Hacker News Reader

Comment by viklove | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure I understand the "bad for the economy" side of things. Who will suffer if we shut down unessential businesses and just mail people checks? We'll still be able to eat, we'll still have roofs over our heads, etc. The only ones who will really see their lives change significantly are the ultra-rich, who need us riding around in Ubers, renting Airbnbs, and buying plane tickets so they can fund their wealthy lifestyles. Who gives a shit about them? The average American is affected less by a quarantine than an unchecked pandemic. The only reason this is even a discussion is because our political system has been completely bought out to serve only the wealthy.

View on HN

> Who will suffer if we shut down unessential businesses and just mail people checks? We'll still be able to eat, we'll still have roofs over our heads, etc. The only ones who will really see their lives change significantly are the ultra-rich, who need us riding around in Ubers, renting Airbnbs, and buying plane tickets so they can fund their wealthy lifestyles.

Why do you think this to be the case? The ultra-rich don't need you around to do whatever they want. They have their islands and personal staff to attend to them.

When the government bails you out and gives you money, you slowly by slowly become unable to eat, unable to have roofs over your head. Food does not magically appear in a grocery store. Food has a global supply chain that requires your currency to have value. When the government prints money, it makes it harder for it to borrow money in the future. Eventually, your dollar buys less on the global markets, meaning farmers cannot acquire fertilizer and other needed things to grow your crops. We won't be able to hire labor to pick the crops. People will lose their jobs as exports dry up and American dollars buy less and less foreign currency. Eventually, farmers raise their prices to combat all these forces, and the government must print more money. This is just food on the table. Construction materials and workers to put a roof on your head require an even larger, international supply chain. In order to combat this, the government reduces welfare programs and increases taxes. Business and 'the rich' leave for greener pastures. Frankly, inflation kills, and I don't understand why everyone is so dismissive of this.

I'm not even touching inflation's effects on doctors ability to do medicine.

>Food has a global supply chain that requires your currency to have value.

Not true for all food.

> When the government prints money, it makes it harder for it to borrow money in the future.

What causes it to be harder to borrow is the faith of people willing to hold government debt. The American government has never reneged on its debt. "Printing money" has very little to do with the government's ability to borrow.

>Eventually, your dollar buys less on the global markets, meaning farmers cannot acquire fertilizer and other needed things to grow your crops.

We produce these things locally. Every nation-state with a half-decent national security apparatus does.

>People will lose their jobs as exports dry up and American dollars buy less and less foreign currency.

This is one of the most glaring cognitive dissonances in this thought process. Currency is relative. When the American dollar is strong, it means foreign currency buys fewer tangible American goods, and we actually export less. When the American dollar is weak, foreign currency goes farther and we export more.

>When the government bails you out and gives you money, you slowly by slowly become unable to eat, unable to have roofs over your head.

As Alan Greenspan put it when Paul Ryan brought this fanciful line of thinking up in Congress: inflation happens when there are too many dollars chasing too few goods. There are two sides to this equation. Given the difficulty the Fed has had meeting inflation targets, it is far more likely we are constrained by the allocation of dollars either because we are not able to get them where they need to be in the economy, or because there's just too little circulating.

America needs phosphate and imports it currently. We cannot produce enough locally. This is needed to produce enough food. I'm not sure how you get around this in your magical world.

> What causes it to be harder to borrow is the faith of people willing to hold government debt. The American government has never reneged on its debt. "Printing money" has very little to do with the government's ability to borrow.

Yeah, making up money and having people sit at home (thus not paying taxes) is really going to inspire people to hold American debt!

>America needs phosphate and imports it currently.

Sure, right now the economics work out that it's cheaper to import phosphate then produce it locally.

>We cannot produce enough locally.

We might not produce enough locally to meet the current demand right now, but that doesn't mean we can't. It about whether capital is currently allocated toward the production of phosphate. It doesn't need to be because we can import it. If we couldn't produce it under any circumstance that would be a massive national security flaw. :)

> Yeah, making up money and having people sit at home (thus not paying taxes) is really going to inspire people to hold American debt!

