What this Country Needs is a Helicopter Drop of Money

No I understand the point. If we continue in secular stagnation, I suspect that at some point the government will start making $1000 electronic deposits into everyone's account.

 

I love when economic illeterates argue that a magical sky fairy can print endless money with no consequences.

 

First, when you talk about illiterates, you really should spell illiterate correctly. I'm not picky about grammar but sometimes you just need to know when to double check. There's also consequences when the magical sky fairy doesn't print money.

 

Something they should. It doesn't have to be a blanket stimulus, they can just offer people jobs, bail out states, rebuild infrastructure, etc. They can spend money in useful ways, but at the end of the day I just want the money to be spent. Would help out the rest of us producers/laborers.

 

From a helicopter!

 

We have enough to pay our wireless tab.
If you told me what I'd be paying Sprint monthly ten years ago, I would have laughed so hard...
If everyone in America for a 10k deposit tonight, what do you think most would do with it?

 

Lot of different things. Some would pay off debt, some would spend it, save it, etc. Same options that anyone has with getting money. But the point is not just what they do it with it. That money will now be in circulation forever and people will do all sorts of things with it. Just like every other dollar created out of thin air, which is every dollar any of us have.

 

I think the helicopter green dump or direct deposit would be less effective than a government issued card like an ebt card that had a balance that couldn't be liquidated or moved to cover already existing bills (utilities, rent, car payment). It could only be used to buy new stuff.

 

I'm more concerned about balance sheets. Private sector debt became a huge problem after the financial crises especially since home equity plummeted. So I don't mind people using it to pay off debt. Regardless, that money will start filtering through the system and we will all benefit from it. I just don't understand how anyone that isn't a multi-millionaire would be against it. You're not losing any money, your assets will increase, job opportunities will increase, demand will increase. It would be a fun time for the middle class. Trust me this is not social policy, it's not about helping the poor. It's more selfish than anything. I know based on my understanding of monetary systems and economics that more people with money helps me out.

 

Because you don't understand economics. If you did, you would run as far away as possible from people whose economic stimulus plan involves helicopters full of money and obama with a pitch fork.

 

Ok bud, you got me on a spell check, and yet managed to embarrass yourself thruout this whole thread.

Funny how you run your man pleaser about Austria economics, and yet you don't even have the a simple mental grasp of Keynesian economics. Keyes never once argued for pie in the sky stimulus spending. Which you're pretty much running your mouth about. Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy – predominantly private sector, but with a role for government intervention during recessions. Keynes even realized the importance of wise fiscal spending.

This is how stupid you people sound. After the Great Recession, our government borrowed more than 800 billion to stimulate the economy thru those "shovel ready job", that weren't so shovel ready( Obama's words, not mine). What's yours, and your fellow Krugman fanboys solution? Double down on stupid, and spend double, or triple that? Really??
One would have to look at the flop that the New deal was, funded by excise taxes, and the "shovel ready" stimulus funded by the invisible sky fairy, to conclude that government involvement pretty much makes economic downturns worse with their involvement, not better.

You fail, as usual.

 

If you wanna help the middle-class, cover our healthcare premiums...
A parasite lives successfully by balancing how much the host can give and remain fairly healthy.
Ever read Atlas Shrugged?

 

Yeah man. Give each citizen a billion dollars and every one of us will be driving Ferraris and sailing through the Caribbean in a few days. That's exactly how economics works.

 

How would you describe mortgage interest rate activity over the past 10 years-pros and cons, fluctuation.

 

I don't read nonsense. This is purely economical. It's very difficult for people to grasp, especially those that quote Atlas Shrugged.

 

Reductio ad absurdum... good work!!

 

How do you know it is nonsense if you've never read it?
What is a reasonable monthly house/rent payment?

- - - Updated - - -

What do you drive? What does a tank full cost you?

 

And yet doing this on a reduced level - say giving everyone a hundred thousand, would not have similar results on a proportional basis (inflation), but would have the effect of promoting production. Explain how that works.

 

I've read summaries of it. Enough to know it's useless for actual economic understanding. What's reasonable is subjective. For the amount of money I make I have options.

An SUV and way too much.

 

That's even more absurd. A $100k per person is over $30 trillion of money in a $17 trillion economy, lol. $2-3 trillion would work and it doesn't have to be instant and it doesn't have to be a check for every person in the country. We can simply bail out states to let them hire back teachers, police officers, and other public sector employees, we can rebuild our infrastructure, etc. You're not even trying to make a reasonable argument. Just taking it to the extremes. And how it works is how it always works. People get money, they spend it. The money is now in circulation. There's no magic to it, lol.

 

the rich need to spend more, if the rich keep getting richer, but not spending, the gov has to keep printing... simple as that.. supply and demand

either the rich spend or the government taxes them and spends for them

.

 

Do you not acknowledge that at some point, expanding the money supply will have clearly negative effects? Do you know roughly where this is?

 

Of course not, we'll continue increasing the money supply for the rest of America's future just like we have been doing for the past century. Economics is about relativity, it's not nominal. There is no "set amount" of money that is "too much" or "too little" without understand all the other factors going on in the economy. So there is definitely no theoretical limit. We won't all of a sudden have to stop printing money. We can definitely afford to throw in another $2-$3 trillion in to the economy.

 

Haha.
The book was philosophical.
Why won't you name your suv and tell me what a tank full costs?

 

Because I don't need to provide you with details of my life. It has nothing to do with this conversation. And yes, it's philosophical but conservatives like to use it for economics.