3 ms·

If everyone got 18000 a lot of the money we spent on the top half of the economy becomes unnecessary. For example, there will be no evictions and so that sector

If everyone got 18000 a lot of the money we spent on the top half of the economy becomes unnecessary. For example, there will be no evictions and so that sector doesn’t need propping up. More importantly people would have stayed home and so we could have tamed the virus which would mean the economy opens up quicker and safer. This is a people issue and not an economic issue. Dealing it like that would have saved the economy better IMO. Our politicians and companies would never let a good crisis go wasted without appropriating money for themselves.

danaris 6y ago
> This is a people issue and not an economic issue. Take it a step further: All economic issues are really people issues, in one way or another. The economy exists to serve people. We do not exist to serve it. Whenever there are measures that are "to help the economy", but which are detrimental to ordinary workers, they're not really to help "the economy"—they're to help the people at the very top, at everyone else's expense. We need to refocus on what helps actual people—what helps the most people—rather than on the misleading abstract of "the economy."