Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by qwytw 1013 days ago
> First, if you just hand money to individuals, it's very hard to remove that money from the economy later

I'm not really arguing that that would be a better option (outside of exceptional circumstances) though.

> What makes you think so?

Because lower income households generally have low saving rates.

> Btw, 'money' doesn't really get invested, at least not on the level of the whole economy. If someone invests money by eg buying stock, that same amount of money is now in the seller's hand.

Which drives up the stock price a bit which makes it cheaper for the company to pay its workers, allows them to issue more stock/ borrow more/acquire other companies/etc.

> And if you have an inflation target, you just print more money, until you hit it.

You can't control where that money goes to though. So you are not unlikely to end up with bubbles in specific sectors while overall CPI remains low.

1 comments

Bubbles don't really exist as a meaningful empiric concept. Especially not when you have a robust short selling system so that speculators can pop 'bubbles'.
Ok, higher inflation in certain sectors. e.g. "free" money resulted in housing prices growing at a much faster pace than goods and services for an extended period of time (something similar also applies to education in the US for instance)

> short selling system so that speculators can pop 'bubbles'.

Like in real estate? I mean technically, yeah it's not even really bubble in most places (obviously not China for instance). But I'm pretty sure you understand what I'm trying to say (or should, anyway)