>It was also controversial from the beginning, with the Right raising moral hazard arguments that it would encourage people to become and remain unemployed, as if that were an option for most recipients.
I don't get it -- you're talking like the concern was dubious, even as we see that prediction came exactly true.[2] And yes, not seeking re-employment, or not asking to return to work is an option; see all the stories about employers being unable to get employees to return to work because they'd take an income cut [1].
And, to be sure, that may be the desired outcome, that people stay away from work while receiving some income, so as to mitigate the epidemic risk, while preserving financial security. That's a fair argument to make. But the moral hazard concern was 100% correct, that it would layer on an extreme disincentive to work that overcorrects well beyond the incentives we might actually want.
>Federal spending doesn't come from money laying around, in the first place, it comes from money the government decides to have because it wants to spend it. Even if you buy into the mythology of the fisc, marginal spending comes out of borrowing at, typically, very low interest rates (currently, IIRC, at negative real interest rates),
It's true that the federal government can borrow on favorable terms and so it's probably prudent to borrow now for epidemic mitigation -- especially at negative nominal rates! -- but that doesn't make it "myth" that the federal government is not some infinite pot of real resources that will be able to indefinitely cover these expenses; eventually they have to hit a wall. We can debate where that point will be, but it's not mythical.
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/baltimore-restaurant-owner-cant-get...
[2] Even on HN, it was like pulling teeth just to suggest this was a real effect to worry about; see this thread where I tried to point out the effect: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22640082
