
Giving Americans Money to Offset Coronavirus Impact Gains Support in Congress - spking
https://www.wsj.com/articles/giving-americans-money-to-offset-coronavirus-impact-gains-bipartisan-support-in-congress-11584446801
======
shartshooter
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 savings account until I feel we hit bottom, then invest it.

I’m not the type of person you want to give money like this to. Save it for
folks who are really living hand-to-mouth and don’t shortchange them.

~~~
tombert
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 about this.

~~~
piokoch
Why? The price of the stocks does not affect company in any way. If the
company sales are going down or clients stop coming this is an issue, stock
value is important only for those who hold/speculate using them. You company
has already got the money from selling stocks, nobody is going to take them
away.

~~~
tombert
Because if the stock price is tanking, there's an incentive to figure out how
to either a) increase profits or b) decrease spending.

Since the market is tanking, there's a likelihood that people will be spending
less, thus leading to less profits for my company; as a result, the only easy
way to keep investors happy is to reduce costs, and the easiest way to do that
is to start doing layoffs.

~~~
tomatotomato37
That only applies for long-term recession projections where the company is
seen as doing a poor job, not now where stock is down because there's a
pandemic shutting everything down and market volatility is going batshit. As
long as the company has enough cash on hand to ride the pandemic out they'd
want to retain everyone so they can ramp up again as fast as possible

~~~
tombert
Well, isn't there fear that this will lead to another full-on recession? I
could be wrong but I thought I read that somewhere.

I would very much _like_ to be wrong on this; if I am I don't have to
constantly worry about being laid off.

------
duxup
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.

~~~
abfan1127
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.

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.

Some people say, people aren't spending it, they are saving it! Thats
important too. Unless they are keeping it in their mattress, that money is
deposited in banks, which loan out the money for capital improvements, etc.

Lastly, my anecdotal experience is that "free money" tends to be squandered
more than earned money. Which means poorly allocated funds towards resources
less valuable to a strong economy.

~~~
optymizer
"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
to focus on healthcare issues, and maybe even, down the line, we find money to
improve education for the future generations.

~~~
isoskeles
We spend more on Social Security and Medicare+Medicaid. Not that we want to
use the money from either over Defense, but the notion that we spend more on
the military is a myth.

~~~
pwinnski
Money given to people benefits people. Money given to the military benefits
fewer people per dollar spent, and silly percentages of that military money is
wasted and lost.

Every dollar you take from SS/Medic* impacts a person. You could cut the
military budget by a large chunk before you'd have to actually impact a
person.

------
nimbius
hey i remember when we did this in 2008. There was a huge economic meltdown, I
just lost my job and was living out of my truck, and the Republican party
wasnt looking like a real winner in the upcoming election. So it was decided
that everyone gets a "stimulus check."

I got $700 from the Republican party...and it basically felt like $700 to keep
my mouth shut about how Bush didnt care to find Osama Bin Laden. it was a few
hundred and in return i was expected to stop complaining about how TARP bailed
out big banks but left me living in a stale coffee scented Dodge Ram. I am a
little bitter about the whole gesture but let me tell you what I spent that
money on: credit card debt.

Now here we are in 2020 and the Republican party is looking at cutting checks
for everyone again and I gotta wonder why. What is this really hoping to
achieve? Write me a check and in return I stop complaining about how my health
insurance doesnt cover a flu shot? or how the country has more prison beds
than hospital beds? That basically everything the president promised he'd do
he either ignored or buck-passed to Obama?

I dont want corona cash. I want an economy that doesnt shit the bed like
clockwork every ten years and send me out looking for handyman jobs. Id like a
healthcare system that doesnt include ambulance rides that are as expensive as
a used car.

------
reaperducer
I've heard people say this won't change anything, and that rich people will
just use it to buy gold-plated toilets while poor people will use it to buy
meth waffles.

I remember the last time everyone got checks from the government.† The $1,200
I got was enough to keep my family from living under a bridge.

There are tens of millions of people living paycheck-to-paycheck, so even if
this helps _some_ people, I'm in favor of it.

†
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008)

~~~
choward
It's funny how much people can be influenced by the media and other people
without any actual facts. Who cares what rich people do with the money? And
not everyone is poor because they are drug addicts. "If we just give everyone
money what incentive is their to work?" That's another one of my favorites.

