If you want to actually help the economy you helicopter drop stimulus checks. The lower 95% spend more money when they have more, the top 5%/1%/.01% don't see a meaningful difference in their spending power.
If you want to actually help the economy you helicopter drop stimulus checks. The lower 95% spend more money when they have more, the top 5%/1%/.01% don't see a meaningful difference in their spending power.
I think this is a bit simplistic. This is also how you get hyperinflation.
Perhaps the government should just have a clean separation from money, much like they do from state?
Infact for the last 15 years I have made it a point to monthly expenses be less than 50% of my net income, which meant living with family, having room mate, Driving a very old car or doing other things to lower my expenses.
> The lower 95% spend more money when they have more
This isn't saying that the bottom 95% are incurring massive debt or "living beyond means". It's just saying that if you give someone in the bottom 95% an extra $100, they'll likely spend some of that money. If you give Bezos or Gates or Buffett $100, it's such an inconsequential sum to them that it wouldn't change their spending
They spend it on consumption and bid up the price of inputs while the people who own the businesses collect profit. I’m not sure thats any better than what the govt is doing now.
And when demand increases, temporarily prices may spike. Usually in a free market, supply increases and price can go down. That's pretty fundamental.
> People can eat?
Figure out how people can eat without someone working to produce and deliver that food and you can solve a lot of problems.