4 ms·

You can't eat money. If you give everyone money, but people aren't working, aren't producing anything, then your country is just as poor as before. The econom

by ars 7y ago

You can't eat money. If you give everyone money, but people aren't working, aren't producing anything, then your country is just as poor as before. The economic backbone of a country is not money, it's work. So giving money in bulk does not replace work. (You can do it targeted, for small sections of the population, but you can't do it for everyone.)

somewhereoutth 7y ago
Indeed. However, if it is necessary to reduce output in order to control the virus, it surely must be fair to distribute that loss evenly. Hence the point of helicopter money is exactly that - to ensure that those who are unable to work (and have no other source of income) do not carry a disproportionate burden through this situation. EDIT: Furthermore - if you give someone who is broke $1200, they will likely go out and spend it on food and essentials - hence significant (for them) resources are allocated towards them. If you gave the same to a multi-millionaire, the chances are that it would have zero effect on their consumption. Likely it would end up in their bank account (if they could be bothered to cash it) - where it would contribute to the slight erosion of the value of money.
- Accujack 7y ago
  >Indeed. However, if it is necessary to reduce output in order to control the virus, it surely must be fair to distribute that loss evenly. A fine point here - it's only fair if the profit in non pandemic circumstances is also distributed evenly, which isn't the case.
casefields 7y ago
But you can feed the stove for warmth! https://library.randolphschool.net/c.php?g=237930&p=1581974 https://library.randolphschool.net/c.php?g=237930&p=1581974
fragmede 7y ago
I did some research, and if it is correct, the money is to be used to buy food. Further research leads to believe that, with some additional work, food can be eaten. The backbone of a country is its people. If everyone starves to death, there is no more country. Giving money in bulk is to paper over the cracks in the system. For most of us on here, we're lucky enough to have transitioned to working remotely, and have enough savings to live off of for some time so as to not worry about rent or mortgage payment. Food insecurity isn't a thing to contend with, outside of fraught trips to the supermarket. Others have no such luck, and missing even a single paycheck, or single digit hours out of one, upsets the delicate balance that is the payday loan repayment house of cards. Except that four out of five Americans live paycheck to paycheck[0], so it's most Americans that have no such luck. Those Americans will go broke, hungry, and would be borderline homeless. Giving money is to alleviate those conditions. People aren't working because we're telling them not to. Ergo, giving money in bulk. Not to replace work, but to supplant it when it isn't an option. There are those that want to replace work with bulk money transfers, but you don't have to buy into the idea of UBI to recognize that giving people money so they don't starve is better than the alternative. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/01/11/live-paycheck-to-paycheck-government-shutdown/#269135014f10 https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/01/11/live-pa...
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Your post is quite good at explaining half of the problem. But you're ignoring the other half and, despite some excellent snark in the first paragraph, the other half of the problem is also real. The money will be used to buy food - if there is any. The food can be eaten - if there is any. We need the people who are close to the edge to not fall off because they miss some work. We really do. But we also need the economy to continue to function to produce things like food. That's ars's point and, despite your snark, it is also a valid one.
  - fragmede 7y ago
    Thank you for deciphering ars' point for me, I'd missed it; too busy snarking :) Ars makes the leap that giving everyone money means they won't produce anything, and uses that to prove that giving bulk money won't work. Competent managers realize that money only goes so far, and there are things other than money that employees (also) value. Yes we need the economy, but does the economy disappear if the poorest aren't having their bootstraps constantly cut off?
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      The economy can disappear if too much of it is closed for too long. (My dad tells about being unable to buy thread in the Great Depression, not because he didn't have enough money to buy it, but because all the thread factories had closed, and so there was no thread being made.) We need a course 1) that doesn't trample on those who are poor, laid off, and still have to eat and pay rent, but 2) that leaves as few of them laid off for as short a time as possible. What course will do that? That's above my pay grade. I just can see two problems that we must, somehow, avoid both.

by ars 7y ago

somewhereoutth 7y ago

Indeed. However, if it is necessary to reduce output in order to control the virus, it surely must be fair to distribute that loss evenly. Hence the point of helicopter money is exactly that - to ensure that those who are unable to work (and have no other source of income) do not carry a disproportionate burden through this situation. EDIT: Furthermore - if you give someone who is broke $1200, they will likely go out and spend it on food and essentials - hence significant (for them) resources are allocated towards them. If you gave the same to a multi-millionaire, the chances are that it would have zero effect on their consumption. Likely it would end up in their bank account (if they could be bothered to cash it) - where it would contribute to the slight erosion of the value of money.

Accujack 7y ago
>Indeed. However, if it is necessary to reduce output in order to control the virus, it surely must be fair to distribute that loss evenly. A fine point here - it's only fair if the profit in non pandemic circumstances is also distributed evenly, which isn't the case.

casefields 7y ago

But you can feed the stove for warmth! https://library.randolphschool.net/c.php?g=237930&p=1581974 https://library.randolphschool.net/c.php?g=237930&p=1581974

fragmede 7y ago

I did some research, and if it is correct, the money is to be used to buy food. Further research leads to believe that, with some additional work, food can be eaten. The backbone of a country is its people. If everyone starves to death, there is no more country. Giving money in bulk is to paper over the cracks in the system. For most of us on here, we're lucky enough to have transitioned to working remotely, and have enough savings to live off of for some time so as to not worry about rent or mortgage payment. Food insecurity isn't a thing to contend with, outside of fraught trips to the supermarket. Others have no such luck, and missing even a single paycheck, or single digit hours out of one, upsets the delicate balance that is the payday loan repayment house of cards. Except that four out of five Americans live paycheck to paycheck[0], so it's most Americans that have no such luck. Those Americans will go broke, hungry, and would be borderline homeless. Giving money is to alleviate those conditions. People aren't working because we're telling them not to. Ergo, giving money in bulk. Not to replace work, but to supplant it when it isn't an option. There are those that want to replace work with bulk money transfers, but you don't have to buy into the idea of UBI to recognize that giving people money so they don't starve is better than the alternative. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/01/11/live-paycheck-to-paycheck-government-shutdown/#269135014f10 https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/01/11/live-pa...

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Your post is quite good at explaining half of the problem. But you're ignoring the other half and, despite some excellent snark in the first paragraph, the other half of the problem is also real. The money will be used to buy food - if there is any. The food can be eaten - if there is any. We need the people who are close to the edge to not fall off because they miss some work. We really do. But we also need the economy to continue to function to produce things like food. That's ars's point and, despite your snark, it is also a valid one.
- fragmede 7y ago
  Thank you for deciphering ars' point for me, I'd missed it; too busy snarking :) Ars makes the leap that giving everyone money means they won't produce anything, and uses that to prove that giving bulk money won't work. Competent managers realize that money only goes so far, and there are things other than money that employees (also) value. Yes we need the economy, but does the economy disappear if the poorest aren't having their bootstraps constantly cut off?
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    The economy can disappear if too much of it is closed for too long. (My dad tells about being unable to buy thread in the Great Depression, not because he didn't have enough money to buy it, but because all the thread factories had closed, and so there was no thread being made.) We need a course 1) that doesn't trample on those who are poor, laid off, and still have to eat and pay rent, but 2) that leaves as few of them laid off for as short a time as possible. What course will do that? That's above my pay grade. I just can see two problems that we must, somehow, avoid both.