------
Avshalom
Hey, maybe they could stop trying to kill SNAP while they're at it

[https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/presidents-
bud...](https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/presidents-budget-would-
cut-food-assistance-for-millions-and-radically)

[https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/3/13/21178257/trump-
admi...](https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/3/13/21178257/trump-
administration-food-stamps-coronavirus-economy)

~~~
Avshalom
Also the sick leave bill? pretty half assed to start with and they just made
it even more half assed.
[https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1239729011187744773.html](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1239729011187744773.html)

------
pingyong
Hmm. A lot of businesses will get into big trouble over the coming weeks and
potentially months. Bars, event organizers, even shopping malls. They're all
going to go down to almost zero profit for a while.

The problem is if you just give people money right now, they literally can't
spend it on those things because they are or will be closed during that time.
Money isn't the reason they're not going, Corona is.

The money would be spent on things that are doing well now anyway (rent, food
and netflix/videogames/etc.).

Maybe right now the focus should be on not making people homeless, but then
giving people money after the crisis so they can spend it in the industries
that are suffering right now.

~~~
mtberatwork
The workers at these establishments, especially those whose income is tied to
tips, will certainly need this extra money for rent, food, etc.

~~~
pingyong
Some absolutely will. That's not really what I'm trying to argue against,
people who would become homeless or starve should absolutely be helped.

However, a lot of people seem to be under the impression that this would boost
the economy (because the idea is that almost everyone gets money so they can
spend it instead of specifically helping with rent or food), which I don't
think it will currently, or at least it won't in a meaningful way that helps
the businesses who need it.

~~~
WarChortle18
Not yet but businesses are closed. So employees can't work and owners can't
make money. Employees still have other bills to pay.

When the businesses open people could be so indebt they aren't able to start
spending again quickly. The 1000 dollars won't boost the economy right now but
will help recover faster when things start going back to normal.

------
Zenst
Last global pandemic of most compare - the Spanish Flu, we had a society that
was savings conscious.

Past few decades have seen a turn towards interest rates so low that borrowing
over saving has prevailed.

So whilst this may help a little and more so for some, it will do nothing for
many who are debt rolling from one payday until another. That without
intervention upon loans and debt repayments over this period will cause more
chaos and impact.

Though most will need fuel, food and essentials in this time, might be better
if you had those delivered to those who are stuck and in direct need.

Otherwise, I wouldn't be supprised if ration books become norm for a period
soon. Certainly for toilet roll.

~~~
dhosek
Savings rates have been going up over the last decade. Some data is available
here: [https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/03/can-
personal-...](https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/03/can-personal-
savings-rescue-us-from-an-upcoming-recession/)

~~~
Zenst
WOW, how the interest rate can be higher than the base rate is somewhat
interesting. Meanwhile in the UK and many other places the saving interest
rate is way closer to the base rate and usually less than that.

It's almost as if you could borrow cheap and get interest higher than the
interest on the loan, alas an avenue that for many is not as easily
accessible, but if you have money, you can make money.

------
samsquire
The case for unconditional basic income has never been stronger.

Especially with disease precluding work.

~~~
seneca
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 scope of "universal" in this context. If that's
the case, I'm curious what the typical requirements for access are.

~~~
choward
> 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.

~~~
cheeseomlit
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.

~~~
sangnoir
> It's a legitimate concern.

We're in the midst of a pandemic and you still think giving
undocumented/illegal immigrants access to social programs is a bad idea? Not
doing so would seed clusters of infection that will cross over to citizens
without asking to see their papers first. I suspect even the most nativist
person in the country would agree that ICE arresting people in the ER would be
a terrible idea, based on self-preservation alone.

While you may not agree with it, the idea of discouraging people from lurking
in the shadows comes from a place of pragmatism, not kumbaya hippiness. Even
red states apply this principle to combat opiate addiction.

~~~
cheeseomlit
We should never have been in a position in the first place where we have to
care for illegal immigrants at the expense of our own population. Countries
with the most successful response to this situation locked their borders down
hard and fast. Now you're talking about illegal immigrants taking up beds in
the ER, that's going to be a priceless commodity soon that many American
citizens will probably be forced to go without.

The pragmatic thing to do would've been to protect our borders in the first
place, both in terms of illegal immigration and restricting travel when the
pandemic first began. Now that the situation is completely untenable and
there's a massive underclass of millions of untraceable illegal immigrants,
the 'pragmatic' thing to do is spend precious resources caring for them (both
in terms of healthcare and financially) at the expense of the native
population? 'Pragmatic' doesn't seem like the right word considering that line
of thought is what caused the problem in the first place.

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

~~~
Frost1x
In my opinion, it feels more like damaged image management to me.

