Lord Turner hints at Helicopter Drop

sheffield_lad

ummm, I wonder how long that would last in some households, £1k blown down at the bookies, bingo, 55" tv in one bed flat, new studded collar for pit bull. New games for xbox, HD sky and all Chanel package?

or used for elec/gas bills and food?

ummm I wonder lol

Graham_Devon

howee wrote: »

ummm, I wonder how long that would last in some households, £1k blown down at the bookies, bingo, 55" tv in one bed flat, new studded collar for pit bull. New games for xbox, HD sky and all Chanel package?

To be fair, this would be the aim of the money.

sheffield_lad

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To be fair, this would be the aim of the money.

Oh I know, but some should use it as a bonus/to spend. Others should use it wisely.

Fella

Exactly 1:00 onwards sums it up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-j5XWo1fPI


Anyone who hasn't watched The Wire in it's entirety has of course missed out on the best 60 hours of their life. And anyone who hasn't watched it twice has missed out on the next-best 60 hours.

GeorgeHowell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To be fair, this would be the aim of the money.

That's right. Extra money spent on things like bookies, bingo, 55" tvs in one bedroom flats, studded collars for pit bulls, games for Xbox, HD sky and all-channel packages are deemed to represent desirable economic growth in our shallow, materialistic, short-termist, dumbed-down society. It's growth to support improving the quality of life in the longer term that should matter, and we need that most it in areas such as education, health and social care, and public transport. But these days if you decry the sort of things listed above then you're accused of being elitist.

Loughton_Monkey

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Actually the point of giving people money is to get them to spend it thus "boosting the economy". If you give it to tax payers they will probably just save it or pay down debt, so the best way to achieve economic stimulus is to give it to the so called "f3ckless" who will just spend it (as they have no concept of the value of money as they don't have to work for what they have) thus achieving the desired effect.

I hadn't put you down as a "grade A" student of the Gordon Brown school of economics, but this was his strategy for enough years to bankrupt the country.

The money does in fact "boost the economy" as defined by GDP (turnover) but given it goes to that segment of society with a large propensity to buy foreign goods, it's a bit like a 'drug'. Gives you 5 minutes of enjoyment after which you are 'down' from where you started.

Following the same strategy, I could sit down with Mrs LM and lament that our retirement income is 'fixed' and not enough to cover spending. To "solve" this, should I instruct her to go to Oxford Street and spend £X0,000's on new clothes/jewellery? It would give me perhaps £200 extra 'income' from cashback on the credit card!

An extreme example, I know, but in economic terms that's exactly what throwing money at the "f3ckless who will just spend it" does.

ILW

I know this will be slagged off, but I believe that getting a load of people to put savings into banks (rather than BTL etc) would boost the economy.
At the point where banks have too much on deposit they will start actively looking for people and businesses to lend it to. If this is geared towards small businesses then it can only help increase employment.

CLAPTON

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I hadn't put you down as a "grade A" student of the Gordon Brown school of economics, but this was his strategy for enough years to bankrupt the country.

The money does in fact "boost the economy" as defined by GDP (turnover) but given it goes to that segment of society with a large propensity to buy foreign goods, it's a bit like a 'drug'. Gives you 5 minutes of enjoyment after which you are 'down' from where you started.

Following the same strategy, I could sit down with Mrs LM and lament that our retirement income is 'fixed' and not enough to cover spending. To "solve" this, should I instruct her to go to Oxford Street and spend £X0,000's on new clothes/jewellery? It would give me perhaps £200 extra 'income' from cashback on the credit card!

An extreme example, I know, but in economic terms that's exactly what throwing money at the "f3ckless who will just spend it" does.

No it isn't exactly the same atall.

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

I know this will be slagged off, but I believe that getting a load of people to put savings into banks (rather than BTL etc) would boost the economy.
At the point where banks have too much on deposit they will start actively looking for people and businesses to lend it to. If this is geared towards small businesses then it can only help increase employment.

maybe

but people putting money into banks means that they spend less with businesses.

would new businesses be less or more likely to want to borrow in an economy with lots of willing customers or lots of willing savers?
would banks be more or less willing to lend to businesses with lots of customers or ones with few?

in other words do we have too much demand or too little?

ILW

CLAPTON wrote: »

maybe

but people putting money into banks means that they spend less with businesses.

would new businesses be less or more likely to want to borrow in an economy with lots of willing customers or lots of willing savers?
would banks be more or less willing to lend to businesses with lots of customers or ones with few?

in other words do we have too much demand or too little?

I was more thinking of diverting money away from investments such as BTL (which produces very little employment) to more innovative and employment intensive type businesses. This will generally only happen through the banking system.