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

71–80 of 266 posts

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

#71

Post by PeterStuer »

tombert wrote: post #40
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…

I mostly agree; the only caveat I'd give is that it's tough to say how much longer any of us are going to be yuppies right now; I work for one of the many big megacorporations whose stock is tanking right now. If the stock doesn't pick up soonish, there's a non-zero probability of me being laid off. While I'm not that worried (I've been able to find work in bad economies in the past), I also do feel a bit of paranoia…

Can you explain how your job is directly related to the company's stock trading price? Not being sarcastic are something, just genuinely curious?

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

#73

Post by cheeseomlit »

choward wrote: post #51
seneca wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Everyone who comes to CA for example, citizen or not, can get a drivers license and access to a variety of social programs and they are protected by the state against federal prosecution. It's a legitimate concern.

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

#74

Post by ekidd »

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…

> Engineering taught me one very important lesson. We can never get something for nothing. There is always a trade off. If the government is handing out money, it has to come from somewhere. Its either taxes, which means that tax money collected can't be spent elsewhere. Or it has to be printed, which is inflation.

If we leave the money aside for a moment, what we're looking at here is the need to massively reorganize our way of life to fight this virus. We need more medical care, more ventilators, less contact, less travel, etc. This is going to be really expensive. We're trying to turn a big portion of the economy on a dime.

Think of it like WW2, when the US converted automobile assembly lines to build planes.

There's going to be economic dislocation, and it's going to be rough. We need to reallocate resources rapidly. Once we've figured out what we need everybody to be doing, we can work out the money end of things.

And yes, we will pay for this with diminished wealth and higher taxes in the future. But if we allow this virus to spread freely, it will overwhelm our medical system and millions will die.

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

#75

Post by ng7j5d9 »

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…

That's generally the case. Alaska's UBI program requires that the recipient live in Alaska for the previous calendar year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund#Permanen...

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

#77

Post by throwaway5752 »

We have this already. It's called unemployment. We don't need stimulus for people with existing paychecks.

We need conditions and durations on unemployment temporarily lifted, some for of access for self-employed or under-the-table workers, and some form of block grants for companies that would otherwise face bankruptcies (which would cascade) and and obviously enormous increases in funding that would be required by this.

edit: why am I downvoted? The problem is not giving extra money to those with jobs, the problem is giving money to those without jobs.

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

#78

Post by rednerrus »

scottlamb wrote: post #53
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…

Keeping the wheels moving on the economy is much easier than restarting the economy.

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

#79

Post by quickthrowman »

PeterStuer wrote: post #71
tombert wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree; the only caveat I'd give is that it's tough to say how much longer any of us are going to be yuppies right now; I work for one of the many big megacorporations whose stock is tanking right now. If the stock doesn't pick up soonish, there's a non-zero probability of me being laid off. While I'm not that worried (I've been able to find work in bad economies in the past), I also do feel a bit of paranoia…

Can you explain how your job is directly related to the company's stock trading price? Not being sarcastic are something, just genuinely curious?

Stock prices are an expectation of future cash flows, the rest explains itself.

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

#80

Post by abfan1127 »

optymizer wrote: post #64
abfan1127 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"money has to come from somewhere" is not a bad thing. Not all the money is reasonably allocated with equivalent side-effects. For example, it could come from the $748 billion dollars that are allocated for the military budget, which would take away $327 billion and still leave the US as the country spending the most money on the military. Maybe that means we stop wars that break windows in other countries for a year…

no argument here! However, our government hasn't show its ability to "spend within its limits"...
Post reply on HN