Possibilities of helicopter money?

I'd be spending every penny of that helicopter money on precious metals.

They wouldn't actually hand out money to citizens, right? Only to corporations and small businesses, right?

>google helicopter money
>this guy come up

lmao @ hair

no helicopter money gets distributed to everyone equally. Whether you make 100k a year or dont work. Everyone will get the same sized check.

Same

They prefer to refer to it as "a stimulus package". Government dumps a few hundreds bucks into every single persons bank account. The idea being people just go and buy shit with it. You get a bump in retail sales, local trades and businesses get a bump. It keeps things ticking over.
From there you get some positive economic data, business confidence blah blah. It doesn't do shit long term. We did it here in Australia in '08. Government at the time got a big pat on the back for avoiding the recession the rest of the world fell into.
In reality, China launched is own multi-trillion dollar stimulus package building ghost cities, roads, bridges and rail to nowhere. They imported their resources from us in Australia driving our mining boom. China was our real stimulus package. No doubt advocates of helicopter money will cite us as a positive example. It's bullshit though, it will just delay the inevitable.

He's like a less sexy Steve Buscemi

Mr. Gross is a crazy mofo. Read about how he came to change jobs.

"Don't look at me!"

Is it fucking happening?

DO I BUY GOLD?

AAAAAAAH!

Yes

Well we haven’t, I must say, we haven’t really thou thought or talked about Helicopter Money.
It’s a it’s a very interesting concept that is now being discussed by academic economists and in various environments
And so we, but but we haven’t really started yet the concept.
Prima facie clearly involves complexities both accounting wise and legal wise for our view
But of course helicop by this term helicopter money one may mean many different things
And so we have to see that.

(I came to /biz to find this thread and post this. I give you faggots 15 minutes to reply who said this and when)

at minimum put 10-30% of your assets into PMs

Try that again in English.

go tell that to this guy and get your but off this thread.
youtube.com/watch?v=Zbb--KxTjWc

I cannot believe this is seriously being discussed in academic and monetary circles.

I don't trust them one bit, going to do what said and will spend everything on precious metals or property.

It can actually be gifted to governments as well, under condititon that it is invested in public infrastructure.

Helicopter money is a theoretical monetary policy designed to cause inflation. Milton Friedman is typically listed as the inventor.

Basically, if you are in an economic situation where your job market is bad and your currency is deflating, you're fucked. That's an extremely bad scenario. So if I'm Ben Bernake or Janet Yellen, I have some tools to deal with this. The most obvious is quantitative easing, which we used to great effect in 2008.

If that doesn't work, Helicopter Money is another possible option, but it's far more drastic. It's basically a case of last resort.

Bill Gross is advocating for us to do it to help the millennial job crisis, which is fucking retarded. Thankfully, he's an investment fund manager and not an economist, so this policy has no chance of being implemented (unless Americans do something retarded like electing Sanders or Trump).

And what happens when people take that helicopter money and then dont spend it?

If we assume that everybody goes home and puts the helicopter money under their mattress, helicopter money does not work.

This is highly unlikely to happen. First off, most people are going to spend it, as it's a one-time injection of cash. We know this from several studies, as well as long-term statistics about how people use tax refunds and other such lump sums. Since helicopter money is likely to be used only as a response to a severe economic downturn, the recipients of cash will most likely have debts or rent payments they desperately need money for, and will spend it on that.

If, for some reason, that behavior doesn't hold, the people will probably put it in the bank. In that case, you've still increased the available monetary supply, and your mission is successful—less so than just giving the cash to banks in the first place, but it still works.

Of course, this is mostly theoretical, as helicopter money has not been tried. We have a reasonably good estimation of how it should work, however. For now, quantitative easing is enough, but if we ever get into a really bad situation we're keeping it open as an option.

Why is deflation so extremely bad? Is it impossible to recover from? Without inflation gdp can't have sustainable growth? Is Japan ever going to be the same?

Deflation is extremely bad for a few reasons. One of the larger ones is what it does to debt. Under a deflationary currency, your debt becomes worse and worse over time, because the money is getting more and more valuable.

At the same time, deflation encourages a lack of risk taking. Why invest when you can sit on money that gets more valuable? Discouraging investment is a great way to fuck your economy.

Deflation is recoverable if you can stop it.

I don't know enough about Japan to answer your last question.

Didnt Bush give everyone money and everyone either used it on bills or put it into their bank accounts?

Both of those are fine outcomes, because they get money flowing and increase the monetary supply. The only problem is people putting it under their mattress or otherwise not getting it into the economy.

Tell me something. If helicopter money is a one time event, why would consumers spend more? Friedman's permanent income hypothesis states that consuming patterns only change when the change in income is of permanent nature than temporary income (i.e. helicopter money).

Obviously I'm missing something, but what's wrong with my idea?

Ok, here's one more. What's wrong with 0% inflation, so neither the economy get fucked and neither do consumers who hide their shit in a sock?

How is electing Hillary better than Trump?

yep, gold knows only one way from now on

Monetary policy isn't an exact science. Having a rate of zero could quite easily lead to it being undershot, and an inflation rate of 2% is a lot more palatable for an economy than -1%.

Plus a small about of inflation can make the economy more flexible and allow prices and wages to change when they might be sticky.
Imagine inflation's 2% but you get a 1% pay rise. You'd probably prefer that zero % inflation and a 1% pay cut.
Gives you more wiggle room in the real interest rate too

He's like a white Katt Williams.

Hillary's economics advisors are in general much better. While I don't agree with all her policies (I'd like to see an expansion of the EITC as opposed to an expansion in other forms of welfare) she's certainly better than Trump, who is extremely anti-trade. Trade is very important to this country's economy and it helps to keep prices low. China's currency manipulation is slightly concerning, but a ridiculously high tariff is not the way to deal with it. His immigration policy is also undesirable as Mexicans are a good source of cheap labor.

Helicopter money was actually proposed by Friedman.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_money

I believe this still works because the permanent income hypothesis states that consumption habits are affected by the long-term expectations of permanent income in the long term. Transitory income, however, will alter the consumer's spending pattern in the short-term.

>helicopter money
3rd. Fuck.