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

141–150 of 266 posts

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

#141

Post by fma »

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…

Yang's policy was for citizens only. He equates it by saying citizens are a long term shareholders of the country and thus get a dividend.

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

#142

Post by Entalpi »

9uq34aofgh wrote: post #96

The media/political response is a giant hoax. Read the source paper from the CDC our corporate and political leaders are using to justify the panic: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/rr/rr6601a1.htm and appendix 5 https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/44314 From the evidence section of appendix 5: "Mandatory quarantine delayed the peak of the pandemic, but when cost was taken into account, mandatory quarantine was not an…

"Isolations only delay the peak, they don't prevent it, /.../ Zero evidence it will happen."

Isolations and shutdowns limit virus transfers. This is 'flattening the peak'. The peak will always be there and since the only way not to have a 'peak' is to not have virus to deal with from the start!

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

#143

Post by throwaway5752 »

throwanem wrote: post #106
throwaway5752 wrote: post #77

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…

I don't know why you're downvoted, but unemployment is a state-level program. This is a national problem and merits a federal response.

Yes, and this begs the question of what will happen with state budgets, many of which have balanced budget amendments and have no legal flexibility to deal with this. The answer is federal block grants to backstop national unemployment changes. Removing waiting periods and extending benefits indefinitely is essentially temporary UBI, which is what we need.

So yes, this form of changes to unemployment would _require_ a federal response. And we require far more federal response than that, far far more. But payroll tax holidays and $1000/adult responses are not serious policy and waste invaluable time.

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

#144

Post by bargl »

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 think the simplest solution is to give money and raise taxes on the top 60%. Undo what Trump put in place and go back to taxing Americans a little more.

This way the benefit only applies to the bottom 40% of tax brackets and at 40-60 you pay some if not all back and 60+ you pay it all back and more. Then it's a fair safety net that everyone can see might be necessary in these times.

This is just a thought, I'd actually just put Yang in charge of this.

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

#146

Post by black_13 »

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…

This attitude is why things do get done.

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

#147

Post by danaris »

tomp wrote: post #107
rednerrus wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's also impossible. How many millions would I have to pay you for you to take a skiing trip to Italy right now (flight, hotel, ski lifts, ...)? No matter the size of the economic stimulus, some parts of the economy will grind to a halt (demand shock), whereas others will be overstressed (supply shock - food, toilet paper, medical services). I think any stimulus should be targeted at those parts specifically, otherw…

You don't have to encourage the skiing trip. That's not the point.

The point is to make sure that the people who work at the ski resort can survive while no one's coming to vacation there.

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

#148

Post by smileysteve »

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…

> We can never get something for nothing.

The costs are inflation and national debt; Which with the Federal Funds rates at 0% are already costs that the monetary supply is accommodating.

Beyond that, we're still below inflationary targets and the dollar has grown accidentally stronger (and exports have decreased in ratio) under current economic policy. In effect, an inflationary effort could be significantly beneficial.

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

#149

Post by fma »

francisofascii wrote: post #93

Sitting at home reading a book may not feel like a real job, but it is a job! In this unique situation, the government is asking/requiring people to stay home and alter behaviors. It is not a free handout for doing nothing. People giving up jobs and staying home and doing nothing is serving a purpose of not spreading the virus. People should be compensated for that service.

Yep that is part of Yang's policy. Human value vs economic value. Right now our economy doesn't value human life. A stay at home parent who looks after the kids is judged as 0 economic value but raising productive children provides great value to society.

For today... as a human you are very valuable if you stay the hell home.

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

#150

Post by tialaramex »

wenc wrote: post #101
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…

Under normal circumstances, we could make it opt-in. This was a stipulation of Andrew Yang's UBI policy. It could be argued that under current circumstances, creating an opt-in mechanism might increase administrative complexity. That said, I imagine you still need a simple mechanism to figure out eligibility. Do non-citizens qualify? Permanent residents? Short-term visitors? International students? Only people with S…

"Opt-in" systems have disappointing levels of people who need the benefit but are too proud or scared to claim.

Where possible avoid this problem and give the benefit to absolutely everybody. The administration is simpler, it will get to all those who need it, and if you become concerned Bill Gates is getting too much free childcare or whatever, feel free to increase his taxes accordingly.

Post reply on HN