Hacker News Reader

Comment by romwell | Hacker News Reader

>When work stops, but flows must continue, what do we do?

Pay people to keep these flows going, like all other countries did?

Yeah. Other countries have had success with putting the cash in at the leaves of the dependency graph (ie the businesses) with the requirement to continue payroll. Then the rest of the relationships already exist, so the cash flows through.

Or we can destroy our economy. I suspect there will be a short delay between widespread rent payment failures and contamination of the banks. By then, we're all gonna be on the ride for the duration.

Not feeling so optimistic today.

There's no free lunch. The government money has to come from somewhere too. Otherwise, inflation.

We can eat some inflation, and it's worth remembering that the developed world has trouble with underinflation these days, so adding inflation isn't a negative in the short term.

Still waiting for the inflation from the last crisis.... You 100% sure it's coming?

I think you might be misunderstanding the parent's point. The inflation is already here! Indeed, inflation is how the economy is managed. As much as inflation sucks, economists would way rather have that as a problem than deflation.

The US has its “exorbitant privilege” - a pretty thick buffer of seignorage profits it can extract without running into hyperinflation.

This buffer is substantial, but finite.

I think it's hilarious your comment was downvoted. Plainly it's finite. Otherwise, we'd just live on printed money forever and nobody would have to work anymore. What could go wrong?!

Inflation would distribute the losses along the entire chain. That doesn't sound so bad right now.

And for that reason, it's the most regressive form of taxation.

Continuing to pay people in a way completely disconnected from the (lack of) work they’re performing is also a very reliable way to “destroy the economy”.

If you don’t want to destroy the economy, the trick is to not throw a giant wrench into it by prohibiting people from working.

Exactly. Covering wages would have been a great investment -- preserving countless businesses that would be irreplaceable, or infeasible to start again. As life resumed, the businesses would be right there, immediately ready to go, serve their markets, pay their workers, pay their taxes, pay their landlords, preserve the equity of their owners, and resume community roles. Instead they're gone forever -- because such an approach is seen by a substantial cohort of Americans as an undeserved handout and moral hazard.

I agree, 1000%.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com