Among economists, this is actually a solid consensus and why many of them are in favor of policies that benefit the less wealthy parts of society. Politicians who oppose these policies often do so against scientific consensus.
more importantly, it’s not just scientific consensus. Remember that trump voters don’t care about the science. they care about the economy. You have to make it about the economy.
Fox news would probably say that consumerism is foolish anyways and needs to stop (because it’s gluttony or sth), while we should all glorify the leaders who were wise enough in the past to invest their wealth.
The irony here is that GDP is a measure of how much money is spent, so yeah, giving money to people more likely to spend it increases GDP more then giving it to people who will put it in a bank.
It’s not really a consensus, it drives higher inflation (people are spending more) and a lot of stimulus vs tight purse economics are just doing the opposite of what they did in response to the last crash
What I think they are talking about is UBI which in limited pilot projects haven’t impacted inflation
The real benefit of uplifting the poor is that it creates a safer society for everyone and faster innovation in that society because people have time/money to do things. When flying was in it’s infancy a lot of farmers in the US had hobby planes and gliding/eventually flying was built off being accessible. Aviation laws get in the way but it’s completely foreign to think of some poor farmer in rural USA being a hobby pilot today
The thing about UBI is that it doesn’t really lend itself well to limited pilots. Being both “Universal” and “Limited” doesn’t make much sense. So it’s really hard to assert evidence one way or the other about what that would look like in full.
There are some “accidental” universal income scenarios like the Alaska permanent fund, but they fall short of being even "basic " income.
So you have some means tested experiments where a small selection of people get a limited term benefit among a broader population that didn’t. In those scenarios the people seem to make the most of the opportunity, using that relief to prepare themselves for a more viable living after the benefit wears out. It certainly shows that people well tend to be more responsible than conservatives assume given a chance, but doesn’t show what happens to the economy when all the participants assume that basic level of income, e.g so the rents just go up and erase the benefit and everything is at the same level.
I’ve seen some assert that more regulated basic needs would be better. If you just throw UBI and let free market reign, the businesses may ruin it. Public housing, healthcare, and basic food might do wonders more good at long as the government responsibiliy manages it instead of letting the businesses just do their thing…
Oh, I agree that those policies work, for sure. I’m just interested in the statement that a “solid consensus” of economists agree - that seems unlikely to me.
The consensus is strong with regards to the question “What happens with money that you give to poor people?” and naturally becomes less strong with regards to specific effects on the economy or what policies to implement. But most economists would agree that stuff like food stamps or certain types of tax credits or (conditional) transfer payments geared towards very low-income households are often a net positive because of the immediate spending and investment in human capital. The downside is of course that these programs typically increase inflation. I don’t think the consensus is anywhere near as strong as the one about climate (but few are).
Among economists, this is actually a solid consensus and why many of them are in favor of policies that benefit the less wealthy parts of society. Politicians who oppose these policies often do so against scientific consensus.
more importantly, it’s not just scientific consensus. Remember that trump voters don’t care about the science. they care about the economy. You have to make it about the economy.
Hoarding money and never spending it is good for the economy… Somehow, give me a minute I need to see what Fox news says so I can just repeat that.
Fox news would probably say that consumerism is foolish anyways and needs to stop (because it’s gluttony or sth), while we should all glorify the leaders who were wise enough in the past to invest their wealth.
Lol it’s not about economy
The irony here is that GDP is a measure of how much money is spent, so yeah, giving money to people more likely to spend it increases GDP more then giving it to people who will put it in a bank.
Is this true? I know there has been research on the consensus among climate scientists (Oreskes, 2004), is there something similar for economists?
It’s not really a consensus, it drives higher inflation (people are spending more) and a lot of stimulus vs tight purse economics are just doing the opposite of what they did in response to the last crash
What I think they are talking about is UBI which in limited pilot projects haven’t impacted inflation
The real benefit of uplifting the poor is that it creates a safer society for everyone and faster innovation in that society because people have time/money to do things. When flying was in it’s infancy a lot of farmers in the US had hobby planes and gliding/eventually flying was built off being accessible. Aviation laws get in the way but it’s completely foreign to think of some poor farmer in rural USA being a hobby pilot today
The thing about UBI is that it doesn’t really lend itself well to limited pilots. Being both “Universal” and “Limited” doesn’t make much sense. So it’s really hard to assert evidence one way or the other about what that would look like in full.
There are some “accidental” universal income scenarios like the Alaska permanent fund, but they fall short of being even "basic " income.
So you have some means tested experiments where a small selection of people get a limited term benefit among a broader population that didn’t. In those scenarios the people seem to make the most of the opportunity, using that relief to prepare themselves for a more viable living after the benefit wears out. It certainly shows that people well tend to be more responsible than conservatives assume given a chance, but doesn’t show what happens to the economy when all the participants assume that basic level of income, e.g so the rents just go up and erase the benefit and everything is at the same level.
I’ve seen some assert that more regulated basic needs would be better. If you just throw UBI and let free market reign, the businesses may ruin it. Public housing, healthcare, and basic food might do wonders more good at long as the government responsibiliy manages it instead of letting the businesses just do their thing…
Oh, I agree that those policies work, for sure. I’m just interested in the statement that a “solid consensus” of economists agree - that seems unlikely to me.
The consensus is strong with regards to the question “What happens with money that you give to poor people?” and naturally becomes less strong with regards to specific effects on the economy or what policies to implement. But most economists would agree that stuff like food stamps or certain types of tax credits or (conditional) transfer payments geared towards very low-income households are often a net positive because of the immediate spending and investment in human capital. The downside is of course that these programs typically increase inflation. I don’t think the consensus is anywhere near as strong as the one about climate (but few are).
Right, but I’m asking where you’re getting your evidence for this consensus.