What would the economic effect be of giving one million random households a check for $200K?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

That's what 200 billion is.

There are about 114 households in America.

God knows the public wouldn't like the seeming unfairness of such a thing, but I find it useful to consider that sort of outside-the-box-the-box-was-in-in-the-first-place example.

Not as policy, but to get a sense of how dramatic $200 billion is supposed to be.



(Note: Such a lottery wouldn't be unfair. Random is about as fair as one can get. It would probably be unjust, however. Best not to conflate the two.)

[sui generis]

1. they'd do a bang up job at propping up the import economy

cars, electronics, toys, the usual things.

:hide:

Might as well just write a check for 200 to China.

:shrug:

:evilgrin:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. A lot of Americans are employed selling Chinese stuff to each other

So it would create some jobs.

(halfway a joke, but halfway serious)

Actually, with that size check it would sell a lot of houses and home renovations too.

It would piss everybody off, of course, but I have often thought that giving a small number of people something to work with might be more effective than giving everyone a tiny bit.

Teach a man to fish, etc. No political way to do it, though.

[DJ13]

5. Thats the kind of thinking Geithner, Bernanke, and Summers believe in

Just cutting a check gives nothing in return.

Had those three idiots withheld aid to the banks until they received concessions to aid the rest of the economy, like hard limits on interest rates (no 30% CC) and mandatory reductions in principles and on mortgage loan amounts on real estate not only would the country be better off now, but its possible the recession might already be nearly ended.

Also there was another way, where the money could have been put into use so people would pay off their debts, eliminating both the underlying debts that damaged the banks, but reducing the debt load of the citizens at the same time.

The banks most in trouble would still have ended up with the money that way.

[sui generis]

7. agreed 1000%

re-stating a federal standard for usery and enforcing it with no grandfather clause would be heavy handed but highly effective at stimulating consumer spending AND reducing default risk.

Credit card companies make money on cash basis after principle-plus-cost-of-funds is met. They like to tell fancy stories about distributing risk based on credit score and spending activity analysis, but it's purely bullshit. In reality they have a "what the market will bear" factor that matters most, and what the market will bear today is whatever is legal. If it was legal to charge 70% interest because you paid your dog groomer late once ten years ago, they wouldn't hesitate.

Our free market view of milking the consumer and then bitching when the consumer stops spending is kindergarten economics, and NOTHING has changed in that regard from the Bush administration to the current one.

[mkultra]

3. as long as im one of the lucky ones it sounds good.

[Oregone]

4. Why contribute to wealth disparity?

Give everyone money under some threshhold, on a sliding scale with most going to the lowest earners.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. Since most people are poor-ish it would promote equality (statistically)

Just a mathematical note. I understand what you are saying.

Come to think of it, since it would (statistically) hit people of very modest means most and would promote the winners to at-least solid middle-class status it would be a uniquely powerful class-mobility effect.

[zipplewrath]

6. Con Men

It would bring out the largest focus of con men in the history of the nation.

[Oregone]

9. Yes, but they need jobs too. Any there are only so many Congressional seats up for grabs