Why don't we just print out money and hand it to everyone?
Before you reply, I'd like to remind you that we already print out money and hand it to the bankers all the time.
>>79914143
Sounds like a good idea, Bernie.
>>79914273
We already do it for banks though?
What makes them so special that the rules don't apply and it doesn't harm the economy?
>>79914143
The greedy Jews don't want other people to be rich.
I'm fairly certain OP is actually geniously confused on the topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic
Read this and educate yourself on how money actually works.
>>79914312
My friend...you even know what inflation is and how it happen?
>>79914143
If money is a piece of paper, why not just use a blank paper?
>>79914312
It doesn't "hurt" the economy it just makes the dollar worth less
>>79914544
so why do we print out money and hand it to the banks?
>>79914646
That money trickles down to everyone else through loans, investments, and jobs. It streamlines the process
>>79914798
Why doesn't the Government loan it to individuals themselves?
>>79914798
So what you're saying is… our primary method to stimulate the economy also conveniently bails out bankers?
How convenient, yes, very convenient.
>>79914449
Read this OP.
>>79914885
Because individuals will squander it and get dependent.
>>79914889
You would be nowhere without them so yes.
>>79914143
this is not as stupid as its sounds. google "helicopter money"
>>79915221
>Because individuals will squander it and get dependent.
If the banks aren't dependent, why do we have to constantly bail them out?
>>79914889
There's a reason we give banks money, and it's called the money multiplier effect, google it.
>>79914143
because it would lead to very high inflation
>>79915482
So why do we print money and hand it to the banks then?
>>79915517
what do you mean print it out and hand it to the banks?
>>79915517
Because it magically trickles out of my offshore accounts and down to you, goyim :A)
>>79915517
How old are you?
>>79915616
I ask this because it doesn't happen, I suspect a troll...
everyone in this thread is a retard
ITT OP just solved world hunger.
>>79915899
Nothing like Bernie math to save the world.
>>79915616
we don't give it to them, the central bank gives out loans of hard "central bank money". the trick is that the banks can again give out more loans to private partners than they received, they only have to keep a certain margin as a security. this process is called money creation and it makes the process of determining the amount of money on the market at least semi-private with strong government influence.
you can theoretically just use the shortcut and gift people money which has never been tried before. it is considered viable but controversial against the backdrop of historically low inflation rates across the world.
>>79915417
you should google it too, because the money multiplier effect only works when people save money in the bank
not when we give banks money for.. reasons
>>79914143
Good question.
When we print money to banks, it's used to lend money, which increases supply. So inflation doesn't occur because businesses are building things.
But when we print money and give it to people, it's for consumption, which increases inflation because more goods aren't being generated.
But again. That's a 10/10 question that really makes you think.
Banks actually do stuff with the money. It lowers interest rates, it gives opportunities for small businesses to grow. It grows jobs.
Giving free money to everyone makes them lazy and less hard working. I don't want people to starve, but the threat of death is the greatest motivation to succeed (Don't believe me? Have you done a bench press before?). With no threat, people stop trying to succeed.
I mean ultimately we should not be giving free money to anyone, but if I had a choice, I'd pick bankers
>>79916120
So why don't we just give the money directly to the people who produce things and cut out the middleman?
>>79916187
logistical difficulties & never been tried
>>79916120
>Good question.
stopped reading there
>>79916460
hope you saged nigger
>>79916120
>buying power doesn't increase demand, which doesn't increase production
lmao American education :^)
>>79916018
I understand how money creation works...
>>79916187
How does the government decide how much money is appropriate to give out? That's what's been going on in student loans in a Wei. Government subsidizes students. Students have more money to pay for college. Colleges raise prices because read a book on economy. Government thinks it's appropriate to give out even more money. Repeat.
If it was privatized, then not only will college prices not rise like it did, but it also makes sure that money goes to majors that produce the most money (banks want to make sure they'll get money back, so they'll be less likely to support a history major and more likely support a petroleum engineer. The government right now is equally likely to support either)
It's the same thing for business loans.
Government will eventually think it's a good idea to give a 10 million dollar loan to a video store
>>79916914
So what you're saying is…
We shouldn't be giving the banks free money and let the market figure itself out even if it might be bad at first it will be better in the long run?
