Why not print $50 Trillion and send out $15,000 checks?

RonPaul2020 wrote:

Obviously these are sound economic principles. If the government stimulus was inconsequential and necessary why stop at 6 trillion?

How about annually we do this same thing?

Good idea for the Democrat Convention!

Appealing concept for the typical publicly educated voter who can put a condom on a cucumber - but is not well versed in history, math or economics.

coronasceptic wrote:

RonPaul2020 wrote:

Obviously these are sound economic principles. If the government stimulus was inconsequential and necessary why stop at 6 trillion?

How about annually we do this same thing?

Good idea for the Democrat Convention!

Appealing concept for the typical publicly educated voter who can put a condom on a cucumber - but is not well versed in history, math or economics.

If/when there are negative consequences of this multi-trillion dollar rescue spending actions, do not blame Democrats. trump & mcconnell are leading the way. Pelosi is hardly do this spending on her own.

They scam artists in the govt office need half the people living pay check to pay check, or else their scam doesnt go the way it's intended.

Who said the government stimulus was inconsequential? It will put pressure on inflation and accrue interest as it is financed, but the hope is that those costs are less than the cost of not doing it.

How much does an oil change cost? If you’re going to own a car, it costs negative the price of a new engine minus $30.

I love how people grab one sound bite idea, or a few from a few people, then contort them into some “point” or conclusion that is socially deemed definitive.

djfjdjdj wrote:

Who said the government stimulus was inconsequential? It will put pressure on inflation and accrue interest as it is financed, but the hope is that those costs are less than the cost of not doing it.

How much does an oil change cost? If you’re going to own a car, it costs negative the price of a new engine minus $30.

I love how people grab one sound bite idea, or a few from a few people, then contort them into some “point” or conclusion that is socially deemed definitive.

You are right. All I'm hearing coming out of Washington and the corporate press is economic theory, and the consequences of central banking. Everyone is giving us the straight facts about what our monetary policy is all about.

Ultimately the economy is what we say it is. Economies serve the citizens, and remember that 'the economy' is not a person but rather a system. Did the numbers make sense in the massive run up and execution of WWII? You would poop your pants to see some of the deficits those years.

Remember too that the Fed isn't borrowing from some external source, but is borrowing essentially from itself. The interest rates for such nation-state borrowing can be whatever we say it will be.

Lastly, in a worldwide pandemic, in which EVERY country's economy is being crushed, name me an economy that you would rather be a part of in terms of the recovery to come. There will be pain, but the US economy is the largest and most dynamic one in the world by far. It's riddled with problems and inequities, but so is every other economy, and none of them will fare better, or even as well, as the US in coming days.

RonPaul2020 wrote:

Obviously these are sound economic principles. If the government stimulus was inconsequential and necessary why stop at 6 trillion?

How about annually we do this same thing?

Would you like a real answer or are you trying to make a silly point with bad math?

1) sending everyone a $15k check would only cost ~$5 trillion. the biggest problem with the current stimulus is that for every $1 that goes to people who need it, $4 is corporate bailouts because it wouldn't pass otherwise.

2) from a practical standpoint none of the money is 'printed' it's mostly imaginary. Yes, adding a bunch more imaginary money to circulation could have some consequences. Mostly, some significant inflation. Assuming there is $20 trillion imaginary dollars currently in circulation it would theoretically cause 25% inflation.

3) This would effectively be a 20% tax on everyone's cash holdings (plus all US Dollars held by foreign investors). So assuming you have cash holdings of $75k or less you would break even or benefit. Most physical assets would see a corresponding increase in value due to inflation ex. a $400k house would now be worth$500k, but from a practical standpoint the real value wouldn't change. If you are carrying a $380k fixed rate mortgage though, now you have $120k in equity and your payment would stay flat so net win.

4) Big losers would be corporations with large cash holdings who's cash would be much less valuable.

5) There would be some pretty significant changes in prices of goods/services/wages etc to reset to the new market conditions. You could assume there would be an across the board 25% increase in general, but it would really reset market conditions and people would buy differently, some people might quit certain jobs some jobs may come back to the US from China or go to other countries.

6) All stocks on the NYSE probably lost close to $10 trillion in value over the course of a bad week and the current stimulus package is already adding more than $5 trillion, but it's 90% going to prop up the NYSE/Nasdaq. Adding another $5 trillion wouldn't really have a big impact, but giving that money to people who need it would fundamentally change a lot of things.

