6 ms·

I wonder how much of an impact the printing of additional money to fund this experiment had on inflation.

weaksauce 5y ago
long term probably a lot less than bombing and occupying other countries so our hegemony can be asserted all over the place... we have 330 million people and spend more than every other country in the world combined on war. A list including china that has 1,440 million people and india which has 1,400 million people. Seems when the question is war the answer is always yes but when the question is can we help our citizens the answer is how can we pay for it? The long term compounding benefits of children not being in poverty is a huge win on a society.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  We bombed Nazi Germany during World War II, and then occupied much of it for a while afterwards. Did we do that "so our hegemony can be asserted all over the place"? If so, then I think asserting our hegemony is a good thing. If not, then what definition/test of it are you using that the wars you don't like count, but that one doesn't?
  - likeclockwork 5y ago
    That was almost a century ago. Get over it, US is not a country of warring heroes
  - tehwebguy 5y ago
    Ok but what about after uhh 1945
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      The criterion for whether a war was asserting hegemony is whether it happened after 1945?
      - Retric 5y ago
        No, the difference between creating and asserting hegemony is meaningful though. Much like how what creates a monopoly is different than what happens after a monopoly is created.
  - pydry 5y ago
    >If not, then what definition/test of it are you using that the wars you don't like count, but that one doesn't? 1) Are they committing genocide? 2) Did they attack you?
    - weaksauce 5y ago
      that's an excellent test.
    - gruez 5y ago
      So you'd be cool with the US sitting out ww2 if japan didn't bomb pearl harbor?
      - wonderwonder 5y ago
        I think you are ignoring his first test. "Are they committing genocide?"
        gruez 5y ago
        Well wasn't clear whether there's a logical AND or OR between the two. In case it's OR, would you say that interventions in china[1], iraq[2], Somalia[3], Kosovo[4], Cambodia[5] would be justified? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Yazidis_by_the_Islamic_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Yazidis_by_the_Isl... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaaq_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaaq_genocide [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide
        wonderwonder 5y ago
        From a purely moral standpoint, we should probably go to war with China as we are very much ignoring genocide there right now. Our response was to sanction a few provincial level officials, but we still participated in the Olympics. Pretty pathetic response on our part overall. With that said, from a real world perspective, I'm not signing up to go to war with China as we are looking at an end of the world scenario if that happens. I don't think China is our match militarily but what else do they have in their biolabs and what would they be willing to unleash if they were losing. An estimated 3% (70–85 million people) of the world population at the time was killed in WWII, how many would die in a war between us and China? Short of armed conflict though we should be doing everything in our power to disconnect ourselves economically from them. We should be prioritizing manufacturing in the US.
  - weaksauce 5y ago
    that's a real nice strawman you have erected. > Did we do that "so our hegemony can be asserted all over the place"? no. > If so, then I think asserting our hegemony is a good thing. well that's wrong. > If not, then what definition/test of it are you using that the wars you don't like count, but that one doesn't? I don't like any war; some are needed like stopping hitler and their ghoulish goals sure. name a "war" we have won since then. hell name the last time we actually were at war since congress hasn't gone to war many times.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throwaway6734 5y ago
No different than any other federal program. Revenue neutral versions of CTC policies have been proposed (like Mitt Romney's)
catawbasam 5y ago
This was a pretty small slice of the stimulus.
- czbond 5y ago
  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL Look for vertical - and you'll see it wasn't a small slice.
bglazer 5y ago
3 million children lifted out poverty but chicken wings are now more expensive. Impossible to say if it was a good policy. Seriously, how do weigh the consequences of actions like this? On the one hand you have a certainty: many children plunged into deprivation by an unavoidable pandemic. On the other hand you have an almost unknowable risk of influencing worldwide macroeconomic trends. Is the second worth more to you than the first?
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Sorry if you are being sarcastic, but to respond literally, there is almost no inflation impact from this amount of money. Are we going to ask that for every expense? I imagine some people will - a great way to push small government and against any investment in our country. > almost unknowable We know quite a lot about economics, especially inflation and the money supply. > many children plunged into deprivation Many children were in deprivation already, and by investing in them we not only help them, we end up with more productive citizens later. Poverty can be devastating.
  - neilwilson 5y ago
    "We know quite a lot about economics, especially inflation and the money supply." That isn't the case. There's an awful lot of beliefs and curve fitting to them. Hence why QE didn't cause the 2% inflation they believed it would.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > That isn't the case. It is absolutely the case; we just don't know everything. Using modern economics, we have managed inflation and other economic phenomena highly effectively. High inflation (well beyond what is happening now - look at history and at places that ignore economics), depressions, bank runs, etc. are a thing of the past. Look at economic history before the post-war era; look at places that ignore economics and embrace ideology or political priorities instead; there is no comparison. It's trendy to attack them for their imperfections, but to suggest that economics is powerless is not only ignorant, it's yet another rejection of our human agency, of the power of knowledge, of our ability to determine our destiny, and another baby-and-bathwater attack on our institutions.
wolverine876 5y ago
Probably a lot less impact on the economy than child poverty, especially for those children.
Galanwe 5y ago
How did you come to the conclusion that the money was printed...?
- gruez 5y ago
  https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttrends.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttren...
tootie 5y ago
Some but supply chain is still the real killer. Inflation is global and in fact much worse in some other countries.
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
Exactly. How many additional children will now be in poverty because inflation put so much out of their reach. It's reverse ends justify the means. Do the means justify the ends?
defiUs88 5y ago
wonderwonder 5y ago
The 2008 bank bailout cost 700 billion. Almost all of that money went to rich banks and bankers. The child tax credit costs ~100 billion a year. The payments cut monthly child poverty by roughly 30%. We have direct evidence that growing up in poverty dramatically reduces your odds of graduating high school, going to college or getting a well paying job later in life. So I would posit that pulling kids out of poverty has a long term net positive effect on the economy. Also its just the right thing to do if we can. As a comparison, ~$76 billion in PPP loans were fraudulent. ~250 billion of covid relief benefits went to the rich and corporations. https://www.propublica.org/article/the-cares-act-sent-you-a-1-200-check-but-gave-millionaires-and-billionaires-far-more https://www.propublica.org/article/the-cares-act-sent-you-a-... But its the poorest of us that are causing inflation...
- refurb 5y ago
  The $700B in bank bailouts were paid back and the government profited.
  - toofy 5y ago
    Sure, and most of the covid relief money the poors spent went back into the economy.
    - refurb 5y ago
      Right, but OP’s analogy was false.
      - wonderwonder 5y ago
        Was it? Roi may be a longer time frame but willing to bet that if allowed to continue and enough kids are lifted out of poverty; % wise the returns will be greater than what was returned in TARP.
neilwilson 5y ago
Given that particular belief has been debunked by ten years of QE, it's not really a consideration is it. All government spending occurs by 'printing money' because that's how bank clearing works. Balance sheets expand during the day and then shrink back at settlement time - but often not quite as far as they expanded. That's how a growing economy is accommodated. When money is created, it will always either instantly pay off other loans somewhere or end up entirely in tax, unless somebody along the way doesn't spend it the instant they get it. That's because income, less tax and net loan repayments -> spending -> somebody else's income, less tax and net loan repayments. To notice "printing money", it has to have been saved not spent somewhere along the spending chain. Therefore the real question we need the answer to is why certain people believe saving causes inflation? In reality it is the deflationary drag of excess saving that is offset by 'printing money'. They are two sides of the same accounting journal.

