Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

10k to each person wouldn't unfreeze the credit markets, though.

Credit is "frozen" now b/c banks won't lend, in some cases not even to each other, over fears that the borrowing institution is not going to be able to pay back the loan.

So the $7.4 trillion posted by the government is more about restoring confidence than anything else.

There are some good papers on the subject by Stephen Figlewski at http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~sfiglews/FinCrisis.htm particularly the one titled "Viewing the Financial Crisis from 20,000 Feet Up".




Sorry, I'm not sure I buy that explanation. It's what the top-down folks are saying, but plainly, and perhaps naively, I just think of what credit is used for - to buy what you can't with cash. Giving everyone cash would filter up to businesses; mortgage payments to brokerages, savings to banks, investments into the stock market and bonds, and purchases to retailers including automakers. Americans would have to do something with that money and there wouldn't be the huge management/distribution fees that are now going to get collected. In effect, you'd be giving the American people a vote about where the money should go based on their everyday needs. And that huge of a sum wouldn't be as easy to fritter away as a $300 "stimulus" plan. Heck, at $7.4 trillion you could give every man, woman, and child over $20,000 (for argument's sake, ignoring infrastructure which would be a mistake).


"Americans would have to do something with that money"

That was the assumption behind the last stimulus plan, too, but it turns out only 10% to 20% of it was actually spent (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ-2008Sti...)

Even if people did spend the $10k you'd like to give them, it wouldn't make a dent in terms of home or auto sales unless there was financing available, too.


"the average family spent around 20 percent of their rebate in the first month after receipt." Which is not to say the rest was saved for the long term.

"Low wealth households households that reported not having at least two months in savings in case of an emergency also raised their spending more than the average household when the rebate arrived."

"Our findings underscore the potency of the economic stimulus payments in stabilizing consumer spending during recessions."

This would suggest a trickle up vs trickle down economy where a stimulus package targeted at poor people would have the greatest impact.

PS: Poor people spend more of their money than rich people film at 11.


Poor people spend more of their money than rich people film at 11

Yeah, duh, but even if you gave poor people $20,000 and they spend it all, how does it do anything about the housing crisis?

Without lending, that $20,000 won't change the market at all.


Fair enough. I also got another answer from someone far more knowledgeable from me: At least in the current plans, the government is getting preferred stock in return for their investment.


the last stimulas check was a few hundred bucks, a drop in the bucket for most people.


They are lending, but they are not willing to take as much risk so they are charging more interest which is slowing down the economy.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: