Yea, dollars put into student loan forgiveness actually pay themselves off many times over due to the high velocity of cash in the hands in young people - money injected into the market has a comparatively low velocity and tends to just get exported overseas.
I tend to agree philosophically, but is there data to support this? I'd like to upgrade to informed agreement.
Here is one source based on income bracket[1] which I think is a pretty strong corollary. Here is a nice visualization of spending by age group[2] and the original source for that data[3].
"inject 1.5t" by that do they mean a 1.5t panic bailout for wall street? how can we find 1.5t in the budget but no money for universal healthcare, student loan forgiveness, ubi etc. The markets wouldn't be so important if there were a safety net.
This isn’t a bailout for wall street, it’s an attempt to bailout the economy as a whole because there isn’t enough money in the banking system to cover the institutional sell off. In other words, they had to do this to prevent a run on the banks which would royally fuck everyone.
"inject 1.5t" by that do they mean a 1.5t panic bailout for wall street? how can we find 1.5t in the budget but no money for universal healthcare, student loan forgiveness, ubi etc. The markets wouldn't be so important if there were a safety net.
By contrast, the Hong Kong plan is to mail a grand to every citizen (iirc)
I think you may have some basic misunderstandings of how money works in today's world. All money is debt, which is to say, it's a ledger entry that gives the holder a claim on future productivity. Whether that ledger entry is purely electronic or rendered onto a physical artifact (a coin or a bank note) is irrelevant. At the end of the day it's all just bookkeeping. The national debt is the money supply. The key to n…
>the actual value of goods and services in the economy is shrinking On this point, are you referring to goods that already exist but are in less demand (thus less value)? Or that fewer goods are being produced, thus the total value of goods (supposing we assign some arbitrary value per good) is less?
Both. The value of services is shrinking because there is less demand for e.g. cruises, air travel, restaurant meals, concerts, sporting events, etc. This is partially offset by increased demand for non-perishables, but that is only a small fraction of what is being lost. And the total value of physical goods is shrinking because supply chains are being disrupted and so less stuff is going to be produced. There is a lot of time lag of course. This is all going to play itself out over a period of weeks if we're very lucky, more likely months, and possibly years. Interesting times.
Often this type of action is not the government spending that level of money with nothing in return. Generally it is buying an asset it intends to sell later (often at a profit).
For sure. People still get up in arms about the 2008 bank bailout without realizing that it ended up resulting in a $121B profit to the government: https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/
I tried to click your Propublica link because I want to see their numbers, since the wiki article on TARP points out that the "profit" the government made comes out to a 0.6% annualized interest rate, so once you take inflation into account the government actually lost money.
The Federal Reserve is not a government entity and has nothing to do with the budget, which is set by the US congress.
The Fed does not set the budget, and is independent of the three branches of government, that's true, but... > The Federal Reserve System is an independent government institution that has private aspects. The System is not a private organization and does not operate for the purpose of making a profit. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Federal_Reser...
Uh what?
Fed = Monetary policy == Make sure money can flow "appropriately"
"inject 1.5t" by that do they mean a 1.5t panic bailout for wall street? how can we find 1.5t in the budget but no money for universal healthcare, student loan forgiveness, ubi etc. The markets wouldn't be so important if there were a safety net.
Folks. Companies listed on the stock market hire average folks who need the money to provide for their spouses and kids. Companies that provide staples to you like food and gas and transportation and medical supplies. These are the companies you are actively shorting. Think about that. This isn’t the same as 2008.
Company's welfare is somewhat connected to their stock price, but it's a really weak relation. The stock market is mostly a gambling simulator that runs beside the economy as it's own little micro-economy - this doesn't make it worthless but it does make this sort of a statement ring really hollow.
Nobody is asking anything about funds now. But so many seems to be angry about healthcare for all. A universal health care can survive this pandemic and also others. This is unbelievable
But don't worry! Joe Biden has guaranteed he'd veto such an act even if it got through the house and senate.
this is a very disingenuous read of that interview.
Yet another bailout for wall street. Why couldn't these investors stop buying starbucks every day and save up like the rest of us?
This is not a wall Street bail out. This is a main Street bail out. Every American's life savings is in the stock market... Don't conflate the two please.
"Even when you consider indirect ownership via 401(k) retirement accounts and similar vehicles, fewer than half of American households own any stock at all."