>>79914143
We don't hand it to the banks, we loan it to the banks
>>79917028
That post is why we shouldn't "cut out the middle man." We subsidize education by giving federal student loans
We shouldn't be giving banks free money because it grows the amount of risky investments they make. Give a bank infinity money and it makes it no different than a government giving the loan
>>79917259
Heh. We already give them free money when we put our money into bank accounts. I believe the term is "fractional banking." Depending on this fractional rate, bank can lend out x amount of dollars despite having just a fraction of that in actual cash on hand, and somehow the government went along with this by agreeing to cover all bank accounts.
I would say government is stupid, but I've seen too much to buy that, so government is just plain malicious, because they take our taxes to do it.
It's what first turned me into an anarcho capitalist. Businesses are honest about only being in it to make a buck, but our government lies 24/7 and only pretends to represent the common man.
>>79914143
(((we)))
In a word OP, they're not interested in passing out free money. The whole point of getting wealthy is to be able to show the wealth off as a symbol of status. If you can't show off status, what's the point?
Remember, people are essentially evil, and good is the exception to the rule.
>>79917259
Well yea, the near zero interest money banks can borrow, and the almost gauranteed bailout in the event they fuck up does create a moral hazard scenario. Just giving people money is a horrible idea though.
>>79914143
Fiat currency has no commodity tied to it, nor any actual value except as a means of accepted exchange.
If you were to simply give out money, the value of money would simply decrease as clever merchants begin to speculate against the sudden flood of money.
For instance, you can actually flood the market with liquidity in Keynesian theory as the market would take time to inflate, and thus you have encouraged exchange of goods, and the money now reflects the value of increased production/trade/whathaveyou. But it must be done extremely carefully as inflation reeks havoc on savings and loans.
What honestly makes me wonder is what happens if the money that is sitting dormant in so many corporations and accounts was simply pushed into random bullshit in the economy.
Like if Berkshire Hathaway decided to just give out a million dollars to a hundred thousand people. Or if the US government completely cashed out social security and decided to spend it all on nachos.
Is the money that is not currently utilized having an effect on the market? Do businesses raise prices in accordance with unused savings?
I realise that the OP is trolling but it actually is not a terrible idea and before you all laugh at me and post bernie memes let me explain.
What OP is basically describing is a basic minimum income which is an idea that has actually been floated around and is seriously entertained by credible economists. The idea is that you to eliminate all welfare; not just social welfare like pensions and various special needs allowances, but subsidies like those on education and healthcare and goods such as fuel and food. Now that you have done that, the government has a warchest of disposal income to redistribute. This would be an unimaginably huge amount of money that could be distributed back to the population as a standard income evenly distributed among all citizens. Depending on the country, this income could approach a living wage. Of course, living expenses are likely to be higher because of the stripped away subsidies, but it could well be enough for people to scrape by. Not only that, but market forces would remain intact and there would be a huge amount of bureacracy just wiped off the face of the earth, freeing up money and labour while simultaneously reducing red tape, friction and wastage.
Like any massive upheaval, there are a number of drawbacks. One of those would be that working age people would have a reduced incentive to work and could probably sit on the couch and subsist of netflix and weed in their shithole appartment without ever having to work. But under current welfare systems this is effectively what goes on anyway, they will just have to fake fewer work diary entries and have more freedom as to how to spend their limited income. Another drawback would be the potential for inflation to gobble up those wages, but i dont really understand how inflation would work under these circumstances maybe someone can try and interpret it.
>>79914544
I think you are misunderstanding him. His idea is this.
>Under our current system we print money (say $1 trillion a year) and give it to the banks to distribute
OP is suggesting
>We print the same amount of money and directly distribute it to the population cutting out the banks as a middle man
>>79914143
Are you fucking retarded?
No seriously I would love to live in that fantasy world inside that head of yours where you think money can magically be printed and doesn't depreciate in value.
>>79914143
banksy did this in 'exit through the gift shop'
This would work, but people mentally would not allow it. Inflation is a man created concept. Even if the government says that this money is worth a certain value, people will believe it has less value if the government prints more.
