Quantcast
A $1,000 per month cash handout would grow the U.S economy by $2.5 trillion, new study says

Forums - General Discussion - A $1,000 per month cash handout would grow the U.S economy by $2.5 trillion, new study says

Tagged games:

Cobretti2 said:
In 2008 when the GFC hit our stupid Gov did two hand outs which totaled 40Billion (a lot for Australia lol). 9 years later and we are still paying for it through taxes. Most people either paid some of their debt off with a bank, the refugees sent the money back home as they get government handouts weekly anyway and those who spent it bought TVs abd stimulate Samsung and SOny' profits lol,

Yet the facts are, unlike practically every other western country Australia did not suffer the economic crisis of 2008.

Was it solely due to the cash handout? I doubt it, but I think it was a big reason why Australias economy didnt suffer like most other estern economies.

I cant find many graphs that illustrate it but heres one, you will see Australia did not go into the negative, unlike USA,germany,france,UK etc etc

Perhaps during the next financial crisis other countries will follow a similar stimulus package, as it seemed to of worked out better



Around the Network

I keep hoping some other country will take the plunge so we can see how it plays out over the course of a decade lol; I'd like to see how it works (or doesn't).

This study was politically motivated, so it's essentially worthless; any "study" can utilize whatever figures they like to in order to come to their desired conclusion.

It's not terribly different philosophically from the use of stimulus packages in the past, which have generally had mixed results. Perhaps if it was more sustained it could help, but it would require a rather serious increase in government funding that I sincerely doubt it coming anytime soon.



Johnw1104 said:
I keep hoping some other country will take the plunge so we can see how it plays out over the course of a decade lol; I'd like to see how it works (or doesn't).

This study was politically motivated, so it's essentially worthless; any "study" can utilize whatever figures they like to in order to come to their desired conclusion.

It's not terribly different philosophically from the use of stimulus packages in the past, which have generally had mixed results. Perhaps if it was more sustained it could help, but it would require a rather serious increase in government funding that I sincerely doubt it coming anytime soon.

Maybe this one? https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/richard-nixon-ubi-basic-income-welfare/






ArchangelMadzz said:
Doesn't matter how much research. studies or anything indicate that this is a good idea. No matter what country implements it and it works.

There is no way this culture is accepting it and that's quite sad.

This is the comment you're talking about? None of what I said earlier proves anything here. It's only a good idea if you cherry pick the good shit while not showing any of the bad effects.

ArchangelMadzz said:
Aeolus451 said:

Weird idea?

The study didn't account for practicality or common sense. As of 2016, there's 249,485,228 adults in the US. If you give them each $1000 per month.... 249,485,228 X $1000 = $249+ billion per month X 12 = nearly 3 trillion dollars per year.

Where's that money gonna come from?

I'm saying "fuck that" because it's a fucking stupid idea because it wouldn't work in the REAL world.

 

There is literally no evidence in the world that would convince you of this, which further proves my first comment. 

But of course out of everyone that worked on this study, none of them could do math. 

There is no objective evidence of this being a good idea or study that actually examined it completely. They didn't point out how much it would cost a government or the wide ranging effects of that cost would have on the government and people. The study is a farce which actual purpose is to misconstrue the effects of the government giving alot of money away. It's just propaganda. 

Propaganda.

Noun.

1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.

3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.



Hopefully one day there will be a party that cares about all of us



Around the Network
Groundking said:
theprof00 said:
It is basically the equivalent of lowering taxes for the lower and middle class.
Modern conservatives would never be on board with this, despite that conservatives pushed for welfare because giving money to people actually does increase the economy.

Only in terms of numbers, in terms of standard of living you actually stay the same (if not fall backwards) as the money has to come from somewhere else to be given in the first place.

The idea was that it was going to be written into debt, not come from another taxpayer.



