5 ms·

The main counterpoint is that this stimulus would be needed to counter massive demand-side deflation.

me_me_me 6y ago
Well easy fix instead of giving money to the top, give it to the bottom. That will surely drive demand as more money is available to spend. It will boost confidence in local economies further growing demand and supply caps. What we see now it large parts of the stimulus package are devoured by the top level bureaucracy never doing anything but being transferred to Cayman islands as performance bonuses. How about we try the trickle up economy for once?
- somebodythere 6y ago
  That is what the $1200 check and expanded unemployment insurance was meant to be.
- adventured 6y ago
  > How about we try the trickle up economy for once? We are. The vast majority of the stimulus so far has gone to benefit the bottom 3/4 of the US economically. Here is some of what's in the $2 trillion recent stimulus: - $268b to extend & expand unemployment benefits. - $293b one time check (which won't be one time) - $377b small business loans & grants; this has been more than doubled since then - $150b aid to state & local governments - $153b boost health related spending - $42b boost to smaller social safety net programs, such as SNAP - $45b boost to disaster assistance - $40b boost to education spending People will attempt to retort that: well, but big corporations have improperly taken some of the small business loans; they'll try to use a rare edge case to attempt to nullify the overwhelming point that in fact most of the stimulus is going to the bottom 3/4, not the top 1%. Further, we'll do more stimulus programs yet around sending direct checks to individuals, which will continue to tilt this scale in the favor of the bottom 3/4. The small business loans, unemployment benefits boosters and individual checks also do not have to be paid back, unlike the big business bailouts (such as with the airlines). Most likely direct checks alone will cost over a trillion dollars before this is over. There is very little capable resistance to doing more in that regard, it will happen.
  - afpx 6y ago
    This is good news. Hopefully, it helps.
- ro-_-b 6y ago
  Exactly. We are in the worst crisis since WWII & the stock market is at record levels in relation to GDP
- um_ya 6y ago
  This was tried in the past. Bottom up stimulus typically results in inflation in consumer prices. The fed prefers pumping money in at the top, which typically results in inflation of stock/asset prices.
  - legolas2412 6y ago
    So maybe, instead of pumping 10 trillion from the top, stimulate 1 trillion from the bottom?
jasode 6y ago
>The main counterpoint is that this stimulus would be needed to counter massive demand-side deflation. The gp you're responding to sounds like he/she is talking about personal investment advice to protect an individual's purchasing power (i.e. micro economics). However, your response is about a macro economic government policy. Those are 2 different conversations.

Well easy fix instead of giving money to the top, give it to the bottom. That will surely drive demand as more money is available to spend. It will boost confidence in local economies further growing demand and supply caps. What we see now it large parts of the stimulus package are devoured by the top level bureaucracy never doing anything but being transferred to Cayman islands as performance bonuses. How about we try the trickle up economy for once?

somebodythere 6y ago
That is what the $1200 check and expanded unemployment insurance was meant to be.
adventured 6y ago
> How about we try the trickle up economy for once? We are. The vast majority of the stimulus so far has gone to benefit the bottom 3/4 of the US economically. Here is some of what's in the $2 trillion recent stimulus: - $268b to extend & expand unemployment benefits. - $293b one time check (which won't be one time) - $377b small business loans & grants; this has been more than doubled since then - $150b aid to state & local governments - $153b boost health related spending - $42b boost to smaller social safety net programs, such as SNAP - $45b boost to disaster assistance - $40b boost to education spending People will attempt to retort that: well, but big corporations have improperly taken some of the small business loans; they'll try to use a rare edge case to attempt to nullify the overwhelming point that in fact most of the stimulus is going to the bottom 3/4, not the top 1%. Further, we'll do more stimulus programs yet around sending direct checks to individuals, which will continue to tilt this scale in the favor of the bottom 3/4. The small business loans, unemployment benefits boosters and individual checks also do not have to be paid back, unlike the big business bailouts (such as with the airlines). Most likely direct checks alone will cost over a trillion dollars before this is over. There is very little capable resistance to doing more in that regard, it will happen.
- afpx 6y ago
  This is good news. Hopefully, it helps.
ro-_-b 6y ago
Exactly. We are in the worst crisis since WWII & the stock market is at record levels in relation to GDP
um_ya 6y ago
This was tried in the past. Bottom up stimulus typically results in inflation in consumer prices. The fed prefers pumping money in at the top, which typically results in inflation of stock/asset prices.
- legolas2412 6y ago
  So maybe, instead of pumping 10 trillion from the top, stimulate 1 trillion from the bottom?

jasode 6y ago

>The main counterpoint is that this stimulus would be needed to counter massive demand-side deflation. The gp you're responding to sounds like he/she is talking about personal investment advice to protect an individual's purchasing power (i.e. micro economics). However, your response is about a macro economic government policy. Those are 2 different conversations.