Direct cash flow to citizens gives immediate association to the source of the
cash and helps restore faith in the current US economic system and government,
or at least makes people a little less cranky to soften the blow.

People want change and these issues are further highlighting massive systemic
problems in the US to the population at large who are already looking for
significant change.

To most, a onetime $1000 (the idea that was floating, this could be different)
may pay one months rent or part of it to some, but it's not going to help when
it comes to layoffs and downsizing businesses are sure to follow up with. To
me, the elephant in the room will be medical expenses many are sure to incur
and their associated fallout that's going to be very hard to make people
forget.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
The point is that that one month's rent may buy enough time for the economy to
stabilize.

Make no mistake, unless everything picks back up nearly instantly (aka "when
pigs fly") people will lose jobs and miss payments and be evicted and all
sorts of other bad things just like in every other downturn. The point of the
$1k (or whatever amount) is to buy a month for the COVID19 situation to
stabilize thereby minimizing the downturn, or at least that's how it works in
theory.

------
nvusuvu
Why can't we collectively say, no Americans have to pay mortgages/rent for x
months. No small/medium sized businesses have to pay business loans for x
months. Everyone focus on social distancing and making sure everyone has food
and shelter. Weather this out, and start back up after peak
infections/hospitalizations has been dealt with.

~~~
bequanna
> Why can't we collectively say, no Americans have to pay mortgages/rent for x
> months.

Who would say this? The Federal government? I'm no lawyer, but essentially,
they would be voiding hundreds of millions of contracts (?)

The Government can't just wave a wand and take an action like this. Even if
they could, I don't think you would feel very good about this 'eat the rich'
approach for long.

Think about it: Why would I as a landlord keep paying utility bills, taxes,
insurance when my tenants don't pay me rent? Why would I pay my mortgage? I
wouldn't. I would simply walk away. How long after you stop paying rent before
your apartment doesn't have running water?

The real estate market would be decimated. Banks would fail. Trillions and
trillions in value and investments destroyed. Unemployment would skyrocket.
Goodbye recession, hello depression.

A back door approach to this is a moratorium on evictions, which some states
have done. Good luck trying this approach if you're a tenant tho. If this
crises is shorter than expected, you'll shortly be evicted and carry that on
your record.

I think you're operating on the misconception that landlords and businesses
are making outsized margins and 'hoarding' wealth. To think that they somehow
would have the ability to continue providing you with services and incurring
all expenses without any income is naive.

Direct cash payments to all taxpayers is the easiest, fastest, and probably
cheapest way to achieve your goals of bailing out those at risk.

------
veeralpatel979
Just curious: will this help the economy recover, when for large parts of it
(entertainment, dining, travel, etc) the reason it's closed is due to the
virus and not due to lack of money?

------
23B1
[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/suspend-
mortgage-p...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/suspend-mortgage-
payments-and-interest-until-coronavirus-pandemic-has-passed)

3 signatures so far. If the housing market, core to our economy, can be
insulated from a crash rebuilding will be significantly easier.

~~~
baybal2
I think housing market in USA seriously needs a healthy correction to make
housing available to masses again

~~~
SilasX
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.

~~~
stagger87
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?

~~~
ed312
You have to account for the "I got mine so screw the next guy down on the
ladder" mentality. One of the _real_ cross-party political issues is just how
selfish and anti-community most Americans have become.

~~~
6gvONxR4sf7o
Another real cross-party issue is how quick people are to label other people
doing their best to make it in complex systems as selfish and immoral.

If you have a $400k mortgage on a $500k asset, and I'm proposing systemic
changes to make it worth $250k, you'll end up owing $150k more than it's
worth. If something happens and you lose your job, you're screwed. You can
sell and refinance and you'll still owe nearly as much every month as the
person who bought your newly cheaper house, but now you don't have a house.

It's not about "I got mine, fuck you" so much as "this is my life's savings
you're talking about making dramatically smaller" and "I'm super leveraged on
this asset."

