Helicopter Money - is it time?

[David_N]

It's an incredibly silly way to try (and fail) to accomplish that. If you want to increase the amount o f money people have to spend, stop taking it away from them... What you propose is wealth re-distribution by way of gov't force and nothing else.

Why is it silly? Giving more money to the poor/middle class, which will no doubt be spent, will increase demand.
What part of "helicopter money" involves wealth redistribution?

 

[faithful_servant]

Who disagreed?

If it's spent, yes. Which is why we need to get money into the hands of the poor, the people who currently can't save and will spend all of their income. Tax cuts for the rich, the people who already save quite a lot, will simply go straight into savings.

We do? I never said that.

So wealth re-distribution by way of gov't force??? take money form the rich and give it to the poor so that they can continue to work MW jobs, shop WM's Chinese made goods and end up right where they started. Or you can allow the job creators to be competitive and create more better paying jobs and end up with more poor people having more money to spend that they EARN instead of being given it, giving that money more personal value than money that's given to them. And yes, giving people tax cuts that get offset by tax increases on the wealthy is giving them money. Trying to parse that out any other way is just semantics....

 

[Gimmesometruth]

It's an incredibly silly way to try (and fail) to accomplish that. If you want to increase the amount o f money people have to spend, stop taking it away from them... What you propose is wealth re-distribution by way of gov't force and nothing else.

"them"...in your argument...are the top 1%. The top 1% cannot spend enough of their wealth, nor will they. They have been the largest, far and away, recipient of favorable tax policy since 1979. They are the only ones to have seen greater than 3% in income gains YOY since 1979.

 

[faithful_servant]

Why is it silly? Giving more money to the poor/middle class, which will no doubt be spent, will increase demand.
What part of "helicopter money" involves wealth redistribution?

Because that money came from somewhere and that "somewhere" is the wealthy (YOUR WORDS). This silliness is nothing than liberals being generous with other people's money.

 

[faithful_servant]

"them"...in your argument...are the top 1%. The top 1% cannot spend enough of their wealth, nor will they. They have been the largest, far and away, recipient of favorable tax policy since 1979. They are the only ones to have seen greater than 3% in income gains YOY since 1979.

..and without those favorable tax policies, how much worse would things be today??? Now post some examples of a couple of huge companies that are hoarding money and ignore the massive numbers of companies that are spending money like crazy to increase sales, market share and profits.

 

[David_N]

So wealth re-distribution by way of gov't force??? take money form the rich and give it to the poor so that they can continue to work MW jobs, shop WM's Chinese made goods and end up right where they started. Or you can allow the job creators to be competitive and create more better paying jobs and end up with more poor people having more money to spend that they EARN instead of being given it, giving that money more personal value than money that's given to them. And yes, giving people tax cuts that get offset by tax increases on the wealthy is giving them money. Trying to parse that out any other way is just semantics....

So wealth re-distribution by way of gov't force???

I. Never. Said. This. I don't want higher taxes for anybody.

take money form the rich and give it to the poor so that they can continue to work MW jobs, shop WM's Chinese made goods and end up right where they started.

Who wants to take money from the rich? Not me or Bernanke.

Or you can allow the job creators to be competitive and create more better paying jobs

High profits, plenty of competition, still a lack of better paying jobs. Wages have been stagnant for decades. Sales create jobs, which stems from demand.

end up with more poor people having more money to spend that they EARN instead of being given it

The private sector can never get us to full employment on its own, so you support a job guarantee? Sounds like a plan.

, giving people tax cuts that get offset by tax increases on the wealthy is giving them money.

Except the tax increases on the wealthy aren't going to happen in this scenario.

a broad-based tax cut combined with money creation by the central bank to finance the cut.

