Discussion
  • Read More
    AllieCat ❤️'S hats on cats-is probable weirdoHamilton Nolan
    3/22/16 2:02pm

    A helicopter WILL drop a million dollars on your house, that’s true.

    There’s just one catch.

    If you accept-someone you know will die. You don’t get to pick who. Do you do it?

    Oh really? Well. Second twist-it’s a CHILD.

    Oh. Still easy? Um....

    Third twist-you have to gain FIVE POUNDS. Not so easy NOW is it?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      JohnSadamsAllieCat ❤️'S hats on cats-is probable weirdo
      3/22/16 2:05pm

      GAIN 5 POUNDS?!! Keep the money, you MONSTER!

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      DeleteAllAnimesAllieCat ❤️'S hats on cats-is probable weirdo
      3/22/16 2:06pm

      Parallel thought, I suppose?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Bloody Han SoloHamilton Nolan
    3/22/16 2:01pm

    How does this not reduce the value of the dollar?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Mac SpainBloody Han Solo
      3/22/16 2:08pm

      It does. That’s the point.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Cherith CutestoryBloody Han Solo
      3/22/16 2:14pm

      The argument is that reducing the value of the dollar, if controlled and deliberate, isn’t an inherently horrible thing to do.Especially in a time like now when we are actually trying to stimulate inflation not avoid it.

      You don’t want to destroy the value of the dollar. Which is where the balancing comes in.

      That’s what the articles are saying. I am not smart enough to have an opinion on whether it’s a good idea or not.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    DissidentSocialistHamilton Nolan
    3/22/16 2:00pm

    I think the .001% is feeling the Bern/fearing the Trump.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      IanDissidentSocialist
      3/22/16 2:07pm

      Why would they fear Trump?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Cherith CutestoryDissidentSocialist
      3/22/16 2:12pm

      fearing the Trump.

      What?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    $140,100,000.00Hamilton Nolan
    3/22/16 2:03pm

    Fun Fact: $140,100,000 would buy 70,614,919 gallons of gasoline at today’s average price in the U.S. At the EPA rated 53 MPG, one could drive a new Toyota Prius 3,742,590,725 miles with that much gas, which is the approximate distance between the sun and Pluto.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Emerald D.V.$140,100,000.00
      3/22/16 2:07pm

      You are the only commenter who is doing this right.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      IanEmerald D.V.
      3/22/16 2:12pm

      I’m sorry, but the Hulk trolls, as a whole, are not doing any of this right. It’s pretty fucking stupid at this point.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    tornadoslackssHamilton Nolan
    3/22/16 2:01pm

    I am more into dirigible dollars. Bring on the Hindenburg hundreds!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      terryboleasghosttornadoslackss
      3/22/16 2:03pm

      count me in for all those zeppelin.... dammit

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      KomradKickasstornadoslackss
      3/22/16 2:05pm

      Cash Copters!

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    butcherbakertoiletrymakerHamilton Nolan
    3/22/16 2:02pm

    Look, I’m all for giving the money to the people, but for God’s sake, the last time we did this, it was for the whopping sum of $300 per person. If we’re talking about a minimum of 5k per person—with it being limited to anyone making less than 100k/year, then we might be able to go somewhere with this. Otherwise, let’s just create a new CCC and start repairing some roads and bridges.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      AliHajiSheikHamilton Nolan
      3/22/16 2:55pm

      Is this different than Bush's idiotic retroactive refund checks that were supposed to jump start the economy?

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        Lee Adama's Moral CenterAliHajiSheik
        3/22/16 3:07pm

        Yes, those refund checks were basic countercyclical fiscal policy. To the extent that they increased the deficit, the government issued debt to fund them. As a result, undergrad Econ101 says that people saved more of those checks than they normally would because they expected higher taxes in the future in order to pay off the government debt that was issued to fund them.*

        “Helicopter Money” is fundamentally different because it comes with no accompanying rise in external government debt. The government issues the bonds to “fund” it directly to the Federal Reserve. The Fed never redeems them, and any interest the Fed earns is returned to the Treasury. As a result, there is no fear of having to “pay off” the debts via higher taxes in the future.

