another clueless second guesser. they didn't destroy the currency. it is one of the world's strongest currencies today.
Have you worked out the cost of this plan? Let's say 90% of people earn under 150k, that means you have what, 270 million people * $40,000 = 11 trillion dollars. Also, once it's spent, then what? Do it again? Transfering X dollars from person A to person B reduces the net worth of society, it doesn't increase it.
Don't get too technical on us. The bottom line is that we will all be rich if the government prints enough money. Seriously, the Fed should provide liquidity to prevent a bank run and that is it.
Lol. To the "quantitative easing" crowd, I should also point out that the "Helicopter" approach has already been tried numerous times e.g. Weimar Germany in the 1920s Zimbabwe in the 2000s Most of Latin America in the 80s and early 90s Hungary 1946 Needless to say, those episodes didn't work out too well. Seriously, if inflation alone was enough to avoid a severe recession, why wouldn't governments simply add 50% to the money supply overnight to combat it? If extreme money printing really worked, respectable central banks would *actually do it*. If governments could stop recessions, they would. They don't, therefore they can't.
Professing that money printing is dilution is child's play. Let's advance the argument in complexity. I'm all for quant easing, but it needs to be accompanied by the proper policy to enable us flexibility to reduce money supply when inflation gets out of hand. ie, With debt, if we decided to fund the creation of 200 nuke plants and an all electric car infrastructure over the next 5 years, this very deflationary force (on energy prices, food, etc.) would ramp up disposable income greatly. Our trade deficits would repair somewhat, and our military action would not be dependent on who controls oil. The whole game changes and we'd have the flexibility to mop up all of this extra money going forward. Cheaper energy would fuel more growth and increased productivity and wealth ... Borrow to invest when no one else is willing to do it because barrier to entry is too high. That's my real driving idea. The reality is that our energy policy/etc will not be aggressive enough. Obama's job should be to devalue all fossil fuel energy sources ... too bad the lobby against this is too strong. My earlier point was simple, though - that deflation and inflation are both very easy trends to fix technically. They are just both politically and economically painful when done in an aggressive manner that incorrectly quantifies the impact of such stimulus, since dislocations are inevitable from such broad movements. If Japan had printed and stimulated properly, their stock market while in real terms may be lower today, would likely in nominal terms been far above. And that is what I am addressing here. If the problem is a 'tapped consumer' which everyone here is so obsessed with (rightfully so, since ET is a breeding ground for unemployed disfunctionals who are running out of cash), then fixing their debt problem by printing money, while inflationary and in actuality just a wealth transfer (does not create wealth), may solve the 'tapped consumer' problem. If you like US cash and don't like what I'm saying, adapt and buy some assets.. Reiterating.. If you combine something very inflationary (money printing) with something very deflationary (giant productivity increase via relatively free energy), you are left with a lot more buying power in all of our hands, since with an even larger supply of dollars, each dollar can buy the same or more goods in real terms than before. Not to mention in the process, the stimulus provides job opportunities. Something like this would naturally recover real estate as well, since with many commodities no longer an effective inflation hedge (ie buying oil won't protect you from policy like this), money would naturally flow into what would become in short supply: land and homes.
Surely you can detect the hint of sarcasm here. Nobody actually believes the Fed is going to print our way to prosperity.
Combining something deflationary and something that is inflationary sets up a hyperinflation scenario. Where does this all this new found wealth and money supply end up? It will end up in hard and soft assets. Where are interest rates likely be in this environment? All this intervention will only do one thing, and that is push our day of reckoning further out. These markets need to correct themselves. The US needs to wake up and realize that everyone can't have brand new cars and Mc Mansions. In the end, all we are trying to do is fixed a debt induced problem with more debt. It just seems crazy to me
The economy got into this situation because people's incomes didn't keep up with their productivity. For decades this was maintained by lower saving rates and higher levels of debt. That has come to an end. That's why you will have deflation. The only way the recession will not turn into a long term depression is to get people's incomes higher. One way or another people's incomes have to be able to afford the stuff that they produce! It's that easy.
A local congressman was actually thinking along these lines. He was mad at all the banks getting billions, so he came up with an idea. Take the total federal income taxes that you paid in 2005, 2006 and 2007 and divide by 3 to get an average. This amount would be refunded to you when you file your 2008 tax return. His idea to kick start the economy. If you paid alot, you get back alot. If you paid very little, you get back very little.
What kind of moron would post such garbage on a "Trading Site"? It is mind blowing how many socalist are on this site, who pretend to trade or be invovled in some sort of capitalistic mode to make money. Are you kidding me, give rebates to those who make 150K or less? Why? On what condition in a "Capitalistic society" states that anyone making less than 150 is entitled to rebates but those who make over 150 should not be? Hey, I gota idea! Why not cut taxes across the board and create a Flat Tax of 15%. 15% of 1 million is more than 15% of 100, 15% of 150 is still more than 15% of anything under 150. REDISTRIBUTION OF ANY ONES WEALTH is a crime against capitalism. To say X should be entitled to more than Y because X makes less is a MARXIST VIEW! All of you who truly believe otherwise should be lined up and shipped off to Euroland, Russia, and other countries who love Socalism.