Having as many people as we can bear sit at home is the best course of action at the very present moment to avoid spreading this virus. The people sitting at home need to be able to buy what they need and pay the essential workers producing and transporting what they need to them. The alternative is worse: you spread virus and can't pay working people.

People will hold American debt if the American government can assure debt holders that its people and institutions can survive a pandemic.

>... is really going to inspire people to hold American debt!

In the end we agree, it really is about faith :)

> If we couldn't produce it under any circumstance that would be a massive national security flaw. :)

Yeah, it's so much a national security flaw that American law gives American citizens the right to claim islands as parts of the United States in order to secure access to a very difficult to acquire resource.

> Having as many people as we can bear sit at home is the best course of action at the very present moment to avoid spreading this virus.

This is not up for debate, and I never disagreed with it.

> The people sitting at home need to be able to buy what they need and pay the essential workers producing and transporting what they need to them.

Certainly. I wasn't disagreeing with you that people will need compensation for lost income.

However, what we were discussing was this:

The ultra-rich are not going to suffer. They have their own personal capital they will use for their enjoyment. The people who will suffer are the American tax payer (regardless of income) who now has a larger debt burden. At some point, the American tax burden will overshadow the service we pay on debts. Then all faith will be lossed. It may not happen after this bill. It may not happen after 100 of these bills, but it will happen eventually, and it'll not harm the rich, I'll tell you that.

>it'll not harm the rich, I'll tell you that.

Inflation, once it is an actual problem, can be taxed away and we can structure that tax progressively. The rich will pay their fair share.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/16/18251646/modern...

They'll just leave the United States, then?

Why is it 'fair'? They made their money by giving people things they wanted in exchange for money the people were happy to give them. How is taking it back fair?

> They'll just leave the United States, then?

American citizen expatriates pay tax.

>How is taking it back fair?

We live in a society. :)

> They'll just leave the United States, then?

Good, they're leeches on society and add nothing of value. If they added value, they wouldn't pay their workers the bare minimum and list them as contractors so they don't get health insurance. Let's encourage more compassionate corporations to expand their operations, and force greedy corporations out. I think we'll all be better off for it.

> They have their own personal capital they will use for their enjoyment.

Where did they get this capital? I say we take it back from them and use it to buy food. Not that there's a shortage of food. I guess I should say we should take it from them and hand it to Americans so they are allowed to access the food which we have already produced. It's a sad state of things when Americans go hungry solely due to billionaires hoarding wealth on private islands. The food is there, the people who need it are there, but our "economic system" says they're not allowed to access it until a billionaire decides they're good enough to be employed to make them richer.

> Where did they get this capital?

I would assume people gave it to them in exchange for goods that those same people were unwilling to produce?

> It's a sad state of things when Americans go hungry solely due to billionaires hoarding wealth on private islands.

No one is going hungry. People have paid unemployment insurance and will be getting a stimulus check anyway.

> ut our "economic system" says they're not allowed to access it until a billionaire decides they're good enough to be employed to make them richer.

You don't need a billionaire to employ you. Just make something your neighbor wants and charge them for it. I made a small fortune selling tomato starts to my neighbors. Which billionaire employed me? Maybe people should start asking what they can do for others instead of waiting for someone to spell it out for them.

> those same people were unwilling to produce?

Because people just have the option to produce food for themselves right?

> No one is going hungry.

This is just plain false. Many children who relied on school lunches are going hungry as we speak.

> Just make something your neighbor wants and charge them for it.

My neighbor is just as poor as me. We can only afford rent, food, and healthcare (healthcare is a luxury). What are my options now? I have to work as an Uber driver because it's hard to find work around here.

> I made a small fortune selling tomato starts to my neighbors.

That's great, if you live in a rich neighborhood. Unfortunately when I go door to door in wealthy neighborhoods the cops pick me up.