Give everyone $100,000 for all the trouble the government & CDC has caused being asleep on the job back in December when things were developing in China. If they were on the ball they could have "nipped this in the bud" and none of this would have happened.

I don't know how much 100k would cost - maybe 50 trillion? 50...60...70 trillion - it doesn't matter though, because the Federal Reserve can create money out of thin air by just pushing numbers on a computer.

Since all the big companies and their greedy CEOs went to "The Hill" with their hands open for multi-billion dollar bailouts, we the regular folks, should get more dough than a paltry 1200 bucks. ?

This economy is such a house of card. Massive debt, low interest rates that discourage any saving, a stock market that is nonsensical and based on current conditions should probably be at 12k-15k, massive surge in unemployment that doesn't send the market down? None of it makes any sense, it will all come crashing down at some point.

0/10.

Not remotely clever or original.

Timmy Treadwell wrote:

This economy is such a house of card. Massive debt, low interest rates that discourage any saving, a stock market that is nonsensical and based on current conditions should probably be at 12k-15k, massive surge in unemployment that doesn't send the market down? None of it makes any sense, it will all come crashing down at some point.

So True.

To add to this, in the 2008 financial crash, the US Government rushed to the aid of companies that failed at capitalism when those same companies had been expounding the "free market economy capitalism" idea. They should have been allowed to fail and the recovery would have been initially harsh, but long term it would be more healthy. Instead, we continued down the same stupid path of free money (zero interest) to corporation that they used for stock buybacks with little investing in future growth via equipment or labor force. At the same time, they continued outsourcing and offshoring assets (Irish Corp. anyone?) to lower costs and avoid paying taxes into the system that allowed them to live.

Now we have a glitch in the system and we see just what a house of cards it is. And we see just how quickly the capitalists come running to the government for a bailout. Of course they get it because they installed the politicians with massive political spending to ensure that.

As someone else stated, money directly to the people is what the government should be doing. But since the politicians were installed with corporate money, that is never going to happen.

This is why we vote. More people need to take it seriously and look for candidates that actually represent the American people.

This while thing is croney capitalism. Nothing a billionaire loves more than welfare! And the US GOVT will always oblige.

There are real consequences to these policies. This whole economy will have such mighty fall soon that it will echo through the next 500 years of world history.

RonPaul2020 wrote:

This while thing is croney capitalism. Nothing a billionaire loves more than welfare! And the US GOVT will always oblige.

There are real consequences to these policies. This whole economy will have such mighty fall soon that it will echo through the next 500 years of world history.

Well luckily your limp, sarcastic argument has made me see the truth!

economono wrote:

RonPaul2020 wrote:

This while thing is croney capitalism. Nothing a billionaire loves more than welfare! And the US GOVT will always oblige.

There are real consequences to these policies. This whole economy will have such mighty fall soon that it will echo through the next 500 years of world history.

Well luckily your limp, sarcastic argument has made me see the truth!

Thanks for clicking!

Voluntary human interaction- a concept libertarians take seriously.

It’s a temporary plan to get through a temporary situation.

And you have right idea that it isn’t enough.

But more needs to be given to those who have lost income through this.

But none of this replaces commerce which is needed to survive long term.

We know we need food, so we keep anything related to the supply chain of food open.

We also want everything else. People want to earn.

The money is to incentivize people to not work right now to get add the spread of the virus.

coronasceptic wrote:

RonPaul2020 wrote:

Obviously these are sound economic principles. If the government stimulus was inconsequential and necessary why stop at 6 trillion?

How about annually we do this same thing?

Good idea for the Democrat Convention!

Appealing concept for the typical publicly educated voter who can put a condom on a cucumber - but is not well versed in history, math or economics.

Ah. Clearly, you are the one not well versed in the history. The only Presidents who have given out free checks are Republican. And it is the Republican state of Alaska that pays people to move their. Handing out checks has never been a Democrat policy.

If running 100 miles a week is better than running 50 miles a week then clearly running 200 miles would be better still.

Or maybe it's more complicated than that.

America IS running 200 mile weeks when 80 would be fine. And they are ingesting every dangerous substance to maintain these 200 mile weeks. But yeah it can't fail, never.

RonPaul2020 wrote:

Obviously these are sound economic principles. If the government stimulus was inconsequential and necessary why stop at 6 trillion?

How about annually we do this same thing?

Because you don't understand basic economics or history, that's why.