------
ghouse
Corporations are owned by people. "84 percent of all stocks owned by Americans
belong to the wealthiest 10 percent of households."[0] Bailing our
corporations bails out the wealthy.

Send money to everyone equally. It's fast. It's fair. And it will quickly
increase the velocity of money. [1]

[0]
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/economy/stocks-e...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/economy/stocks-
economy.html)

[1]
[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/velocity.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/velocity.asp)

------
mythrwy
I feel we need to do something along these lines for the immediate, but at the
same time wonder if it's practically possible to give enough money to actually
matter.

To me it seems this crisis is exposing several fallacies underlying our
civilization. 1) The idea that infinite debt based economic growth is workable
long term. 2) The notion that somehow we can beat natural evolution and
selection long term with science.

Both of these ideas work very well in the narrow slice of human history we
have lived in, but longer term maybe are just fallacies.

------
eagsalazar2
Should also include suspension of residential rent payments. Otherwise renters
are accumulating debt during the crisis (at best) which will also drag the
economy and housing market down.

------
francisofascii
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.

~~~
fma
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.

------
jordanpg
The assume that form that this would actually take would likely be promised
2020 or 2021 tax credits -- anything else would be logistically too slow.

This form is only useful to people who already have cash or ready credit
available.

Not obvious to me that this would help the many millions who need cash to
spend right now.

------
lovemenot
It really needn't be about money. Neither how much, nor how distributed. A
pandemic is mostly about human behaviour, which is social.

No need to keep imagining that there is a strong causal link with money in the
short term. At least not so much as it might matter.

------
nazgulnarsil
Means testing would take too long. Don't be concerned that rich people get it
too. 1\. There are far fewer rich people 2\. Rich people just took a 20+
percent haircut, they did and are paying for it in decreased economic activity

------
sershe
This is a great idea, I just wish the government didn't make it necessary in
the first place. Or perhaps that they at least tried it before the insane
measures the Fed is taking to prop up the stock market.

------
runawaybottle
How does direct cash help the underlying problem? People can’t go outside and
do stuff. We need loans for businesses and relief for companies to weather a
pause (so layoffs and closings are mitigated).

~~~
glitcher
It is not meant to fix the underlying problem. It is meant to help those in
need buy essential items like food and medicine, and possibly even pay their
rent, but it probably won't be enough for even that when your family needs to
eat first.

I think direct cash to individuals is only one small part of the bigger
picture though. And to your point, businesses are going to need help too. It's
not a matter of choosing only one or the other path, but finding a balance
employing multiple strategies simultaneously.

------
dpcan
Chasing our own tails.

If this virus does very little to zero damage in the US, I’m afraid it will
become the worst “cry wolf” situation in the history of humanity.... when the
truly dangerous bug arrives.

~~~
unknown_library
If it does very little damage, then mission accomplished.

~~~
dpcan
Yes, I am 100% on board with this. Nothing happens is exactly what we want,
and WHY we are doing what we are doing.

But there are too many people in this world that are painfully illogical and
will think it's a "hoax" or "fake" if nothing actually happens.

------
exabrial
I think this AND the payroll tax elimination for a period of time is a one-two
punch combo. The first directly helps the people, the second keeps them
employed.

------
etxm
Honest question, not an economist. How would giving everyone money impact
inflation? Is giving money the same thing as “printing money?”

~~~
wmeredith
Giving money != printing money. If I give you $20 that doesn't mean I
fabricated the bill myself. The money could come from any numbers of places in
the vast Federal budget.

~~~
megous
The budget already has a huge deficit. They'd have to cut funding to
something, in order not to increase it further. Or they could add it to the
deficit (which means borrowing the money), and that translates to higher
inflation, pretty much, as banks create the borrowed money. Recent lowering of
the interest rates by the FED also plays into this.

I think any kind of stimulus will almost certainly translate to higher
inflation.

It's not necessarily bad. It's a bit of an equalizer. You give money to
everyone, money loses value somewhat, but only the people who have the most
money at the moment, will suffer from the inflation in absolute terms (money
received vs value of savings lost).

------
maerF0x0
Can we please get it for legal immigrants too? We pay taxes (lots!), are in
the same need and also can stimulate the economy.