> Because people just have the option to produce food for themselves right?

Are you really arguing that farmers shouldn't charge for the food they grow?

> This is just plain false. Many children who relied on school lunches are going hungry as we speak.

Haven't most states provided a substitute program? Mine certainly has. I'm curious to know which jurisdiction is not.

> My neighbor is just as poor as me. We can only afford rent, food, and healthcare (healthcare is a luxury). What are my options now? I have to work as an Uber driver because it's hard to find work around here.

Then sell to someone with money? I do agree that we systematically prevent poor neighborhoods from access to capital markets, but that is due to burdensome regulation, not greed. I would assume if your hours have been reduced, you should be getting the unemployment insurance you paid for, if not, that's a different story.

> That's great, if you live in a rich neighborhood. Unfortunately when I go door to door in wealthy neighborhoods the cops pick me up.

No. On craigslist. You clearly have internet access and time to post. It's free and people just meet me in parking lots. Paid a few dollars for the seeds, and grew them for two months in my house. People pay ridiculous amounts for heirloom varieties. Seeds are often free if you have a local seed library.

> Are you really arguing that farmers shouldn't charge for the food they grow?

No, I'm saying we shouldn't bail out big corps and banks. We should mail checks to Americans who need to eat instead of relying on big corps to pay them to do so. History has shown time and time again that instead of paying their labourers fairly, big corps will hoard wealth to enrich their VCs and pay out bonuses to execs. Let's go straight to the root of the problem instead of bowing down to our corporate overlords.

> Then sell to someone with money?

Unfortunately I don't have time for this. My family is going to go hungry next week, so I don't have time to build up a new business and flounder for a while.

> I do agree that we systematically prevent poor neighborhoods from access to capital markets, but that is due to burdensome regulation, not greed.

This is where we disagree. It's 100% absolutely due to greed.

> you should be getting the unemployment insurance you paid for

I live paycheck to paycheck, we had to skip 2 meals last week. I can't afford unemployment insurance.

> Paid a few dollars for the seeds, and grew them for two months in my house.

Again, I don't have time to wait for seeds to grow. I don't know how I'm going to feed my children next week, let alone in two months.

Now obviously I'm not the person who is having these problems, I'm just talking like one to show you the flaws in your argument. You're looking at this from the perspective of someone who has an emergency savings fund, and an education, but the stark reality is that 50% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and have no ability to start a business like you're saying. You have to be in a position of extreme privilege to talk this way.

Every American deserves a roof over their head and a hot meal. For some reason we've set up a system where people like Adam von Neumann and the Waltons get to decide which Americans deserve to eat, and which deserve to go hungry. You're saying that's not because of greed? We have the ability to feed every American in this country, but we artificially gate food and housing behind "jobs," then ensure that those big corps get huge bailouts under the guise of protecting workers.

If we want to protect workers, we can just mail them checks. No need to go through big corps, except for corrupt reasons like enriching VCs, lobbyists, and execs.

This is entirely incorrect

The ultra-rich will have a variable level of "decreased performance in their portfolio". They're still rich, especially if not over-levered. They are also well positioned to take advantage of any hyper-inflation event.

The average american, with the loss of their primary income and no real UBI is going to feel it the most.

For the USD to hyperinflate, we would have to print quadrillions and quintillions of dollars.

Hyperinflation is about as real a threat as Bigfoot, or little green men from mars.

> The only ones who will really see their lives change significantly are the ultra-rich, who need us riding around in Ubers, renting Airbnbs, and buying plane tickets so they can fund their wealthy lifestyles.

[citation needed]

The wealthy's assets require hired labor to keep and increase their value. Their wealth is derived from those assets.

There's lots of hired labor around the world, no one needs to live in the united states. That is not actually a requirement to be rich.

In a world where people's identities have become hopelessly conflated with their occupation, preventing them from working for a prolonged period would seem like a pretty major change to their lives. I'm talking about working-class folks here, not the ultra-rich.

Life isn't just about having money to buy food.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com