GProgrammer said:
Cobretti2 said:
In 2008 when the GFC hit our stupid Gov did two hand outs which totaled 40Billion (a lot for Australia lol). 9 years later and we are still paying for it through taxes. Most people either paid some of their debt off with a bank, the refugees sent the money back home as they get government handouts weekly anyway and those who spent it bought TVs abd stimulate Samsung and SOny' profits lol,

Yet the facts are, unlike practically every other western country Australia did not suffer the economic crisis of 2008.

Was it solely due to the cash handout? I doubt it, but I think it was a big reason why Australias economy didnt suffer like most other estern economies.

I cant find many graphs that illustrate it but heres one, you will see Australia did not go into the negative, unlike USA,germany,france,UK etc etc

Perhaps during the next financial crisis other countries will follow a similar stimulus package, as it seemed to of worked out better

You are correct. Australia did not enter a recession during the Financial Crisis.

The Governments big spend up on improving schools, roads, telecommunications and energy was a massive part of that... Which benefitted everyone.
Plus the lump sum handout to low/middle class Australians.

Which was in stark contrast to many other countries that were lowering Interest Rates to 0%, reducing tax rates for big business and the rich, spending 10's of Billions bailing out companies, providing interest free government loans and the such which really didn't amount to much. And why was that?
Because if consumers aren't spending, they aren't spending. - Propping up businesses doesn't change that.

In the end, Australia made the right choices to avoid a massive recession, the handing out of money to people was a part of that, which got people into stores.
China's addiction to our resources also helped significantly as well... And we have a very tightly regulated financial market as well, which helped to avoid this very issue.

However, not everything is peaches and cream at the moment though. At the moment our housing market is in a massive bubble... Our housing markets debt rate is almost equivalent to our GDP.
http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/

*****

Socialism in moderation is also not a bad thing either.
It has it's advantages and disadvantages... Which we have leveraged to our betterment and has given us as a nation some of the best living standards in the world.
It has allowed us to have a healthcare system that is superior to the USA's for a lower cost for instance.



People seem to always miss the point that money redirected to the bottom is almost universally spent, flowing back into the economy. It's wealth being held at the top that stagnates markets.




Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: More than Just a Genesis? Analogue Mega SG Review

Would be better if they picked 1,000 random businesses and just handed out gift cards to those places that you cannot cash out.

Also this is not surprising, give out money, people buy stuff.



    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter

konnichiwa said:
FunFan said:
I bet this "study" was made by millennials XD

Honestly the socialist talk is a bit silly because Nixon had almost created a form of basic income:

First, however, Nixon needed some evidence. Tens of millions of dollars were budgeted to provide a basic income for more than 8,500 Americans in cities around the country. The researchers wanted to answer three questions: (1) Would people work significantly less with a guaranteed income?; (2) Would the program cost too much?; and (3) Would it prove politically unfeasible?

The answers were no, no, and maybe.

Working-hour reductions were low across the board. “The ‘laziness’ contention is just not supported by our findings,” the chief data analyst of the Denver experiment said. “There is not anywhere near the mass defection the prophets of doom predicted.” The decline in paid work averaged 9 percent per family, mostly attributable to twenty-somethings and women with young children.

Later research showed that even the 9 percent finding was probably too high. The original study calculated the percentage from self-reported income.

When researchers compared the self-reported figures with official government records, they discovered that most participants underreported their income. After correcting for this discrepancy, the researchers discovered that the number of hours worked had scarcely decreased at all.

“[The] declines in hours of paid work were undoubtedly compensated in part by other useful activities, such as search for better jobs or work in the home,” noted the Seattle experiment’s concluding report.

One mother earned a degree in psychology and got a job as a researcher. Another woman took acting classes while her husband began composing music. “We’re now self-sufficient, income-earning artists,” she told the researchers. Among youth included in the experiment, almost all the hours not spent working went to education. In New Jersey, the rate of high school graduations for participants rose thirty percent.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/richard-nixon-ubi-basic-income-welfare/

@_@



“Simple minds have always confused great honesty with great rudeness.” - Sherlock Holmes, Elementary (2013).

"Did you guys expected some actual rational fact-based reasoning? ...you should already know I'm all about BS and fraudulence." - FunFan, VGchartz (2016)