        *Fwiw, this is called Ricardian Equivalence and it’s mostly gibberish, but we teach it to undergrads anyway because we are sadists.

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        AliHajiSheikLee Adama's Moral Center
        3/22/16 3:24pm

        I find it hard to believe that people took their $300 of bush money and saved it under the expectation that higher taxes would return. I understand the theory here, but I simply don’t believe it. Also, since the taxes had been collected at that point of the year, were they really debt funded? I thought we were running a budget surplus at that point in 2001. Also, rather than prompting spending didn't it really just amount to a diversion of funds to credit card companies, since everyone used it to repay debt? And why would this be different?

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      Rom RombertsHamilton Nolan
      3/22/16 2:05pm

      Just to clarify what the author is saying here: President Obama (“the government”) is going to fly around inside a futuristic airship and he’s going to go door to door and he’s going to give you money and you either have to light that money on fire and sing the national anthem for him (the President/the government) or you have to immediately stimulate the economy by purchasing a helicopter.

      If there are more Americans flying around in helicopters, there will be fewer Americans on the ground, where being poor can sometimes be fatal because the massive packs of urban coyotes that now govern most of our cities are attracted to, and made aggressive by, sighs of hopelessness. Put the American population in the sky in helicopters and, suddenly, where is the economy? It’s up. It’s in the sky. It’s all just macroeconomics, friends.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        A SPOOKY GHOST!Rom Romberts
        3/22/16 2:14pm

        I starred this because helicopters are fuckin’ rad

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        Sam, the Gross Ginger Kid From Diff'rent StrokesRom Romberts
        3/22/16 2:15pm

        BTW I just called him on my Obongo Phone (free call with muslim socialist bonus minutes plan) and he said yes the black helicopters are real. They will drop chemtrails on the white christian male losers and cool crisp greenbacks on the feminist minorities and gays.

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      crouching tigerHamilton Nolan
      3/22/16 2:20pm

      As long as helicopters are using leaded fuel, they can keep their airdrops of cash to themselves.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        The Devil Drives a Mustang (Rotary Pending)crouching tiger
        3/22/16 2:42pm

        Would be OK if it were a jet turbine helicopter like a Eurocopter Super Puma or a Bell Jet Ranger. No jet fuel needed. But if it were a piston engined helicopter like a Robinson R22 or a retired ex-military H34 Choctaw, then yeah, please keep it grounded.

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        crouching tigerThe Devil Drives a Mustang (Rotary Pending)
        3/22/16 3:40pm

        Actually, thanks for providing actual examples of piston- versus jet turbine-driven helicopters! I know that both exist, but would have had to do too much of teh googling to figure out which are which.

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      JohannesClimacusHamilton Nolan
      3/22/16 2:16pm

      Imagine if the 3.5 trillion dollars injected into the banking system since 2008 (which trickels down to banks then VCs and other people with assets to use as collateral, and eventually to startups, stocks and realestate prices) was injected from the bottom up in terms of top notch public tranportation, free early childhood education, better schools, paid maternity leave, etc. Imagine how different our country would look right now. Hamilton would not have to rail against us SF property owners so much for wanting to keep our city livable and charming.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        IstillcallitsheaJohannesClimacus
        3/22/16 2:21pm

        At the time the banks were being bailed out, I remember thinking that instead of just handing them this cash to fix the greed fueled mistakes they made, why not force them to take every dollar they received pay off someone’s debt? That would have not only saved the banks, it would have saved a lot of people's homes and lives as well.

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        Cherith CutestoryJohannesClimacus
        3/22/16 2:34pm

        Even if there was anyone around competent or smart enough to do that (there wasn’t). Once the crisis hit they had to act immediately. They didn’t have time to let it trickle up.

        Whereas if they had been slowly been doing those things all along on top of actually regulating the banks and mortgage providers, things might not have been so bad.

        It is everything wrong with America. We just go from crisis to crisis. And have for decades. We don’t invest in public infrastructure and then it’s an emergency and poor people have lead in their water (Flint is a particularly deliberate and heinous example but it’s happening all over the country through neglect not malice). We don’t invest in hiring people to regulate banks or investment funds and then it’s a crisis.

        Reply
        <