First of all, how do Americans make money? In March 2020, the United States** and Congress introduced a program with a total of 2The $3 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) provides for an additional $600 a week in unemployment benefits for those who lose their jobs during the pandemic.
According to a study by experts at the University of Chicago in May of that year, one in five laid-off workers could receive double their wages through additional unemployment benefits. Evercore ISI economist Ernie Tedeschi said in an interview with Yahoo Finance
About seven** of those who returned to the workforce in May received more unemployment benefits than they did when they were working. In fact, unlike regular unemployment benefits, the $600 per week additional payment is not tied to the pre-unemployment wage level, but is paid in full. Including the original benefits, some unemployed people receive thousands of dollars a week.You don't have to go to work, you pay every week, isn't this because you have experienced communism because of the epidemic? Before the pandemic, the median annual household income in the United States was about $80,000, and the average American household was about 25 people, that is, the median income of Americans is about 3$20,000, which looks like less than $2,700 a month.
In this way, unemployment benefits and benefits should be added together, and they should be more than they are earned at work. What's more, this $2,700 is the median income, and the income level of a large number of unemployed people is below the median, so it is really cost-effective to be unemployed in the United States.
Many people say that the reason why the United States dares to send money so directly and is not afraid of inflation is because the dollar is an international currency and can buy things from all over the world, and this reason cannot be said to be wrong, but this is only a superficial reason, and the problems of inflation and monetary credit will definitely come sooner or later, but why must the United States be sent money as soon as the epidemic hits?
Why does the United States have to send money.
For example, in 2013, one of the richest countries in the world, Switzerland, some people suggested that 2,500 Swiss francs (about 2,560 US dollars) and 625 Swiss francs (about 640 US dollars) should be paid to adult Swiss citizens and minors respectively to ensure that they live a "decent life".
But in the end, in the 2016 Swiss referendum, the motion was rejected in all 26 cantons and semi-cantons, with 76 of the approximately 2.5 million Swiss who took part in the voteNine per cent voted against. The reason is simple, because most people know that money can be distributed casually, but wealth cannot be created in a vacuum.
But even so, why does the United States have to pay the unemployed directly immediately? In 2017, the Federal Reserve released a "2016 Report on the State of the American Household Economy", which had little impact in the United States, but had a big impact in China at the time. That's because this report exposes a universal truth about American life:
Nearly half of Americans can't afford $400 to save the day, according to the report. Forty-four percent of survey respondents said they couldn't even get $400 out of emergency money if they didn't borrow money or sell things in an emergency such as repairing a car or seeing a doctor.For most Chinese, how can a glamorous and decent American still be so picky? However, this is the case, and there is one thing that many of us people don't know, Americans rarely pay their salaries on a monthly basis, basically once every two weeks, and even on a weekly basis. Why is this happening? Combined with the content of the above report, if you taste it carefully, does it feel that flavor?The survey also showed that 23 percent of respondents could not afford to pay their monthly bills, 25 percent had chosen not to seek medical care because of the high cost in the previous year, and 28 percent of respondents who had not yet retired said they were not prepared for retirement, implying that they had no retirement savings or pension insurance.
For the 56% of adults who were able to come up with that money, what impact would the $400 have on his life? Among them, 13% said that after spending the $400, they could not make ends meet in other areas.
The so-called payment is to wait for the salary, and there is no need to take it out, let alone save it, because the money is just to rest on your account for a while, indicating that it once belonged to you, and then the bank will directly help you to pay off the credit card and loan, and then the account will be cleared, and then the next cycle will begin.
Speaking of which, many people may still be wondering, why does the United States send money directly? In fact, the reason is very simple, but no one can say on the surface that if the money is not directly distributed, the United States will face an economic crisis at the moment.
Why?
In March 2020, when the epidemic began to spread gradually in the United States, due to the stay-at-home order, a large number of service sectors in the United States could not continue to operate, which led to a rapid increase in the number of unemployed, which exceeded 20 million at the peak, which may correspond to more than 10 million families.
In fact, how should they live when they are unemployed, in a capitalist society like the United States, it is not a real problem that people are worried about at all, the real problem is that after more than 20 million people are unemployed, they have no savings, so in order to survive, they must only continue to use credit cards at first, but when they have to repay their credit cards and loans next month, their only choice must be to refuse to repay.
I can't live anymore, who will pay you back, if you want to be blacklisted, then it's up to you, what do you love. Once there is such a large-scale default by tens of millions of people, the chain reaction will inevitably be the bankruptcy and collapse of a large number of small and medium-sized banks, and finally an economic crisis.
Therefore, the United States must inject liquidity into all the unemployed people at the first time to ensure the stability of cash flow, people who have run a business know that there are many problems in operation, but the most terrible problem is the cash flow breakage, once it appears, the company that can still develop well may be difficult to close down.
The same is true for the United States, where securing the cash flow of the household sector is the key to avoiding a greater economic crisis, which is the main reason why the United States must find money in the first place.
The United States is a country with private ownership as the main body, and when the money is issued, it is just a temporary stay in most people's accounts, and it will soon return to the hands of the big capital in the banks. It is the subsidy issued in the name of the state, which is quickly returned to the accounts of the big capital groups, and ordinary people can only survive in the end.
So just like the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008, under the current model in the United States, after every crisis, there is only one outcome, and that is that a few people create a crisis, but they get richer and richer, and the majority bear the consequences, becoming poorer and poorer.
Now that three years have passed, do you see any essential change in the economic situation of ordinary people after the Americans send money?
02 Can we learn from the United States to make money?
Many people envy the United States for being able to send money, so they also hope that our country can send money. Of course, there are various reasons, but the result is the same, if you want the country to send money, it is better to send money for a long time, saying that this can stimulate consumption.
