What I have observed as a small business person is these upheavals of the playing field always create winners and losers. I am still studying the CARES ACT. I am not ready to make a final pronouncement.
My findings hopefully will surface here in two days:
Note:
In 2008-2009, players were lent money at lower interest rates than the government itself paid, so banks simply turned around and bought treasury certificates. "I could do this ALL DAY LONG"
This is the problem with bank heavy stimulus, it creates consolidation of assets by the dominant and especially the dominant bailed-out, or the dominant fortunate enough not to need a bailout. (Private Equity is sitting on 2 trillion of its own to pounce on "distressed assets"
So you can take the liquidity injected into markets, divide it by about 4 or 5, and this is the indirect subsidy the citizenry are transferring to these interests.
injecting 1 trillion liquidity into banks, if used in speculation, would yield an average return of around 6% minimum. This amounts to over a period of say, 5 years, a party to accumulate 240 billion dollars in profits.
Points of Interest:
House Democrats didn’t even bother to pass their own proposal for a CARES act; the bill that did pass was drafted by Senate Republicans, and the Dems never threatened to kill it if they didn’t get their way. But Democrats did negotiate far more aid than Republicans initially proposed for the unemployed, the working poor, the health care system, and states facing mass layoffs and service reductions. Pelosi has pledged to repeat that playbook in CARES 2.