CAPITAL ACCOUNT Yes, It Is Possible to Have Too Much Stimulus Boosting stimulus checks to $2,000 would add a lot to the debt with little of that benefiting the unemployed The political appeal of the stimulus checks is obvious; the economic case is another matter. PHOTO: TING SHEN/BLOOMBERG NEWS By Greg Ip Updated Dec. 30, 2020 4:59 pm ET Faced with the U.S.’s worst humanitarian and economic catastrophe in recent memory, it is tempting to assume there is no such thing as too much fiscal stimulus. There is, and we might be about to witness an example. The usual justification for federal borrowing is to counteract a collapse in demand that is driving up unemployment, or to meet some urgent societal need such as waging war or alleviating destitution.
Neither justification readily applies to President Trump’s and Democrats’ plan to send almost every adult an additional $1,400 in stimulus checks on top of the $600 checks approved in last week’s stimulus deal, at a cost of $463 billion. True, with interest rates near zero, money is cheap—but it isn’t free. Adding that much to the national debt for stimulus of questionable efficacy now consumes political and financial breathing room that might be better saved for later. The political appeal is obvious. Mr. Trump would get credit for showering more money on Americans. Democrats, who initially wanted $3 trillion of stimulus instead of last week’s $900 billion, hope to embarrass congressional Republicans into either voting for something they don’t want or crossing Mr. Trump.
Biden is already plotting the path forward on more stimulus Biden sees the current Covid-19 relief package as a “down payment” on more to come when he takes office.
CAPITAL ACCOUNT Yes, It Is Possible to Have Too Much Stimulus Boosting stimulus checks to $2,000 would add a lot to the debt with little of that benefiting the unemployed The political appeal of the stimulus checks is obvious; the economic case is another matter. PHOTO: TING SHEN/BLOOMBERG NEWS By Greg Ip Updated Dec. 30, 2020 4:59 pm ET Faced with the U.S.’s worst humanitarian and economic catastrophe in recent memory, it is tempting to assume there is no such thing as too much fiscal stimulus. There is, and we might be about to witness an example. The usual justification for federal borrowing is to counteract a collapse in demand that is driving up unemployment, or to meet some urgent societal need such as waging war or alleviating destitution.
Neither justification readily applies to President Trump’s and Democrats’ plan to send almost every adult an additional $1,400 in stimulus checks on top of the $600 checks approved in last week’s stimulus deal, at a cost of $463 billion. True, with interest rates near zero, money is cheap—but it isn’t free. Adding that much to the national debt for stimulus of questionable efficacy now consumes political and financial breathing room that might be better saved for later. The political appeal is obvious. Mr. Trump would get credit for showering more money on Americans. Democrats, who initially wanted $3 trillion of stimulus instead of last week’s $900 billion, hope to embarrass congressional Republicans into either voting for something they don’t want or crossing Mr. Trump. CleverBeaver 发表于 2020-12-31 00:42
保守派媒体当然这么说了， 美国debt-to-gdp ratio 对比日本还算低， 完全可以比照加拿大水准发。
Yes, It Is Possible to Have Too Much Stimulus
Boosting stimulus checks to $2,000 would add a lot to the debt with little of that benefiting the unemployed
The political appeal of the stimulus checks is obvious; the economic case is another matter.
PHOTO: TING SHEN/BLOOMBERG NEWS
Faced with the U.S.’s worst humanitarian and economic catastrophe in recent memory, it is tempting to assume there is no such thing as too much fiscal stimulus.
There is, and we might be about to witness an example. The usual justification for federal borrowing is to counteract a collapse in demand that is driving up unemployment, or to meet some urgent societal need such as waging war or alleviating destitution.
Neither justification readily applies to President Trump’s and Democrats’ plan to send almost every adult an additional $1,400 in stimulus checks on top of the $600 checks approved in last week’s stimulus deal, at a cost of $463 billion. True, with interest rates near zero, money is cheap—but it isn’t free. Adding that much to the national debt for stimulus of questionable efficacy now consumes political and financial breathing room that might be better saved for later.
The political appeal is obvious. Mr. Trump would get credit for showering more money on Americans. Democrats, who initially wanted $3 trillion of stimulus instead of last week’s $900 billion, hope to embarrass congressional Republicans into either voting for something they don’t want or crossing Mr. Trump.
保守派媒体当然这么说了， 美国debt-to-gdp ratio 对比日本还算低， 完全可以比照加拿大水准发。
我看了下全文 他的意思是现在都发掉 以后要搞医疗和环保估计就稍微难一点点了 谁知道到底怎样呢？
我同意他说的不从supply上下猛药 光从demand上搞搞不出什么花样来的 今年貌似收入都是比去年多（很多）
oooo 谢谢
我不是说光觉得贫富不均可怕
如果我小孩以后除了啃老别无出路我觉得其实更可怕