What tools does the Fed have left? Part 3: Helicopter money | Brookings Institution

 

[Gimmesometruth]

So wealth re-distribution by way of gov't force??? take money form the rich and give it to the poor so that they can continue to work MW jobs, shop WM's Chinese made goods and end up right where they started. Or you can allow the job creators to be competitive and create more better paying jobs and end up with more poor people having more money to spend that they EARN instead of being given it, giving that money more personal value than money that's given to them. And yes, giving people tax cuts that get offset by tax increases on the wealthy is giving them money. Trying to parse that out any other way is just semantics....

It doesn't end with just redistribution, it continues with some of that wealth capture via taxation being channeled into state education, both k12 and colleges. A renewed focus on R&D, infrastructure.

 

[cpwill]

Absolutely!!!

This time we need to do it right. Just imagine what 15-20 Trillion dollars of spending would do for our economy!! We'd all be rich, I tell you. RICH!!!!!

We'll be as rich as Zimbabweans!!!! Huzzah!!!

 

[David_N]

Because that money came from somewhere and that "somewhere" is the wealthy (YOUR WORDS). This silliness is nothing than liberals being generous with other people's money.

Because that money came from somewhere

Thin air, like all newly created money. Banks loan, which creates money, or a government spends past tax receipts.

"somewhere" is the wealthy

Not my words. Quote me.

 

[David_N]

We'll be as rich as Zimbabweans!!!! Huzzah!!!

Don't you love it when will continues to bring up a country that decimated its supply?

 

[David_N]

We'll be as rich as Zimbabweans!!!! Huzzah!!!

Yeah, we're definitely going to experience hyperinflation any day now! :roll:

 

[Gimmesometruth]

..and without those favorable tax policies, how much worse would things be today???

You have it backwards, we would have been closer to the economy of 45-75.

Now post some examples of a couple of huge companies that are hoarding money and ignore the massive numbers of companies that are spending money like crazy to increase sales, market share and profits.

Productive investment continues to drop, investment in mergers and acquisitions has continued to grow, a concentrating of business, monopoly/monopsony.

 

[David_N]

You have it backwards, we would have been closer to the economy of 45-75.Productive investment continues to drop, investment in mergers and acquisitions has continued to grow, a concentrating of business, monopoly/monopsony.

investment in mergers and acquisitions has continued to grow

We need more of this according to supply siders.

 

[jaeger19]

We need more of this according to supply siders.

And demand siders as well.

 

[David_N]

And demand siders as well.

Wait, people who want an increase in demand want more mergers to occur?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Wait, people who want an increase in demand want more mergers to occur?

Don't feed the troll.

 

[Fenton]

Uh, Japan has the same economy and demographics.....as the US. Good to know.

Exactly, fiscal stimulus is a ideological solution not meant to address any substantial underlying issues that are causing stagnation.

 

[jaeger19]

Wait, people who want an increase in demand want more mergers to occur?

Yep. Maybe they don't realize it.. but its generally the consequence of demand side.

 

[Fenton]

You have it backwards, we would have been closer to the economy of 45-75.Productive investment continues to drop, investment in mergers and acquisitions has continued to grow, a concentrating of business, monopoly/monopsony.

Investors and corporations responding to foolish Progressive policies ?

No !

California lost 9,000 business HQs and expansions, mostly to Texas, seven-year study says - Dallas Business Journal

 

[David_N]

Investors and corporations responding to foolish Progressive policies ?

No !

California lost 9,000 business HQs and expansions, mostly to Texas, seven-year study says - Dallas Business Journal

Dang, I made a post predicting this.

 

[David_N]

Yep. Maybe they don't realize it.. but its generally the consequence of demand side.

Explain how increasing consumer spending leads to more mergers.

 

[jaeger19]

Explain how increasing consumer spending leads to more mergers.

Its the way in which you demand siders try to increase consumer spending that leads to consolidation.

 

[David_N]

Its the way in which you demand siders try to increase consumer spending that leads to consolidation.

... What?

 

[jaeger19]

... What?

Did I stutter? Its the way in which demand siders try to increase consumer spending that often leads to consolidation.

 

[David_N]

Did I stutter? Its the way in which demand siders try to increase consumer spending that often leads to consolidation.

Which way do you refer to?