Economics question: Would suspending ALL loans and rent help keep the wheels on?

[icehorse]

I've been wondering how a logical. thoughtful government would handle the upcoming economic problems that are sure to come in the next few weeks and months.

What I was wondering is if a simple suspension of all loans and rent payments might minimize the pain all around?

 

[Revoltingest]

I've been wondering how a logical. thoughtful government would handle the upcoming economic problems that are sure to come in the next few weeks and months.

What I was wondering is if a simple suspension of all loans and rent payments might minimize the pain all around?

Well, I'd be completely broke.
That would please many here.
You sure have a lot of really bad ideas.

Btw, I work with my troubled tenants & borrowers.

 

[Sunstone]

I would not recommend it. It would amount to in effect taking money out of the economy. What you want to do is grow the economy, not shrink it. So a better method might be for the government to subsidize rent payments and suspend foreclosures -- or something along those lines. The former would pump money into the economy, growing it. The latter would probably be economically neutral, rather than negative.

Great idea to do something to alleviate suffering though! You cannot fault your intentions!

 

[icehorse]

Well, I'd be completely broke.
That would please many here.
You sure have a lot of really bad ideas.

Btw, I work with my troubled tenants & borrowers.

So you have no loans yourself?

(And BTW, what's your plan to avoid a massive economic collapse?)

 

[Flame]

One of my tenants got laid off recently and I've lowered her rent for 3 months until she can find a more stable job.

 

[icehorse]

I would not recommend it. It would amount to in effect taking money out of the economy. What you want to do is grow the economy, not shrink it. So a better method would be for the government to subsidize rent payments and suspend foreclosures -- or something along those lines. The former would pump money into the economy, growing it. The latter would probably be economically neutral, rather than negative.

Sure, we'd like to grow the economy. but many businesses are being forced to shutdown, and many people are being suspended or laid off. It doesn't seem like subsidies would last for long, and ultimately it seems like the subsidy approach is - once again - mostly benefitting the loan holders, no?

 

[Sunstone]

Sure, we'd like to grow the economy. but many businesses are being forced to shutdown, and many people are being suspended or laid off. It doesn't seem like subsidies would last for long, and ultimately it seems like the subsidy approach is - once again - mostly benefitting the loan holders, no?

Stimulus spending is THE classic approach to these sorts of things. Ever since Keynes. Plus, I think you are making several unwarranted assumptions that I do not have the time today to sort through. Maybe later.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I've been wondering how a logical. thoughtful government would handle the upcoming economic problems that are sure to come in the next few weeks and months.

What I was wondering is if a simple suspension of all loans and rent payments might minimize the pain all around?

There's still the matter that somebody has to pay for it all. Landlords are simply not going to rent for free unless they get subsidies. It's also peculiar that homeowners are not mentioned. There's mortgages to pay to the banks.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you have no loans yourself?

(And BTW, what's your plan to avoid a massive economic collapse?)

I owe no one, but I have 2 construction loans outstanding.
It's part of my retirement strategy.
I favor government lending money to those in need.
And cutting slack on taxes.
(I might come up with more ideas.)

Aid should not be based upon government forcing some (who
might not be able) to give some people (not all in need) aid.
That's a very inconsistent, only partially effective & potentially
very unfair approach.

 

[icehorse]

There's still the matter that somebody has to pay for it all. Landlords are simply not going to rent for free unless they get subsidies. It's also peculiar that homeowners are not mentioned. There's mortgages to pay to the banks.

I really meant ALL loans when I said ALL loans. That includes the loans that landlords have and of course anyone who pays a mortgage.

 

[icehorse]

I owe no one, but I have 2 construction loans outstanding.
It's part of my retirement strategy.
I favor government lending money to those in need.
And cutting slack on taxes.

Which again seems like an indirect way of propping up the banks.

"Hey bankers, you're not going to get loan payments for a while, but you're also not going to have to pay on your debts while that's happening."

 

[PureX]

No. I think the only solution is going to be to subsidize the population that is out of work until they can go back to work. Punishing landlords (or anyone else) is not the answer.

 

[Revoltingest]

Which again seems like an indirect way of propping up the banks.

So I must give up interest & rent income, eh.
Who will prop me up?

"Hey bankers, you're not going to get loan payments for a while, but you're also not going to have to pay on your debts while that's happening."

Your plan sounds like anti-bankism.

 

[icehorse]

So I must give up interest & rent income, eh.
Who will prop me up?

What happens when your tenants lose their jobs?

==

I'm trying to zoom out here. Most people have little or no savings. They live paycheck to paycheck. Many people will be losing their jobs soon. The government cannot subsidize tens of millions of people for the long term. If tens of millions of people can't pay their rent or their mortgage payments, your retirement strategy isn't going to mean much.

It seems to me that what we have to do is insure that people don't lose their homes, and that they have enough to eat and can stay warm. It might take some really radical moves by the government to make that happen.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So I must give up interest & rent income, eh.
Who will prop me up?

Just like others might have to give up their employment.
I'm not suggesting this is the answer, but I seriously doubt any of us are getting through this without substantial impact on income.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What happens when your tenants lose their jobs?

==

I'm trying to zoom out here. Most people have little or no savings. They live paycheck to paycheck. Many people will be losing their jobs soon. The government cannot subsidize tens of millions of people for the long term. If tens of millions of people can't pay their rent or their mortgage payments, your retirement strategy isn't going to mean much.

It seems to me that what we have to do is insure that people don't lose their homes, and that they have enough to eat and can stay warm. It might take some really radical moves by the government to make that happen.

Some of the banks here (Australia) are offering mortgage pauses for 6 months where people have lost their jobs.
Combined with increased welfare payments to unemployed, and shorter time delays in accessing welfare.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've been wondering how a logical. thoughtful government would handle the upcoming economic problems that are sure to come in the next few weeks and months.

What I was wondering is if a simple suspension of all loans and rent payments might minimize the pain all around?

Better to have a check in the mail frim someone else than no check at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

What happens when your tenants lose their jobs?

That's always a problem.
We try to work with those who'll recover
from temporary financial embarrassment.

I'm trying to zoom out here. Most people have little or no savings. They live paycheck to paycheck. Many people will be losing their jobs soon. The government cannot subsidize tens of millions of people for the long term. If tens of millions of people can't pay their rent or their mortgage payments, your retirement strategy isn't going to mean much.

I've already said that government has a role in assisting people.
That's far better than depending upon businesses to do it...for
the reasons I've stated.
If businesses bear the burden, & don't survive, there go the jobs.

It seems to me that what we have to do is insure that people don't lose their homes, and that they have enough to eat and can stay warm. It might take some really radical moves by the government to make that happen.

I have a proposal....
How about employees & contractors work for
reduced pay or no pay to help their employers.
Then I won't lose my home.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Is eating the rich in the table yet? No? I'll come back then. *wheels out the guillotine.*

In seriousness though any landowner who kicks their tenants off during a disaster for reasons of default should be thrown in jail, and the property possessed by the government to act as public housing.

Ditto to banks who try and repossess.

 

[sun rise]

There's still the matter that somebody has to pay for it all. Landlords are simply not going to rent for free unless they get subsidies. It's also peculiar that homeowners are not mentioned. There's mortgages to pay to the banks.

I've heard nothing but ideas with serious problems and side-effects. I don't think @icehorse 's is any worse than some others. But I don't have anything better to offer right now.