4 ms·

I don't see your point. I'm no economist but from what I read in the article, are you disagreeing with the premise, that aggregate demand is low, or the solutio

I don't see your point. I'm no economist but from what I read in the article, are you disagreeing with the premise, that aggregate demand is low, or the solution, that giving money directly to citizens will increase increase spending? I understand your point about the purpose of money, but don't see how the idea of bypassing tax credits or tax breaks and directly giving money to people is stupid.

Mz 13y ago
People are living creatures with minds and wills of their own. They are not merely cogs in the economic engine. You can't control what they do when you decide to just give out money and money only represents value. You don't create value by printing money. In countries with low birth rates, you see that government retirement programs are killing the economy. Government retirement programs are based on the idea of older people having earned this. But someone has to do the work to provide the goods and services being purchased. If no one is required to work, a lot of people won't work. People who win the lottery are typically bankrupt within 5 years (about 2/3s of them, IIRC, go bankrupt). A lot of people, if given money, 1) promptly quit their jobs and 2) promptly fill their empty hours with consumptive activities, not productive ones. I do not see this fixing anything. In the long term, it is likely to bankrupt the system because of disencentivizing productive activity and turning people into consumers with an entitled attitude.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  We aren't giving people lottery jackpots. If you look at examples where they've actually done this in the small, people spend the money "well". In particular, a lump some of ~$1000 given to 13 long-term homeless individuals in London (http://www.economist.com/node/17420321 http://www.economist.com/node/17420321) saw 11 of them off the streets a year later, and the Mincome experiment in Manitoba only saw modest decrease in hours worked (most dramatically among new parents, which strikes me as a positive outcome).

Mz 13y ago

People are living creatures with minds and wills of their own. They are not merely cogs in the economic engine. You can't control what they do when you decide to just give out money and money only represents value. You don't create value by printing money. In countries with low birth rates, you see that government retirement programs are killing the economy. Government retirement programs are based on the idea of older people having earned this. But someone has to do the work to provide the goods and services being purchased. If no one is required to work, a lot of people won't work. People who win the lottery are typically bankrupt within 5 years (about 2/3s of them, IIRC, go bankrupt). A lot of people, if given money, 1) promptly quit their jobs and 2) promptly fill their empty hours with consumptive activities, not productive ones. I do not see this fixing anything. In the long term, it is likely to bankrupt the system because of disencentivizing productive activity and turning people into consumers with an entitled attitude.

dllthomas 13y ago
We aren't giving people lottery jackpots. If you look at examples where they've actually done this in the small, people spend the money "well". In particular, a lump some of ~$1000 given to 13 long-term homeless individuals in London (http://www.economist.com/node/17420321 http://www.economist.com/node/17420321) saw 11 of them off the streets a year later, and the Mincome experiment in Manitoba only saw modest decrease in hours worked (most dramatically among new parents, which strikes me as a positive outcome).