PPP: it's idiotic to create and yet not fully fund a program to "provide a direct incentive for small businesses to keep their workers on the payroll." -- then expect each biz, who otherwise meets criteria - to decide whether they are "worthy of receiving the loan"

based on whether some other business more worthy will then be denied? How is a business owner, in desperate times, who only has a shot if they apply on the first day, to know just how underfunded the program is? what the profile of the marginal declined business will be?

Here's an idea: how about fully funding the program? If we can't afford that, how about narrowing the criteria to exclude the least worthy businesses by criteria rather than making them make a zero-data assessment of their relative destitution?

Can't expect perfect, but a program that funds something like 2% of the businesses who meet the criteria - I think it's safe to conclude we overshot criteria or undershot funding pretty substantially. "first come, first server, with line cutting based on relationships"- not good

There are probably some businesses that should not have applied. But even the most egregious - Shake Shack? It's only free money if they keep ppl employed who otherwise wouldn't. So great, they give it back and lay off a bunch of ppl instead, this is better?

Or we are just going to assume these businesses (but not, say, Disney, or American Airlines) are also obliged to uneconomically keep everyone on payroll? Or will do so, if they don't get the forgivable loan?

So, me, I'm not for shaming anybody who took it who legit met the criteria and legit kept ppl employed who otherwise wouldn't be. that was the point, keep ppl employed. don't expect founders to be mind readers of intent.

the shame, if any, is such a poorly designed program. the tragedy is the virus and the economic destruction it will cause, and mostly we are just trying to figure out how to re-distribute it. there's not a lot of free lunch here, unfortunately.