Yes, we need at least another 6 trillion. Maybe 20 trillion. Why stop there? We should quadruple the money supply maybe, we need to protect commercial real estate investors, after all.
... and then in 2021 we can all scratch our heads and wonder why income inequality is worse than ever, and despite all this spending, we didn't even make an appreciable dent in the impact of Covid-19 on public health.
Monetary stimulus (QE, Low interest rates) is not fiscal stimulus (spending). Maybe we need to do a lot less buying assets, and a bit more spending on people and jobs. The parent is recommending the latter (spending), not the former.
When you dramatically expand the money supply you make the rich richer. It doesn't matter how the money is distributed, it tends to inflate asset prices, and the people who own the most assets (the rich) reap the rewards in the end.
If you wanted to stop that, you'd have to actually pay for your spending, perhaps by implement some sort of wealth tax or dramatically increasing income taxes. Of course, nobody wants to increase taxes, so we just keep printing money to try and fix every problem.
The number of people who are homeless, in medical debt, and unable to work or make any money due to limited skillsets and COVID is astounding. These people need some type of immediate help, and if they don't receive it, the effects will be far more detrimental than the effects of fiscal stimulus.
And I think you're confusing monetary stimulus with fiscal stimulus.
> It doesn't matter how the money is distributed, it tends to inflate asset prices
For the US, that's not true. The US Dollar is the world's reserve currency, and the Fed isn't worried about inflation, but a lack of money supply. The pandemic has led to a huge demand for safe assets, including Treasury bonds, which has led to incredibly low interest rates on Treasury bonds, and a stronger dollar. See, for example, this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/05/what-2-tr....
Why not just print 1 million dollars per person and end poverty in one fell swoop? If there are no consequences for printing 3 trillion, why not print 300 trillion?
This is the worst strawman argument I've ever seen. The problem is precisely that corporations (especially badly managed ones) have been able to bleed the stimulus coffers dry, and they will continue to do so, because we have a system of government which caters to them.
Direct payments and rent forgiveness are not "printing money", they are limited, specific relief packages targeted at people in need. These are people who are about to be evicted, homeless, in medical debt, etc. These people need help, or the consequences will wreak havoc on a colossal scale.
... and then in 2021 we can all scratch our heads and wonder why income inequality is worse than ever, and despite all this spending, we didn't even make an appreciable dent in the impact of Covid-19 on public health.