------
neonate
[https://archive.md/DwZIK](https://archive.md/DwZIK)

------
msoad
Do we have the infrastructure to pay every American some amount of money?

~~~
isoskeles
Yes, we’ve done it before, near the end of Bush’s second term. Although I
believe that mainly went to adults, it would still work that way.

------
Entalpi
I am sorry but how is this a reasonable idea, instead of you know making
paternal/maternal leave state, health care system and salary insurance program
government funded?

Temporary economic injections will not transform peoples lifes nor save them
from an unsustainable lifestyle.

------
CyanLite4
Based on inventory levels at my area supermarkets, is MORE consumption really
needed right now? I could see a mortgage/rent holiday for a month or two. Just
don’t want folks going out buying a thousand dollars worth of toilet paper.

------
gigatexal
i'm gainfully employed and I would surely spend it

------
vearwhershuh
I sincerely hope they do this as debt-free greenbacks.

------
starpilot
/r/titlegore

------
9uq34aofgh
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](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/rr/rr6601a1.htm)
and appendix 5
[https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/44314](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 economically effective
intervention against the 2009 H1N1 pandemic"

Isolations only delay the peak, they don't prevent it, and the wreak havoc on
the economy. Plus all the curve flattening talk are just poorly written
computer simulations. Zero evidence it will happen.

From the paper here are the key objectives of isolation, none of which apply
to covid-19 in the USA (unless hospitals are adding tens of thousands of new
beds, respirators, and nurses in the next few weeks).

"Objective 1: To gain time for an initial assessment of transmissibility and
clinical severity of the pandemic virus in the very early stage of its
circulation in humans (closures for up to 2 weeks)

Objective 2: To slow down the spread of the pandemic virus in areas that are
beginning to experience local outbreaks and thereby allow time for the local
health care system to prepare additional resources for responding to increased
demand for health care services (closures up to 6 weeks)

Objective 3: To allow time for pandemic vaccine production and distribution
(closures up to 6 months)"

~~~
cliffy
Of course you're some newly created sock-puppet account too afraid to post
under your real handle.

COVID-19 will absolutely cause the death of millions in the US alone if proper
steps aren't taken to reduce R0. If not from the disease itself, then from
hospitals being completely overloaded.

Edit: Let's be real: lockdown/isolation is going to have to persist for at
least a month or more to have a real chance of preventing the spread to most
of the population in the US. 2 weeks is not going to cut it.

~~~
9uq34aofgh
Not a sock-puppet.

Where's the evidence isolations will flatten the curve and not just cause
another spike of cases after isolation ends?

Covid-19 isn't going to die out after a few weeks or months.

Deaths are coming from ages 70+ with severe pre-existing conditions during
non-peak hospital conditions. This is normal and nothing to panic about.

Also, do R0 values of a virus change dramatically? I thought they were set
based the number of non-vaccinated people who get infected...

~~~
cliffy
"R0 is not a biological constant for a pathogen as it is also affected by
other factors such as environmental conditions and the behaviour of the
infected population." [0]

If we hold R0 down long enough through change of behavior then we can
absolutely flatten the curve.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number)

~~~
9uq34aofgh
Thanks for the info on R0!

From wiki "What these thresholds will do is determine whether a disease will
die out (if R0 < 1) or whether it may become epidemic (if R0 > 1), but they
generally can not compare different diseases."

If seasonal flu (type-B?) has an R0 of ~1.3 can we reasonably call seasonal
flu an epidemic?

H1N1 (spanish and swine flu) is ~1.8 and had major outbreaks in 1918 and 2009.

Is it realistic to expect we can sufficiently influence covid-19 using NPIs to
achieve R0 < 1?

------
alecco
Actions have consequences. Your income and your future pension are going to
pay for this in one way or another.

~~~
tryptophan
I think this is one of these situations in which doing nothing has a higher
cost than doing something, even if that something(give people money for free)
is generally bad in most circumstances.

~~~
alecco
The goal is to make the economy to recover quickly. Fail fast, learn the
lesson, make things cheap and keep unemployment low. Or do something against
centuries of experience and see what happens.

Avoiding short-term pain by trading it for a much worse problem later is what
made us so vulnerable to a not-so-deadly virus. Zombie too big to fail banks
and corporations and a real estate market out of control. Same happened
everywhere, not just US.

------
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.

~~~
throwanem
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.

~~~
throwaway5752
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.

