

There most CERTAINLY ARE decent wealthy people in his class. I simply remain skeptical about him. 

Billionaire Nick Hanauer was sounding the alarm about what would happen if his class kept ignoring the expanding pay gap years ago.

It simply isn't enough to put a short term bandaid when long term solutions are needed.

40 years of the GOP gutting safety nets to fuel tax breaks the top doesn't need put America in the position of not being prepared for this.

Are all billionaires heartless machines? Of course not. But take the Walmart family for example, unlike Nick Hanauer, whom I do think cares. Walmart pays lip service to caring. My best friend works at a Walmart and he can tell you they are full of shit in their ads claiming they care. They claim they wont fire anyone for getting sick, but right to work laws really allow them to find a different excuse to fire you, and hide behind that lie. Big business for the most part love "right to work laws".

If the majority of billionaires thought like Nick Hanauer I would have far less skepticism about Cuban. Both of them are in the same class.

I am not playing class warfare here. That would be the GOP, not me. I don't begrudge someone for making it. I do question bad logic that doesn't get the results long term. 

It is necessary that Cuban has to do that now. But it didn't have to get to this point. 

If you want to argue the best "direct" impact, that would be livable wages and universal health care. But most businesses chase for cheap labor and try to find ways to ilimated labor which leads to more automation. His company's workers might be ok for now sure, but that doesn't address all workers of all industries. And I don't think he thinks about that long term. I think he only cares about his own business.

Nick, also a billionaire I think he does care, because he sounded the alarm long before any of this. Cuban is only commenting now, after the fact.

---

Now again, any wealthy person will tell you to save a portion of your money and bank it. So why is that good for him, but not good for those in the working and middle class during a crisis?

---

You want a wealthy person I would be far quicker to trust than Cuban? 

Here you go. 



Nick was criticizing his own billionaire class years ago. He doesn't hate wealthy people merely for being wealthy. Neither do I. But there are better ways to foster a stable society than always chasing after cheaper labor. Nick, A BILLIONAIRE, got that, and didn't have to wait until now to understand that. His argument back then is that not enough in his own class understood what he saw coming and we are witnessing what lack of forethought is now causing.

[arewethereyet]

Rave on.

[Brian37]

An the other thing you might want to consider is that banks are not free, they are also businesses so when you deposit money into a bank you are helping bank tellers and loan officers keep their jobs too. So again, it is a matter of priorities to me and it makes no sense to kneecap people who are already struggling. If they can spend and save at the same time why is that a bad thing?

[arewethereyet]

An the other thing you might want to consider is that banks are not free, they are also  businesses so when you deposit money into a bank you are helping bank tellers and loan officers keep their jobs too. So again, it is a matter of priorities to me and it makes no sense to kneecap people who are already struggling. If they can spend and save at the same time why is that a bad thing?

If people don't have money coming in they are going to use their savings, if they have any.  That means the banks are going to have less held on behalf of their customers and therefore less to invest/use.

Banks also make money on the use of their credit cards and interest collected on things like mortgages, auto loans, and business loans.

People have to have money to pay those things for the banks to continue to make that interest income.

If people are able to save they certainly should but first things first.  

Right now, helping people pay their housing, keep food on the table, and the lights on is the immediate need.

You, who don't have to worry about this, aren't the guy to listen to for financial planning.

[CarveTheFive]

Cuban’s idea is the most obnoxious American obsession with pointless consumption that I’ve ever heard. It’s environmentally horrific and positively disgusting advice for the poor that furthers the mindset of reckless spending that helps trap the poor in an endless cycle of debt slavery. Not to mention going out to spend money with a ten day limit would spread the fuck out of the virus.

[Brian37]

An the other thing you might want to consider is that banks are not free, they are also  businesses so when you deposit money into a bank you are helping bank tellers and loan officers keep their jobs too. So again, it is a matter of priorities to me and it makes no sense to kneecap people who are already struggling. If they can spend and save at the same time why is that a bad thing?

If people don't have money coming in they are going to use their savings, if they have any.  That means the banks are going to have less held on behalf of their customers and therefore less to invest/use.

Banks also make money on the use of their credit cards and interest collected on things like mortgages, auto loans, and business loans.

People have to have money to pay those things for the banks to continue to make that interest income.

If people are able to save they certainly should but first things first.  

Right now, helping people pay their housing, keep food on the table, and the lights on is the immediate need.

You, who don't have to worry about this, aren't the guy to listen to for financial planning.

Yes, people who lose their jobs if they have savings will use it. I don't disagree with that. Right now people are hurting, I agree. 

My point is for those who do have savings, why put a string on that where they have to spend everything or lose it, if they have no money left  from the government check, and they get cut off, they have to go right back to using their savings. 

And again, this isn't just about poor people, this is also about the middle and working class. Many people DO save for the future, such as a house, or car, or college education for their kids. Those things are long term plans that get disrupted. If they get their savings wiped out then they are back to square 1.

I love the idea of bailing out the middle and working class. I think this is a good thing, for the short term. The only thing I object to is implying they shouldn't be able to bank what they don't spend. I wouldn't falsely assume everyone who has lost their jobs don't have savings accounts. If worker stability helps, then it matters that we don't put people in the position of getting wiped out. "Use it or lose it" doesn't keep people whole long term. It is just a temporary dingy in a tsunami. 

And you keep skipping over the posts where I talk about priorities.

No, I don't have to worry about money, right now. But I do have to budget it over the next twelve years until I can collect social security. And that isn't including possible health issues, or a hurricane in the future that could wipe all that out. I also said I personally would not take the money if they sent a check to me. But if I saw my savings suddenly drastically sinking, I damned sure would take the checks. And again, banks are not free, they are businesses too. They have tellers and loan officers and financial advisers that depend on people depositing money so they can earn a paycheck too. Banks have to pay their employees too. They do that by earning interest of the money you deposit in them. 

Please stop falsely assuming I disagree with everything you are saying.

You, "Workers need help now"..... I agree.
You, " People need their rent, mortgages, utilities paid now" I agree.
You, "People need to spend now to help out others, " Again, I agree.

But none of that is going to mean a thing long term if we don't put people into the position of having enough money to save long term. So savings matter as much as spending.

After this is all over if we go right back to the same value of our exploding pay gap and do nothing about that, we will be right back here again in another decade, maybe not a virus but certainly another recession.