4 ms·

I mean all reasonable honest economists know this. The goal of the current program is to subsidize the 1% by making sure the stock market it stabilized and keep

I mean all reasonable honest economists know this. The goal of the current program is to subsidize the 1% by making sure the stock market it stabilized and keeps growing. If you want to actually help the economy you helicopter drop stimulus checks. The lower 95% spend more money when they have more, the top 5%/1%/.01% don't see a meaningful difference in their spending power.

dternyak 6y ago
> If you want to actually help the economy you helicopter drop stimulus checks. I think this is a bit simplistic. This is also how you get hyperinflation. Perhaps the government should just have a clean separation from money, much like they do from state?
- legulere 6y ago
  Which inflation? There is no inflation.
- dternyak 6y ago
  edit: much like they do from church
syshum 6y ago
I am far from the top 5%/1%/.01%, and do not spend more money they I have... Infact for the last 15 years I have made it a point to monthly expenses be less than 50% of my net income, which meant living with family, having room mate, Driving a very old car or doing other things to lower my expenses.
- TAForObvReasons 6y ago
  parent wrote > The lower 95% spend more money when they have more This isn't saying that the bottom 95% are incurring massive debt or "living beyond means". It's just saying that if you give someone in the bottom 95% an extra $100, they'll likely spend some of that money. If you give Bezos or Gates or Buffett $100, it's such an inconsequential sum to them that it wouldn't change their spending
- triceratops 6y ago
  YSK: "In fact" is 2 words, not one.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> If you want to actually help the economy you helicopter drop stimulus checks. The lower 95% spend more money when they have more, the top 5%/1%/.01% don't see a meaningful difference in their spending power. They spend it on consumption and bid up the price of inputs while the people who own the businesses collect profit. I’m not sure thats any better than what the govt is doing now.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  People can eat? And when demand increases, temporarily prices may spike. Usually in a free market, supply increases and price can go down. That's pretty fundamental.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Yes, in a free market. This is a pandemic shutdown, not a free market and not the mixed economy it was before the shutdown. So the price increases, and profit increases, but only certain people are able to fill that demand while others are forced to remain idle along with their capital. Therefore businesses and people whom the government allows to work will make more money, and the stocks of inputs deplete because the businesses who replenish those stocks are operating at 50% capacity, and the baseline prices go up. This is all fundamental, I agree. > People can eat? Figure out how people can eat without someone working to produce and deliver that food and you can solve a lot of problems.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      Curiously, a Finnish company is making protein at point-of-use. e-food!
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        Solar Foods does look promising!

dternyak 6y ago

> If you want to actually help the economy you helicopter drop stimulus checks. I think this is a bit simplistic. This is also how you get hyperinflation. Perhaps the government should just have a clean separation from money, much like they do from state?

legulere 6y ago
Which inflation? There is no inflation.
dternyak 6y ago
edit: much like they do from church

syshum 6y ago

I am far from the top 5%/1%/.01%, and do not spend more money they I have... Infact for the last 15 years I have made it a point to monthly expenses be less than 50% of my net income, which meant living with family, having room mate, Driving a very old car or doing other things to lower my expenses.

TAForObvReasons 6y ago
parent wrote > The lower 95% spend more money when they have more This isn't saying that the bottom 95% are incurring massive debt or "living beyond means". It's just saying that if you give someone in the bottom 95% an extra $100, they'll likely spend some of that money. If you give Bezos or Gates or Buffett $100, it's such an inconsequential sum to them that it wouldn't change their spending
triceratops 6y ago
YSK: "In fact" is 2 words, not one.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> If you want to actually help the economy you helicopter drop stimulus checks. The lower 95% spend more money when they have more, the top 5%/1%/.01% don't see a meaningful difference in their spending power. They spend it on consumption and bid up the price of inputs while the people who own the businesses collect profit. I’m not sure thats any better than what the govt is doing now.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
People can eat? And when demand increases, temporarily prices may spike. Usually in a free market, supply increases and price can go down. That's pretty fundamental.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Yes, in a free market. This is a pandemic shutdown, not a free market and not the mixed economy it was before the shutdown. So the price increases, and profit increases, but only certain people are able to fill that demand while others are forced to remain idle along with their capital. Therefore businesses and people whom the government allows to work will make more money, and the stocks of inputs deplete because the businesses who replenish those stocks are operating at 50% capacity, and the baseline prices go up. This is all fundamental, I agree. > People can eat? Figure out how people can eat without someone working to produce and deliver that food and you can solve a lot of problems.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Curiously, a Finnish company is making protein at point-of-use. e-food!
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      Solar Foods does look promising!