3 ms·

Part of me has wondered... What if we just went through the motions of the economy? I.e., average everyone's spending over the last year and require everyone to

by foota 7y ago

Part of me has wondered... What if we just went through the motions of the economy? I.e., average everyone's spending over the last year and require everyone to make 1/12 those payments to their recipients per month. Obviously we wouldn't be realizing the benefit of the things we mock buy, but it seems to me like it would largely preserve the economy in the sense that no one would have to face a deficit? Anything still possible to deliver (i.e., food, rent, etc) would be delivered for the money and anything that couldn't would just not be. Obviously there are many practical issues with this, namely that it would require way more and detailed data on purchases than anyone has and would be completely politically infeasible.

twblalock 7y ago
> Obviously there are many practical issues with this, namely that it would require way more and detailed data on purchases than anyone has and would be completely politically infeasible. And the fact that a lot of people don't have any money right now, and haven't made money since March, and don't know when they will be able to make money again.
Udik 7y ago
Different idea: just hibernate the economy. Completely. No money transfers. Nobody pays rents or food or bills; nobody gets paid either salary or pensions (but still has to show up for work if required/ possibile). This could help preventing businesses or private individuals or families going broke during the lockdown; when it's time, everything can be restarted at once. It might work (or have worked) for a short period of time, though I imagine it's practically inconceivable.
- basch 7y ago
  is food free for a month at walmarts expense, or nobody can buy food for a month?
  - Udik 7y ago
    Free at walmart's expense (with some refund from the government for products already in stock- and walmarts doesn't have to pay wages or rents either) but new orders towards the supply chain are also free. I understand it's almost ceertainly unfeasible, but the rationale is preventing a situation in which labour and small businesses are bled dry while capital (from rents, etc.) keeps accumulating. Costs should be distributed as evenly as possible across society.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  People need food to live. Are grocers expected to hand out food without payment? If everything is priced at $0, I might not make it to the grocery store fast enough before the crowd empties the place.
  - Udik 7y ago
    True. But you could for example say that every citizen has a right to $50 worth of food (at normal prices) per week, and has to pay any excess. Grocers might get partial refund from the government for the food already in stock; new orders going down the supply chain are not paid at all. (Btw, I know this is a crazy idea, but just for the sake of the argument).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by foota 7y ago

twblalock 7y ago

> Obviously there are many practical issues with this, namely that it would require way more and detailed data on purchases than anyone has and would be completely politically infeasible. And the fact that a lot of people don't have any money right now, and haven't made money since March, and don't know when they will be able to make money again.

Udik 7y ago

Different idea: just hibernate the economy. Completely. No money transfers. Nobody pays rents or food or bills; nobody gets paid either salary or pensions (but still has to show up for work if required/ possibile). This could help preventing businesses or private individuals or families going broke during the lockdown; when it's time, everything can be restarted at once. It might work (or have worked) for a short period of time, though I imagine it's practically inconceivable.

basch 7y ago
is food free for a month at walmarts expense, or nobody can buy food for a month?
- Udik 7y ago
  Free at walmart's expense (with some refund from the government for products already in stock- and walmarts doesn't have to pay wages or rents either) but new orders towards the supply chain are also free. I understand it's almost ceertainly unfeasible, but the rationale is preventing a situation in which labour and small businesses are bled dry while capital (from rents, etc.) keeps accumulating. Costs should be distributed as evenly as possible across society.
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
People need food to live. Are grocers expected to hand out food without payment? If everything is priced at $0, I might not make it to the grocery store fast enough before the crowd empties the place.
- Udik 7y ago
  True. But you could for example say that every citizen has a right to $50 worth of food (at normal prices) per week, and has to pay any excess. Grocers might get partial refund from the government for the food already in stock; new orders going down the supply chain are not paid at all. (Btw, I know this is a crazy idea, but just for the sake of the argument).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]