HN Explorer

Ask HN: Would the economy be better off with $18,126.88 per person

19 points by throwaway_jobs ↗ HN
Tomorrow the government will likely pass a stimulus bill that could pay each person in the US (based on a pop. of 331M) $18,126.88 each.

Some taxpayers will receive direct payments, up to $1,200, and the rest is going to businesses and the Fed.

Would the economy not sort itself out quicker and it be more equitable for law makers to give people to funds?

25 comments

[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 58.4 ms ] thread
[dead] quietthrow
This is politization of a crises by the party with majority while the minority party understands that and thinks something for the masses is better than nothing. This is all about doing whatever the majority party can to pump up the economy in time for re-election. If anybody says anything other than that is blatantly lying. The imbecile himself twitted how the lamestream media is preventing him from opening the economy as he thinks that they think it will be detrimental to his re-election. The reality is he exposed himself with that tweet. All he had to do is be a good leader by listening to the experts but he can’t do that. Economy will take care of itself like it has for the last 300 years if you have a healthy and able populous. One can’t have a economy without people participating in it. Thus health comes first and then economic stimulus. This govt has only focused on economic stimulus and not on the needs for health (hospital equipment and personal protective gear). Make no mistake this is all about re-election first and then everything else.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
aklemm
I think you got down-voted for a hyper-politicized tone, but it's hard to find fault in your conclusions. I'd be interested to hear honest efforts to refute the gist here.
quietthrow
Thanks and I agree with you about my tone. I swing from sad to angry and back these days given how literally a few rotten people can change the fate of millions and billions of people and they can get away with it while the rest suffer. I suppose I live under the delusion that world is fair. I still think that that delusion is better than the option - the world is not fair as that will just foster a individualistic zero sum mindset which promises violence and such negative things.
sfRattan
I struggled with this same question for a long time, and I think you're stuck in a false dilemma. You give as options: the delusion that the world is fair and an individualistic zero sum mindset which promises violence and such negative things. There are a lot of assumptions to unpack in that second choice, and I find the link from individualistic to zero-sum mindset and violence to be dubious.

But that's ultimately beside the point, because there is a third option (among many others): recognition that much of the world, fair or unfair, is beyond your control and further choosing not to treat that state of affairs as having any bearing on whether you should strive to live well and be fair in your dealings with others.

In other words, I've found conscience to be a more consistent and reliable companion than hope[1] over the years.

[1]: I think hope is a more accurate, positive word than 'delusion' and would better recognize your mindset as the hope that the world is fair.

hedora
I have mixed feelings about the current response. Epidemiological reports like this:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-ana...

Suggest the current interventions will halve deaths (to “only” 20 million), but (more importantly?) push them until after the next set of elections in the US. (See report 12, page 12)

Earlier reports suggested weaker restrictions would build more immunity faster and further spread out demand for hospital beds. Presumably, that would further reduce the death toll, and also reduce the scope and duration of the economic impact. However, it would overwhelm some hospitals between now and election day.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
steveeq1
That stimulus bill is going to cause hyperinflation.
joejohnson
This doesn’t make any sense; if you print 14 trillion dollars, in doesn’t matter whose hands you put that money in, you get the exact same level of inflation.
maximente
unlikely as virtually everybody in the world wants dollars, which means that the USD will probably be very strong in the short term. least dirty clean sheet and all that.
viklove
If you give everyone money, the hyperinflation only affects the richest, aka billionaires. Who gives a shit about them? They'll be fine.
robjan
A billionaire doesn't care when the price of a loaf of bread increases by 10% and, in any case, the money will eventually trickle up to the billionaire.
viklove
Are you seriously saying we can't produce enough food to feed our populace in the US? That's not the issue. The issue is that we're willfully keeping it out of the hands of hungry people because of our "economic system."

The purpose of our economy is clearly not to feed people, it's to enrich the wealthiest among us.

jerome-jh
Possibly already the case, seeing how the stock markets react whereas the fundamentals are still pretty bad.
joejohnson
Yes, I think that would be a much more equitable way to stimulate the economy. That, or loan/debt forgiveness programs, would benefit poor and working people over large corporations and their boards.

Matt Stoller has covered this legislation on his blog, and has much more detail on how this bill is a massive coup for many large corporations: https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/stop-the-6-trillion-coron...

Someone1234
Apples and oranges comparison.

While individual citizens are getting "free cash," businesses are getting low interest loans that need to be repaid. A lot of the rest is going to emergency agencies, hospitals, and states.

So if the question is: "Instead of loaning businesses money to stay afloat, funding emergency agencies, hospitals, and states we just give each citizen tons of free money while ignoring everything else?" My answer is an easy "no." That makes no sense.

The only way this question makes sense is if you know nothing about the stimulus bill.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
bb88
Let's be fair here, this is not a stimulus bill. This is a "stay afloat" bill to keep the US running. Stimulus bills don't include emergency funds to keep hospitals running.

Let's try this, instead of assuming the questioner must be ignorant about something or other, how about taking the question head on. And by that I'm assuming he's asking the following:

"Is it better to give money to businesses or people in time of economic crisis?"

gok
Where did you hear it's a $6 trillion stimulus? It's $2T, much of which is loans, not grants.
dumbfounder
There is no perfect answer, and ideally you would need to do case-by-case for every person And business. But that’s not feasible. We want people to have jobs when this is over so that’s why the money is going to the businesses, to keep them open. Otherwise we have people with money for a while and then businesses die and there are no jobs for people to go back to.
[dead] falcongod082
The answer depends on how you define and measure a better economy. When you can do that the question answers itself.
Proziam
Simplest solutions are usually best in cases like this. As such, paying out the sums directly to the people is definitely a viable solution.

However, I prefer a different solution because $1200 isn't enough to cover the rent for a lot of people, let alone all their necessary costs of living.

I would propose a freeze on all the obvious payments like rent, mortgages, all types of loans, utilities, and insurances. Then I'd give everyone $200 a person for food, and guarantee the businesses that are affected by the aforementioned freeze loans to cover the gap.

This covers people regardless of their cost of living so fewer people get wiped out by bad timing. Of course, it doesn't have the benefit of saving large companies from their irresponsible financial management policies, so it would never pass. [0]Nor does it guarantee all the obvious partisan garbage that was being pushed during the negotiations.

[0] “This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision,” Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.)https://thehill.com/homenews/house/488543-house-democrats-ey...

morninglight
Thousands of people will be killed by the corona virus and many more will have their lives torn apart. However a few will make a killing with high-frequency trading on the US stock markets. Maybe this is the time to slow the markets down and require stocks to be held for at least 48 hours before they can be sold. There is enough turmoil in daily life that we should consider adding some stabilty. Why would anyone think high-frequency trading would benefit a society in this situation?
jerome-jh
Banks are cash multipliers. When they receive 1€, they lend 7€. Speaking for EU. The ratio may be higher in the US.

That's why the Fed gets so much, because then it lends to banks, banks lend to businesses and to individuals, usually at a somewhat higher interest rate.