Ask HN: Would the economy be better off with $18,126.88 per person | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Would the economy be better off with $18,126.88 per person

Tomorrow the government will likely pass a stimulus bill that could pay each person in the US (based on a pop. of 331M) $18,126.88 each.

Some taxpayers will receive direct payments, up to $1,200, and the rest is going to businesses and the Fed.

Would the economy not sort itself out quicker and it be more equitable for law makers to give people to funds?

View on HN

Apples and oranges comparison.

While individual citizens are getting "free cash," businesses are getting low interest loans that need to be repaid. A lot of the rest is going to emergency agencies, hospitals, and states.

So if the question is: "Instead of loaning businesses money to stay afloat, funding emergency agencies, hospitals, and states we just give each citizen tons of free money while ignoring everything else?" My answer is an easy "no." That makes no sense.

The only way this question makes sense is if you know nothing about the stimulus bill.

Let's be fair here, this is not a stimulus bill. This is a "stay afloat" bill to keep the US running. Stimulus bills don't include emergency funds to keep hospitals running.

Let's try this, instead of assuming the questioner must be ignorant about something or other, how about taking the question head on. And by that I'm assuming he's asking the following:

"Is it better to give money to businesses or people in time of economic crisis?"

Yes, I think that would be a much more equitable way to stimulate the economy. That, or loan/debt forgiveness programs, would benefit poor and working people over large corporations and their boards.

Matt Stoller has covered this legislation on his blog, and has much more detail on how this bill is a massive coup for many large corporations: https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/stop-the-6-trillion-coron...

Simplest solutions are usually best in cases like this. As such, paying out the sums directly to the people is definitely a viable solution.

However, I prefer a different solution because $1200 isn't enough to cover the rent for a lot of people, let alone all their necessary costs of living.

I would propose a freeze on all the obvious payments like rent, mortgages, all types of loans, utilities, and insurances. Then I'd give everyone $200 a person for food, and guarantee the businesses that are affected by the aforementioned freeze loans to cover the gap.

This covers people regardless of their cost of living so fewer people get wiped out by bad timing. Of course, it doesn't have the benefit of saving large companies from their irresponsible financial management policies, so it would never pass. [0]Nor does it guarantee all the obvious partisan garbage that was being pushed during the negotiations.

[0] “This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision,” Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.)https://thehill.com/homenews/house/488543-house-democrats-ey...

Where did you hear it's a $6 trillion stimulus? It's $2T, much of which is loans, not grants.

Why are you equating loans with cash?

Thousands of people will be killed by the corona virus and many more will have their lives torn apart. However a few will make a killing with high-frequency trading on the US stock markets. Maybe this is the time to slow the markets down and require stocks to be held for at least 48 hours before they can be sold. There is enough turmoil in daily life that we should consider adding some stabilty. Why would anyone think high-frequency trading would benefit a society in this situation?

There is no perfect answer, and ideally you would need to do case-by-case for every person And business. But that’s not feasible. We want people to have jobs when this is over so that’s why the money is going to the businesses, to keep them open. Otherwise we have people with money for a while and then businesses die and there are no jobs for people to go back to.

Banks are cash multipliers. When they receive 1€, they lend 7€. Speaking for EU. The ratio may be higher in the US.

That's why the Fed gets so much, because then it lends to banks, banks lend to businesses and to individuals, usually at a somewhat higher interest rate.

That stimulus bill is going to cause hyperinflation.

This doesn’t make any sense; if you print 14 trillion dollars, in doesn’t matter whose hands you put that money in, you get the exact same level of inflation.

unlikely as virtually everybody in the world wants dollars, which means that the USD will probably be very strong in the short term. least dirty clean sheet and all that.

If you give everyone money, the hyperinflation only affects the richest, aka billionaires. Who gives a shit about them? They'll be fine.

A billionaire doesn't care when the price of a loaf of bread increases by 10% and, in any case, the money will eventually trickle up to the billionaire.

Are you seriously saying we can't produce enough food to feed our populace in the US? That's not the issue. The issue is that we're willfully keeping it out of the hands of hungry people because of our "economic system."

The purpose of our economy is clearly not to feed people, it's to enrich the wealthiest among us.

Possibly already the case, seeing how the stock markets react whereas the fundamentals are still pretty bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com