
Ask HN: Would the economy be better off with $18,126.88 per person - throwaway_jobs
Tomorrow the government will likely pass a stimulus bill that could pay each person in the US (based on a pop. of 331M) $18,126.88 each.<p>Some taxpayers will receive direct payments, up to $1,200, and the rest is going to businesses and the Fed.<p>Would the economy not sort itself out quicker and it be more equitable for law makers to give people to funds?
======
Someone1234
Apples and oranges comparison.

While individual citizens are getting "free cash," businesses are getting low
interest loans that need to be repaid. A lot of the rest is going to emergency
agencies, hospitals, and states.

So if the question is: "Instead of loaning businesses money to stay afloat,
funding emergency agencies, hospitals, and states we just give each citizen
tons of free money while ignoring everything else?" My answer is an easy "no."
That makes no sense.

The only way this question makes sense is if you know nothing about the
stimulus bill.

~~~
bb88
Let's be fair here, this is not a stimulus bill. This is a "stay afloat" bill
to keep the US running. Stimulus bills don't include emergency funds to keep
hospitals running.

Let's try this, instead of assuming the questioner must be ignorant about
something or other, how about taking the question head on. And by that I'm
assuming he's asking the following:

"Is it better to give money to businesses or people in time of economic
crisis?"

------
joejohnson
Yes, I think that would be a much more equitable way to stimulate the economy.
That, or loan/debt forgiveness programs, would benefit poor and working people
over large corporations and their boards.

Matt Stoller has covered this legislation on his blog, and has much more
detail on how this bill is a massive coup for many large corporations:
[https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/stop-the-6-trillion-
coron...](https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/stop-the-6-trillion-coronavirus-
corporate)

------
Proziam
Simplest solutions are usually best in cases like this. As such, paying out
the sums directly to the people is definitely a viable solution.

However, I prefer a different solution because $1200 isn't enough to cover the
_rent_ for a lot of people, let alone all their necessary costs of living.

I would propose a freeze on all the obvious payments like rent, mortgages, all
types of loans, utilities, and insurances. Then I'd give everyone $200 a
person for food, and guarantee the businesses that are affected by the
aforementioned freeze loans to cover the gap.

This covers people regardless of their cost of living so fewer people get
wiped out by bad timing. Of course, it doesn't have the benefit of saving
large companies from their irresponsible financial management policies, so it
would never pass. [0]Nor does it guarantee all the _obvious partisan garbage_
that was being pushed during the negotiations.

[0] “This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our
vision,” Majority Whip James Clyburn
(D-S.C.)[https://thehill.com/homenews/house/488543-house-democrats-
ey...](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/488543-house-democrats-eyeing-much-
broader-phase-3-stimulus)

------
gok
Where did you hear it's a $6 trillion stimulus? It's $2T, much of which is
loans, not grants.

------
cycrutchfield
Why are you equating loans with cash?

------
morninglight
Thousands of people will be killed by the corona virus and many more will have
their lives torn apart. However a few will make a killing with high-frequency
trading on the US stock markets. Maybe this is the time to slow the markets
down and require stocks to be held for _at least_ 48 hours before they can be
sold. There is enough turmoil in daily life that we should consider adding
some stabilty. Why would anyone think high-frequency trading would benefit a
society in this situation?

------
dumbfounder
There is no perfect answer, and ideally you would need to do case-by-case for
every person And business. But that’s not feasible. We want people to have
jobs when this is over so that’s why the money is going to the businesses, to
keep them open. Otherwise we have people with money for a while and then
businesses die and there are no jobs for people to go back to.

------
jerome-jh
Banks are cash multipliers. When they receive 1€, they lend 7€. Speaking for
EU. The ratio may be higher in the US.

That's why the Fed gets so much, because then it lends to banks, banks lend to
businesses and to individuals, usually at a somewhat higher interest rate.

------
steveeq1
That stimulus bill is going to cause hyperinflation.

~~~
viklove
If you give everyone money, the hyperinflation only affects the richest, aka
billionaires. Who gives a shit about them? They'll be fine.

~~~
robjan
A billionaire doesn't care when the price of a loaf of bread increases by 10%
and, in any case, the money will eventually trickle up to the billionaire.

~~~
viklove
Are you seriously saying we can't produce enough food to feed our populace in
the US? That's not the issue. The issue is that we're willfully keeping it out
of the hands of hungry people because of our "economic system."

The purpose of our economy is clearly not to feed people, it's to enrich the
wealthiest among us.