long term probably a lot less than bombing and occupying other countries so our hegemony can be asserted all over the place... we have 330 million people and spend more than every other country in the world combined on war. A list including china that has 1,440 million people and india which has 1,400 million people. Seems when the question is war the answer is always yes but when the question is can we help our citizens the answer is how can we pay for it? The long term compounding benefits of children not being in poverty is a huge win on a society.

josephcsible 5y ago
We bombed Nazi Germany during World War II, and then occupied much of it for a while afterwards. Did we do that "so our hegemony can be asserted all over the place"? If so, then I think asserting our hegemony is a good thing. If not, then what definition/test of it are you using that the wars you don't like count, but that one doesn't?
- likeclockwork 5y ago
  That was almost a century ago. Get over it, US is not a country of warring heroes
- tehwebguy 5y ago
  Ok but what about after uhh 1945
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    The criterion for whether a war was asserting hegemony is whether it happened after 1945?
    - Retric 5y ago
      No, the difference between creating and asserting hegemony is meaningful though. Much like how what creates a monopoly is different than what happens after a monopoly is created.
- pydry 5y ago
  >If not, then what definition/test of it are you using that the wars you don't like count, but that one doesn't? 1) Are they committing genocide? 2) Did they attack you?
  - weaksauce 5y ago
    that's an excellent test.
  - gruez 5y ago
    So you'd be cool with the US sitting out ww2 if japan didn't bomb pearl harbor?
    - wonderwonder 5y ago
      I think you are ignoring his first test. "Are they committing genocide?"
      - gruez 5y ago
        Well wasn't clear whether there's a logical AND or OR between the two. In case it's OR, would you say that interventions in china[1], iraq[2], Somalia[3], Kosovo[4], Cambodia[5] would be justified? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Yazidis_by_the_Islamic_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Yazidis_by_the_Isl... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaaq_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaaq_genocide [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide
        wonderwonder 5y ago
        From a purely moral standpoint, we should probably go to war with China as we are very much ignoring genocide there right now. Our response was to sanction a few provincial level officials, but we still participated in the Olympics. Pretty pathetic response on our part overall. With that said, from a real world perspective, I'm not signing up to go to war with China as we are looking at an end of the world scenario if that happens. I don't think China is our match militarily but what else do they have in their biolabs and what would they be willing to unleash if they were losing. An estimated 3% (70–85 million people) of the world population at the time was killed in WWII, how many would die in a war between us and China? Short of armed conflict though we should be doing everything in our power to disconnect ourselves economically from them. We should be prioritizing manufacturing in the US.
- weaksauce 5y ago
  that's a real nice strawman you have erected. > Did we do that "so our hegemony can be asserted all over the place"? no. > If so, then I think asserting our hegemony is a good thing. well that's wrong. > If not, then what definition/test of it are you using that the wars you don't like count, but that one doesn't? I don't like any war; some are needed like stopping hitler and their ghoulish goals sure. name a "war" we have won since then. hell name the last time we actually were at war since congress hasn't gone to war many times.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

