4 ms·

I've been railing against this idea as uniquely stupid for the past few days. 1. For people who are living "paycheck-to-paycheck", this won't even matter. How

by tomp 7y ago

I've been railing against this idea as uniquely stupid for the past few days. 1. For people who are living "paycheck-to-paycheck", this won't even matter. How far does $1000 get you in the US? A better policy would be a general amnesty on rent and interest payments for a few months, and temporary free healthcare. 2. For industries where it's a demand shock (e.g. travel), no amount of helicopter money will restart the demand. A better solution would be helping the companies directly, to the extent the government wants to help them survive, by e.g. tax write-offs or delays, emergency credit loans, or my favorite, emergency equity (the free-market solution, if your company cannot survive because of your poor panic, you don't deserve to own (all of) it). 3. For industries where it's a supply shock (face masks, hand sanitizers, possibly soon but hopefully not food), some kind of coupon-based rationing (with the government paying the producers directly) would be a better solution, providing just the necessities for survival and ensuring there's minimal waste.

ntsplnkv2 7y ago
On point one, that's just the thing. If I got 1000$ right now from the government, I'd pay things that I'd already have been paying anyway, or I'd save it because the economy is bad. I'd imagine most people would do something similar.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  > pay things that I'd already have been paying anyway That's kind of the point. With a nearly imminent lockdown, many people would not be able to pay for things that they have been paying all the time, and that will bankrupt companies and break the economy. A cash injection that allows you to pay for things that you're already paying for - and get the basic things you were already getting before - would be quite helpful.
  - ntsplnkv2 7y ago
    It's a one time payment. It just delays everything by a month. I fail to see how this solves the problem.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      The goal is create as many delays as possible, to maximize the duration and number of people who can stay home instead of spreading the virus. It doesn't address the root problem because we can't solve the problem - people will have to go back to work eventually. We're not a post-scarcity society yet.
      - ntsplnkv2 7y ago
        I don't think 1 month of safety is enough to convince people who need to work to not work. they'll simply say "what about next month."
        SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        My understanding was that it's a proposal to help people who'll be devastated by not being allowed to work. If we're trying to get people to stay home on a voluntary basis, yeah, I agree it won't help much there.
        AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        You're trying to convince people who are sick not to work. Nearly everyone who is sick this month won't be sick next month.
    - PeterisP 7y ago
      It gives a month to implement more complex measures. This is something that can be done pretty much instantly, a better solution needs time, this gives time.
gwright 7y ago
> rent and interest payment amnesty These sorts of micro-management solutions seem like the wrong approach to me. It is very hard to target them to people who really need it. Some people will still have jobs and don't need the assistance, some people can weather a couple of months without income, some people are retired and are living off their savings already, etc. It seems to me that some sort of unemployment benefit program on steroids would be better. But that doesn't help with people who are self-employed. Perhaps there could be a special program to allow self-employed to take advantage of unemployment programs? > companies affected I'm wary of assistance in this area because it is next to impossible to understand all the ramifications of the bailout and businesses are generally better positioned to figure out how to "survive" in the new environment. I'd go back to my first comment above and focus on assisting people not companies. > supply shock This one I really wouldn't worry about as the market is going to address these shortages quickly. In fact I'm more worried about the government imposed shutdowns creating problems for companies who are trying to address these shortages (parents not working because they have to stay at home with kids, e.g.).

by tomp 7y ago

ntsplnkv2 7y ago

On point one, that's just the thing. If I got 1000$ right now from the government, I'd pay things that I'd already have been paying anyway, or I'd save it because the economy is bad. I'd imagine most people would do something similar.

PeterisP 7y ago
> pay things that I'd already have been paying anyway That's kind of the point. With a nearly imminent lockdown, many people would not be able to pay for things that they have been paying all the time, and that will bankrupt companies and break the economy. A cash injection that allows you to pay for things that you're already paying for - and get the basic things you were already getting before - would be quite helpful.
- ntsplnkv2 7y ago
  It's a one time payment. It just delays everything by a month. I fail to see how this solves the problem.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    The goal is create as many delays as possible, to maximize the duration and number of people who can stay home instead of spreading the virus. It doesn't address the root problem because we can't solve the problem - people will have to go back to work eventually. We're not a post-scarcity society yet.
    - ntsplnkv2 7y ago
      I don't think 1 month of safety is enough to convince people who need to work to not work. they'll simply say "what about next month."
      - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        My understanding was that it's a proposal to help people who'll be devastated by not being allowed to work. If we're trying to get people to stay home on a voluntary basis, yeah, I agree it won't help much there.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        You're trying to convince people who are sick not to work. Nearly everyone who is sick this month won't be sick next month.
  - PeterisP 7y ago
    It gives a month to implement more complex measures. This is something that can be done pretty much instantly, a better solution needs time, this gives time.

gwright 7y ago

> rent and interest payment amnesty These sorts of micro-management solutions seem like the wrong approach to me. It is very hard to target them to people who really need it. Some people will still have jobs and don't need the assistance, some people can weather a couple of months without income, some people are retired and are living off their savings already, etc. It seems to me that some sort of unemployment benefit program on steroids would be better. But that doesn't help with people who are self-employed. Perhaps there could be a special program to allow self-employed to take advantage of unemployment programs? > companies affected I'm wary of assistance in this area because it is next to impossible to understand all the ramifications of the bailout and businesses are generally better positioned to figure out how to "survive" in the new environment. I'd go back to my first comment above and focus on assisting people not companies. > supply shock This one I really wouldn't worry about as the market is going to address these shortages quickly. In fact I'm more worried about the government imposed shutdowns creating problems for companies who are trying to address these shortages (parents not working because they have to stay at home with kids, e.g.).