By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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:

S.T.A.G.E. said:

The level of inflation would go through the bloody roof. It would only make buying things get worse because their purchasing power would actually decrease. If they could actually account for every dollar given this wouldnt be much of an issue to me but it is quite questionable indeed.

Hate to double-post, but there are WAY too many people saying this will cause inflation not to comment.

Inflation is caused when new money is introduced into the system (printing) without removing old money. In this scenario, extra money wouldn't have to be printed. Here's why:

We spend more than the next seven biggest military spenders in the world combined. If we reduced that to even as much as the next three biggest military spenders we would have our money. Moving to a single-payer health care system would save us billions. Legalizing weed would cut down on the cost of the war on drugs as well as increased revenue from newly taxed products already being sold on the black market. Returning to more sensible tax codes where those individuals (single-persons) that benefit most from our infrastructure (the biggest earners) would pay more than they currently do in taxes towards the economy. Closing loopholes that allow corporations to pay little or no taxes, and hide money overseas, would also lower the deficit.

Doing all of these things together would provide enough revenue to generate a surplus, which could be used for basic universal income -- which would in-turn stimulate the economy. 



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

Latest Video: Top 12: Best Games on the N64 - Special Features, Episode 7

Around the Network

They should do this in the US too!

...then I'll spend it all on Japanese stuff hehehe.



NNID: Zephyr25 / PSN: Zephyr--25 / Switch: SW-4450-3680-7334

Pemalite said:
GProgrammer said:

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.

Brazil also got "unscathed" from 2008 crysis with lowered interest ratio and incetivized consumption... all that made we take the biggest recession ever after 6 years of that.

So debt isn't a good solution.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

StuOhQ said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

The level of inflation would go through the bloody roof. It would only make buying things get worse because their purchasing power would actually decrease. If they could actually account for every dollar given this wouldnt be much of an issue to me but it is quite questionable indeed.

Hate to double-post, but there are WAY too many people saying this will cause inflation not to comment.

Inflation is caused when new money is introduced into the system (printing) without removing old money. In this scenario, extra money wouldn't have to be printed. Here's why:

We spend more than the next seven biggest military spenders in the world combined. If we reduced that to even as much as the next three biggest military spenders we would have our money. Moving to a single-payer health care system would save us billions. Legalizing weed would cut down on the cost of the war on drugs as well as increased revenue from newly taxed products already being sold on the black market. Returning to more sensible tax codes where those individuals (single-persons) that benefit most from our infrastructure (the biggest earners) would pay more than they currently do in taxes towards the economy. Closing loopholes that allow corporations to pay little or no taxes, and hide money overseas, would also lower the deficit.

Doing all of these things together would provide enough revenue to generate a surplus, which could be used for basic universal income -- which would in-turn stimulate the economy. 

One of the causes of inflation may be money printing. But it isn't the only one. Brazil had over 6% inflation without really printing more money.

Inflation also comes from increase of salaries without increase in productivity (mandatory raises) because the companies have to rollback that cost to the price of products. It also comes from increase in costs from taxes or controlled prices.

And people getting money they didn't fight to get propelling expenditures will shift the balance of price x demand, making the products go higher in price.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

That is Dem/Lib math at work...spend 2.9 Trillion a month and get 2.5 Trillion in value back. But all the poor folks have more money to buy cigs, beer and weed.



Around the Network
StuOhQ said:

Hate to double-post, but there are WAY too many people saying this will cause inflation not to comment.

Inflation is caused when new money is introduced into the system (printing) without removing old money. In this scenario, extra money wouldn't have to be printed. Here's why:

We spend more than the next seven biggest military spenders in the world combined. If we reduced that to even as much as the next three biggest military spenders we would have our money. Moving to a single-payer health care system would save us billions. Legalizing weed would cut down on the cost of the war on drugs as well as increased revenue from newly taxed products already being sold on the black market. Returning to more sensible tax codes where those individuals (single-persons) that benefit most from our infrastructure (the biggest earners) would pay more than they currently do in taxes towards the economy. Closing loopholes that allow corporations to pay little or no taxes, and hide money overseas, would also lower the deficit.

Doing all of these things together would provide enough revenue to generate a surplus, which could be used for basic universal income -- which would in-turn stimulate the economy. 

That's because it WILL cause inflation, money just doesn't spontaneously come with value ... (we literally don't have enough bank notes to pull this stunt, ~$1.5T of cash vs handing out over $2.5T every year)

All of these suggestions are feeble attempts ... (The cost of war on drugs is negligible and has benefits of preventing chronic illnesses too caused by illicit drug abuse, that is to say we're actually saving US healthcare if we criminalize drugs.) 

Lowering military spending is a bad idea since china is more likely to invade either Taiwan, Japan or South Korea ... 



I'd be for this idea if they get rid of other handouts like Food stamps, HUD, etc...



RolStoppable said:
Something like this has to happen at some point because the progress of automation is going to lead to fewer available jobs while the creation of new job opportunities isn't going to keep pace. There are always going to be unemployed, but such a system would eliminate a lot of bureaucracy and at the same time secure a minimum standard for living for everyone.

You would have people who are content with such a standard because they lack the desire to be productive and don't have any real goals in life, but that's not too different from how things are now. Most people would still want to work because they desire a higher standard for living.

Of course, if this would be put up for a vote, the majority of people would vote against it, simply because there's an assumption that it would allow leeches of the society to benefit.

Yeah but automation is still fairly underdeveloped to support the idea of a post-scarcity economy so we aren't ready yet ... 

The best way to fight unemployment once the time comes is to raise educational standards as K-12 isn't going to cut it anymore in the relative near future since robots will do most of the jobs both better and cheaper the group is capable of ...



It would be cool to print money, give it to everyone but if you do this in reality there will be inflation. The stock market is inflated even though the earnings from companies are stagnated because central banks print money and buy stocks, resulting in this record highs dow index.



RolStoppable said:
Something like this has to happen at some point because the progress of automation is going to lead to fewer available jobs while the creation of new job opportunities isn't going to keep pace.

I always thought Austrians were the only one's who understood economics.

Do you have any examples of technological progress destroying more jobs than it created? 



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!