throwaway6734 5y ago

No different than any other federal program. Revenue neutral versions of CTC policies have been proposed (like Mitt Romney's)

catawbasam 5y ago

This was a pretty small slice of the stimulus.

czbond 5y ago
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL Look for vertical - and you'll see it wasn't a small slice.

bglazer 5y ago

3 million children lifted out poverty but chicken wings are now more expensive. Impossible to say if it was a good policy. Seriously, how do weigh the consequences of actions like this? On the one hand you have a certainty: many children plunged into deprivation by an unavoidable pandemic. On the other hand you have an almost unknowable risk of influencing worldwide macroeconomic trends. Is the second worth more to you than the first?

wolverine876 5y ago
Sorry if you are being sarcastic, but to respond literally, there is almost no inflation impact from this amount of money. Are we going to ask that for every expense? I imagine some people will - a great way to push small government and against any investment in our country. > almost unknowable We know quite a lot about economics, especially inflation and the money supply. > many children plunged into deprivation Many children were in deprivation already, and by investing in them we not only help them, we end up with more productive citizens later. Poverty can be devastating.
- neilwilson 5y ago
  "We know quite a lot about economics, especially inflation and the money supply." That isn't the case. There's an awful lot of beliefs and curve fitting to them. Hence why QE didn't cause the 2% inflation they believed it would.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > That isn't the case. It is absolutely the case; we just don't know everything. Using modern economics, we have managed inflation and other economic phenomena highly effectively. High inflation (well beyond what is happening now - look at history and at places that ignore economics), depressions, bank runs, etc. are a thing of the past. Look at economic history before the post-war era; look at places that ignore economics and embrace ideology or political priorities instead; there is no comparison. It's trendy to attack them for their imperfections, but to suggest that economics is powerless is not only ignorant, it's yet another rejection of our human agency, of the power of knowledge, of our ability to determine our destiny, and another baby-and-bathwater attack on our institutions.

wolverine876 5y ago

Probably a lot less impact on the economy than child poverty, especially for those children.

Galanwe 5y ago

How did you come to the conclusion that the money was printed...?

gruez 5y ago
https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttrends.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttren...

tootie 5y ago

Some but supply chain is still the real killer. Inflation is global and in fact much worse in some other countries.

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

Exactly. How many additional children will now be in poverty because inflation put so much out of their reach. It's reverse ends justify the means. Do the means justify the ends?

defiUs88 5y ago

wonderwonder 5y ago

The 2008 bank bailout cost 700 billion. Almost all of that money went to rich banks and bankers. The child tax credit costs ~100 billion a year. The payments cut monthly child poverty by roughly 30%. We have direct evidence that growing up in poverty dramatically reduces your odds of graduating high school, going to college or getting a well paying job later in life. So I would posit that pulling kids out of poverty has a long term net positive effect on the economy. Also its just the right thing to do if we can. As a comparison, ~$76 billion in PPP loans were fraudulent. ~250 billion of covid relief benefits went to the rich and corporations. https://www.propublica.org/article/the-cares-act-sent-you-a-1-200-check-but-gave-millionaires-and-billionaires-far-more https://www.propublica.org/article/the-cares-act-sent-you-a-... But its the poorest of us that are causing inflation...

refurb 5y ago
The $700B in bank bailouts were paid back and the government profited.
- toofy 5y ago
  Sure, and most of the covid relief money the poors spent went back into the economy.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Right, but OP’s analogy was false.
    - wonderwonder 5y ago
      Was it? Roi may be a longer time frame but willing to bet that if allowed to continue and enough kids are lifted out of poverty; % wise the returns will be greater than what was returned in TARP.

neilwilson 5y ago

Given that particular belief has been debunked by ten years of QE, it's not really a consideration is it. All government spending occurs by 'printing money' because that's how bank clearing works. Balance sheets expand during the day and then shrink back at settlement time - but often not quite as far as they expanded. That's how a growing economy is accommodated. When money is created, it will always either instantly pay off other loans somewhere or end up entirely in tax, unless somebody along the way doesn't spend it the instant they get it. That's because income, less tax and net loan repayments -> spending -> somebody else's income, less tax and net loan repayments. To notice "printing money", it has to have been saved not spent somewhere along the spending chain. Therefore the real question we need the answer to is why certain people believe saving causes inflation? In reality it is the deflationary drag of excess saving that is offset by 'printing money'. They are two sides of the same accounting journal.