2 ms·
Money is only superficially the issue. Your currency is only as valuable as there is a market of goods and services to spend it on. Even if you ate the rich an
by legitster 4y ago
Money is only superficially the issue. Your currency is only as valuable as there is a market of goods and services to spend it on.
Even if you ate the rich and took all of their money, all you've done is created inflation because the actual value of the economy hasn't shifted. An economy is more about the "stuff" than the money - even Marx would have agreed with as much.
So this is only ostensibly about funding a deficit - this is just as much a measure to prevent a GDP freefall from a shrinking aging working population.
- Levitz 4y agoYes. But money is how stuff gets done. It's not an immediate effect, but give people money to people who want food and more food will be purchased, which in turn increases the production of food.
- vorpalhex 4y agoOnly if the cost to produce food is below the sales price. There is not an infinite "grow more food" capacity. The cost to produce 5% more food may be more than 5% of current costs.
- legitster 4y agoThis is the same idea behind trickle down economics, but I don't think reality really works this way. Simply giving people money does not inherently create economic growth.