But is that really the case?
In fact, when we look at the United States' distribution of money, it is not blind, it has gradually withdrawn and stopped issuing money in the past two years. You will have an intuitive feeling that the money is to help the emergency and not the poor. In a country like the United States, which pursues social Darwinism, it will not help the poor for a long time, and the essence of emergency relief is not for ordinary people, but to avoid triggering an economic crisis.
Then back to our country, our national conditions, if we give money, then now do we want to save the poor or emergency?
You will find that the real poverty alleviation is the previous targeted poverty alleviation, but even if it is targeted poverty alleviation, it is repeatedly emphasized that it is to engage in various industries to get rid of poverty, rather than making money. People who are not within the scope of poverty alleviation can only give money for emergency relief, but our living habits and cultural traditions are obviously different from those of the United States, and there is no such national emergency need in the American sense.
In fact, everyone is well aware of these two points, and the reason why many people are talking about giving money now is that they hope to stimulate consumption by sending money. Because they feel that the reason for the sluggish consumption is because everyone has no money. So let me list the relevant data and facts from three aspects, do you see if that's the case?
First, is everyone running out of money?
I listed the data on the hot travel in the country during the Spring Festival holiday, and then the total amount is increasing, and the per capita is declining. But if you really don't have any money, will you still drag your family and travel poorly?
According to statistics, from the beginning of 2020 to January 2024, Chinese households have a net increase of 58 percent in their bank accounts24 trillion yuan, and 82% of them are time deposits. And 58The total new deposits of 24 trillion yuan are equivalent to the total new deposits from 2009 to 2019. Among them, 2022 was the year with the largest increase in deposits since the statistics, contributing 1784 trillion yuan.
Judging from the macro data, in fact, everyone's savings are increasing, of course, it may be similar to the situation on the Internet, and the real increase will not be high-profile and go around, and the voice of the decline in income will be louder. So whether it's emergency relief or poverty relief, from a macro perspective, you can see whether the actual situation is really necessary?
Second, has consumption fallen?
According to the latest statistics, the total retail sales of consumer goods in 2023 will exceed 47 trillion yuan, reaching 471495 billion yuan, an increase of 72%。In 2023, final consumption expenditure will drive economic growth43 percentage points, an increase of 3 over the previous year1 percentage point, the contribution rate to economic growth is 825%。
From a macro point of view, overall consumption is still growing, and it is now the absolute main force driving economic growth.
Third, why is consumption sluggish?
Of course, the feeling of consumption now is that it is not as good as expected, and a large part of this is that the high-income groups in the past have suffered a decline in income. For example, the high-income industries of enterprises and institutions, real estate industry, financial industry, Internet industry, and education and training industry driven by land finance are relatively affected, and the reason is that everyone knows that their high income is largely due to the high pressure and high burden of others.
In addition to the impact on high-income groups, there is also an important reason for consumption to affect expectations. In order to stimulate consumption, there are actually two points, one is to have money, and the other is to guarantee the expectation of the future. After the above analysis, in general, everyone's deposit balance has increased, and even the total amount of holiday travel has increased, but the reason for the decline in per capita data is likely to be that everyone's expectations have become conservative, so consumption tends to be cautious.
So speaking of which, the question arises, in such a situation, can sending money stimulate consumption? If you don't have money, you will definitely use it for the expenditure of daily necessities, if you have money, what will you do with it?
If expectations do not improve, most people's choice must not be to consume, but to save.
Then someone will suggest, is it okay to issue consumption vouchers? The first one is that at the national level, when you see such macro data, you basically feel that it is not necessary. Second, the nationwide issuance of consumption vouchers can stimulate consumption, but the concentrated increase in demand in the short term will inevitably lead to inflation and a more serious gap between the rich and the poor.
From an economic point of view, severe inflation will inevitably make the gap between the rich and the poor worse, and those experts who advocate giving money will not tell you this, they say that moderate inflation is a tax on the rich, and there is a necessary condition behind this is stable growth, which will bring everyone's income to rise, and it is possible to form the so-called tax on the rich.
Otherwise, serious inflation, superimposed on the stagnation of income growth, is stagflation, ordinary people without means of production, the expenditure on daily necessities increases, no matter whether money is issued or consumption vouchers, after the money circulates in the market for a circle, it will return to the hands of the people who control the means of production, and the final result will inevitably be a rapid increase in the gap between the rich and the poor.
Many people want to send money, to be honest, I think it can also be operated by sending money, but the primary target of money should be the elderly who are over 60 years old in rural areas and only get more than 100 yuan of pension every month. The cost of insurance for others, such as the subsistence allowance, can also be increased. But those normal people with hands and feet, I think it's better to forget it.
The United States has sent money, which has visibly pushed up inflation, but there are still two things that can be covered after the United States sends money, one is that the dollar can export the crisis to the world, and the other is a large amount of food surplus. And we don't have these two conditions, large-scale money issuance is probably limited by consumption, but there are a lot of them.
For young people, I have a bad remark, don't expect the state to send you money, because the state probably can't count on you to stimulate consumption.
Finally
I know that many people are influenced by Zhai expert, who hopes that the state will give money to the people for a long time, and he bluntly said that his monetary theory is to copy the new monetarism MMT of the United States, and I suggest that this kind of expert be exported to Argentina, which is now engaged in a neoliberal economy, where such talents are urgently needed. He's going to succeed, and he can come back and try again.
All those who want the country to send money, you might as well design it yourself, what kind of effect do you hope to send **? Who should I send it to? How much? How long does it take? How much does the total amount cost? Money from **? Will it trigger severe inflation? What if hyperinflation is solved?
If you think about these questions clearly, it can be regarded as an improvement in thinking ability, at least better than utopia.