4 ms·

Wow. I think they're not kidding! Yeah, let's all just sit back and receive fiat currency from the skies! I'm sure it will work out just fine, because um.. aggr

Wow. I think they're not kidding! Yeah, let's all just sit back and receive fiat currency from the skies! I'm sure it will work out just fine, because um.. aggregate demand magic! Why not just print and hand out 100 trillion dollars to everyone? -Somehow that sounds like a bad idea, huh? But there's nothing wrong with sprinkling say, 3000 times 330 000 000 dollars into the masses' hands?

betenoire 13y ago
Is this the argument you are gonna go with?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
SimpleXYZ 13y ago
Of course they are not kidding. We already have examples of this at different scales. SS Disability payments, SS survivor benefits, etc. Plus, as the author mentioned, the Bush/Congress direct stimulus, WWII government demand, etc. I agree printing money and dumping on the people is a bad idea as well, but there is middle ground. More progressive taxation, ending all corporate welfare, etc. You can disagree with something without being dismissive.
tedsanders 13y ago
To give a serious reply to your hopefully not serious comment: Of course hyperinflation would be a concern at the $100 trillion level. The idea behind this policy would not be to inject additional money into the world. Rather, the idea is to switch channels from open-market operations to money giveaways. Because the amount of newly created money would be the same, inflation should be about the same too.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  > Of course hyperinflation would be a concern at the $100 trillion level. If it wasn't harmful to hand out "free money" to everyone, then they could actually do it at the $100 trillion level. The difference is in the degree/expediency of harm caused. Hyperinflation would be a concern at the $3000 level too. The point is that there is no "free money". Money being "free" equates to money being worthless, and that's exactly where the suggested operation would lead. > Rather, the idea is to switch channels from open-market operations to money giveaways. I see you've adopted the Fed's jargon. The massive difference between what the Fed is doing now (handing out $85B/month to banksters) and handing out money to the masses is that in the latter case, all of that money could potentially enter the real-world economy right away, thus potentially causing all the inflation it could possibly cause. That's way different from the same amount of "nominal wealth" sitting in some bank's balance sheet, having replaced some worthless-in-reality asset's nominal valuation with the equivalent amount of money. In this case, the money is not going anywhere, and thus, not causing the inflation it could. But the original article is thoroughly full of shit. No wonder, because the article was meant to mislead the public.
logicallee 13y ago
why don't you send your kids to school with 100 trillion dollars, if you're just going to give them lunch money that falls from the sky.

betenoire 13y ago

Is this the argument you are gonna go with?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

SimpleXYZ 13y ago

Of course they are not kidding. We already have examples of this at different scales. SS Disability payments, SS survivor benefits, etc. Plus, as the author mentioned, the Bush/Congress direct stimulus, WWII government demand, etc. I agree printing money and dumping on the people is a bad idea as well, but there is middle ground. More progressive taxation, ending all corporate welfare, etc. You can disagree with something without being dismissive.

tedsanders 13y ago

To give a serious reply to your hopefully not serious comment: Of course hyperinflation would be a concern at the $100 trillion level. The idea behind this policy would not be to inject additional money into the world. Rather, the idea is to switch channels from open-market operations to money giveaways. Because the amount of newly created money would be the same, inflation should be about the same too.

whatevsbro 13y ago
> Of course hyperinflation would be a concern at the $100 trillion level. If it wasn't harmful to hand out "free money" to everyone, then they could actually do it at the $100 trillion level. The difference is in the degree/expediency of harm caused. Hyperinflation would be a concern at the $3000 level too. The point is that there is no "free money". Money being "free" equates to money being worthless, and that's exactly where the suggested operation would lead. > Rather, the idea is to switch channels from open-market operations to money giveaways. I see you've adopted the Fed's jargon. The massive difference between what the Fed is doing now (handing out $85B/month to banksters) and handing out money to the masses is that in the latter case, all of that money could potentially enter the real-world economy right away, thus potentially causing all the inflation it could possibly cause. That's way different from the same amount of "nominal wealth" sitting in some bank's balance sheet, having replaced some worthless-in-reality asset's nominal valuation with the equivalent amount of money. In this case, the money is not going anywhere, and thus, not causing the inflation it could. But the original article is thoroughly full of shit. No wonder, because the article was meant to mislead the public.

logicallee 13y ago

why don't you send your kids to school with 100 trillion dollars, if you're just going to give them lunch money that falls from the sky.