Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 266 posts

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#51

Post by choward »

seneca wrote: post #21
samsquire wrote: post #12

The case for unconditional basic income has never been stronger. Especially with disease precluding work.

I'm curious, in current proposals, would a UBI be limited to citizens only? I'm guessing not, given the "universal" nature of it. If that's the case, I can't say I see support for a UBI gaining wide-spread support, or economic viability, in the US without first securing our boarders. It seems mutually exclusive, given that it would result in an unprecedented flood of economic migrants. I may be misunderstanding the s…

> I'm curious, would a UBI be limited to citizens only? I'm guessing not, given the "universal" nature of it

That's the conclusion you came to because of the word "universal"? Have you watched fear mongering entertainment news lately? You assume that everyone who happens to be in the country gets money? So this will cause the others to invade our perfect utopia that we can't defend without a magical wall. Do tourists who happen to be in the country get money too? I'm curious if illegal immigration has affected you personally in some way.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#52

Post by smileysteve »

sethammons wrote: post #3

Instead of giving money, why not suspend debt payments and interest growth?

> suspend debt payments and interest growth?

You could do this with the major banks and associations, but poorer Americans are already unbanked and have no available credit.

In addition, where a major component of our economy is housing and that's a major concern; there are many private landlords that depend on that income; targeting just landlords with a credit would require an entire amdministration.

One of the goals of UBI is it cuts the bureaucracy. Instead of a person or group of people deciding who benefits how, it goes to everybody indiscriminately.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#53

Post by scottlamb »

duxup wrote: post #19

Economics is an interesting field of study with what seems like endless amount of differing views and such. However, it seems that if you're looking for economic stimulus one of the most sure fire ways / proven ways / agreed upon ways to get bang for the buck is to give poor people money. Poor people will spend it, and you can be pretty dang sure they'll put that money into the economy and quickly. I'm all for it.

I agree giving poor people money (possibly just everyone money right away rather than sorting out who is poor first) is the right thing to do now, but I think about it slightly differently:

I don't think "economic stimulus" is the right goal. The public health officials are doing their absolute best to bring the economy to a near-halt, at least any part of it involving non-essential physical interaction. I don't want to second-guess or undermine them.

I think the right goal is to make sure people have money to survive, including paying for food, medicine, and housing, paying off their debts, and building their savings, so they can make it through until we're ready to restart the economy. I wouldn't consider the measure to have failed if it's not all spent right away or if the stock market doesn't rise.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#54

Post by [deleted] »

shartshooter wrote: post #26

As long as the money is given to folks who need and/or will spend it, it feels like this is the exact situation where the federal government steps in for stimulus. There’s no pull yourself up by your bootstraps talk right now and there shouldn’t be. I know the single parent working a couple of jobs will spend every dime they’re given in a time like this, just to survive. A yuppie like me would just park it in my savi…

[deleted]

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#55

Post by whatshisface »

shartshooter wrote: post #26

As long as the money is given to folks who need and/or will spend it, it feels like this is the exact situation where the federal government steps in for stimulus. There’s no pull yourself up by your bootstraps talk right now and there shouldn’t be. I know the single parent working a couple of jobs will spend every dime they’re given in a time like this, just to survive. A yuppie like me would just park it in my savi…

>A yuppie like me would just park it in my savings account until I feel we hit bottom, then invest it.

That sounds like stimulus to me.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#56

Post by MiroF »

ed312 wrote: post #39
shartshooter wrote: post #26

As long as the money is given to folks who need and/or will spend it, it feels like this is the exact situation where the federal government steps in for stimulus. There’s no pull yourself up by your bootstraps talk right now and there shouldn’t be. I know the single parent working a couple of jobs will spend every dime they’re given in a time like this, just to survive. A yuppie like me would just park it in my savi…

It is impossible to know from demographic information alone exactly how people will spend a windfall. If we're doing helicopter money, we should do it for everyone equally. Maybe instead of food I buy a bunch of video games or beer or some other good. Still keeping the economic engine running.

I think that we can assume that for people worth low income, savings rates will be much lower than for richer people.

Sure, we can't "exactly" know from demographic information, but the fact that if you have a higher income you have a higher savings rate is pretty basic.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#57

Post by throwaway55554 »

stagger87 wrote: post #36
SilasX wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only the problem weren't self-reinforcing where existing homeowners have the majority of their net worth tied to their home and thus double down on fighting any policy that would reduce home values.

Is this actually a problem? Why would people want more of their net worth tied up in their home? Wouldn't cheaper homes make the properly ladder game more accessible? Are people leveraging their current home value enough to need it to be higher?

> Why would people want more of their net worth tied up in their home?

Because people have been told over and over that a house is an investment so they way overspend on it.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#58

Post by baron_harkonnen »

shartshooter wrote: post #26

As long as the money is given to folks who need and/or will spend it, it feels like this is the exact situation where the federal government steps in for stimulus. There’s no pull yourself up by your bootstraps talk right now and there shouldn’t be. I know the single parent working a couple of jobs will spend every dime they’re given in a time like this, just to survive. A yuppie like me would just park it in my savi…

Sure people in the top 10% are not likely to need this money, but giving it to everyone is a lot easier and faster than figuring out who needs it the most.

Even in that top 10% there are still people that live paycheck-to-paycheck. I was there not long ago. It's a lot better to give everyone the money and be wrong about ~10% of the people needing it then delay it for people who have bill past due right now.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#59

Post by mrmonkeyman »

sailfast wrote: post #33
duxup wrote: post #19

Economics is an interesting field of study with what seems like endless amount of differing views and such. However, it seems that if you're looking for economic stimulus one of the most sure fire ways / proven ways / agreed upon ways to get bang for the buck is to give poor people money. Poor people will spend it, and you can be pretty dang sure they'll put that money into the economy and quickly. I'm all for it.

Like high viral coefficients, the marginal propensity to consume at (or even above) 1.0 has a huge multiplier effect that beats the heck out of a tax cut or other spending. Agreed, and this makes total sense in a crisis like this. Even better: folks will actually need the money and it will be doing some concrete good, quickly.

Like hoarding toiletpaper.

Re: Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress

#60

Post by DrNuke »

abfan1127 wrote: post #29
duxup wrote: post #19

Economics is an interesting field of study with what seems like endless amount of differing views and such. However, it seems that if you're looking for economic stimulus one of the most sure fire ways / proven ways / agreed upon ways to get bang for the buck is to give poor people money. Poor people will spend it, and you can be pretty dang sure they'll put that money into the economy and quickly. I'm all for it.

The most important aspect of the claim about spending money is the broken window fallacy. Henry Hazlitt wrote a great book on the subject called Economics in One lesson. The simple example is that we can't go around breaking windows to stimulate the economy. Sure, the window manufacturer and the window replacement companies might benefit, however that money which went towards the window could have gone elsewhere. Eng…

Free money is an oxymoron, though: we will all eventually dig holes by day and fill holes by night, if free is still the stigma at wartime.
Post reply on HN