4 ms·

I saved the economy with this one weird trick: giving everybody a free $2,000 check. But why stop at $2,000? Why not give everyone a million dollars then eve

I saved the economy with this one weird trick: giving everybody a free $2,000 check. But why stop at $2,000? Why not give everyone a million dollars then everyone will be rich, nobody will have to work, and we can all live like kings!

tedsanders 13y ago
One reason to stop at $2,000 is so that inflation is limited. 2% inflation is quite manageable, historically. 2000% inflation is not.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Is there particular motivation for $2000, or just using the article's number? It seems that there's clearly some optimal number, and I suspect it's >0, but I'm not sure how it should be determined.
  - tedsanders 13y ago
    I was just using the given number. If this scheme were implemented, I'm guessing the number would be picked by economists at the Fed who target a particular money supply. And then that number would be criticized by people who think that the Fed is choosing to stiff the poor. For that reason, I think it would be a huge mistake to tie together monetary policy and income redistribution. :)
mecameron 13y ago
I find it interesting when people take a proposal with a specific number then try to discredit it by talking about changing it drastically in one direction. When does any natural or human made system have a single parameter that we can make better by some adjustment in one direction, respond 10x better when we change the parameter 10x more? Almost every parameter has some optimal range, above and below which are sub-optimal. Vitamin C in the body, water/sunlight for plants, semiconductor voltage, radiation level in chemotherapy, etc. Simply taking a proposal to to distribute X as being good, and showing that 100X must be better, but it obviously is absurd and would lead to bad things, does nothing to discredit the original proposal.
nawitus 13y ago
Basic income can be cost neutral.

tedsanders 13y ago

One reason to stop at $2,000 is so that inflation is limited. 2% inflation is quite manageable, historically. 2000% inflation is not.

dllthomas 13y ago
Is there particular motivation for $2000, or just using the article's number? It seems that there's clearly some optimal number, and I suspect it's >0, but I'm not sure how it should be determined.
- tedsanders 13y ago
  I was just using the given number. If this scheme were implemented, I'm guessing the number would be picked by economists at the Fed who target a particular money supply. And then that number would be criticized by people who think that the Fed is choosing to stiff the poor. For that reason, I think it would be a huge mistake to tie together monetary policy and income redistribution. :)

mecameron 13y ago

I find it interesting when people take a proposal with a specific number then try to discredit it by talking about changing it drastically in one direction. When does any natural or human made system have a single parameter that we can make better by some adjustment in one direction, respond 10x better when we change the parameter 10x more? Almost every parameter has some optimal range, above and below which are sub-optimal. Vitamin C in the body, water/sunlight for plants, semiconductor voltage, radiation level in chemotherapy, etc. Simply taking a proposal to to distribute X as being good, and showing that 100X must be better, but it obviously is absurd and would lead to bad things, does nothing to discredit the original proposal.

nawitus 13y ago

Basic income can be cost neutral.