Something tells me infosec's not going to give me the okay on that one.
In lieu of that, I think "sending a wave of money through the system by handing a check to every taxpayer will not temporarily change some peoples' behavior" is the hypothesis that would need some data to back it up, in my view.
If infosec won't give you the +1 on sharing, it's best you and they find some shared ground. I suspect app/othersec would actually agree here.
Sending a wave of money into a group of historically underemployed seems like it'd result in normal expenditures, modulo some slush.
Maybe it's the contemporaneous injection of many, many trabillions into 501c3s, individual funds, small businesses, and other groups who could show they had done a small amount of due diligence to get a gazillion bazillion dollars for no reason that might draw your interest here?
Edit: alternatively, feel free to abstain from conversations where your allegiances lie contrary to complete honesty. I suspect many HNers do this regularly, and you can, too.
Your misconceptions about what I said somehow outnumber the things I actually said.
Sending a wave of money into a group of
historically underemployed seems like
it'd result in normal expenditures, modulo
some slush.
Do you have hard data for that? (j/k)
Far more importantly, "sending a wave of money into a group of historically underemployed" is not what happened. Pretty much every taxpayer got a series of stimulus checks. It wasn't based on need; it was based on your claimed income for the previous year. Historically underemployed groups got checks, rich boys with time and money on their hands got checks. Everybody. (edit: not everybody, more like ~80%) Maybe this is the root of your misconceptions?
Maybe it's the contemporaneous injection [...]
What? That wasn't even remotely part of this discussion. At least not anything I've written. If it helps, I agree with you: a lot of the payments to businesses amounted to lining the pockets of the already-rich.
Edit: alternatively, feel free to abstain
from conversations where your allegiances
lie contrary to complete honesty
What? Literally the only thought I've expressed this entire time is yup, that wave of money given to consumers seems like it had an effect on consumer spending habits, and now that stimulus has worked its way through the system some of those habits will revert to their former states. Not the most controversial of opinions.
What is this missing honesty you're referring to? This is one of the weirder interactions I've ever had on HN. And that's really saying something.
>Your misconceptions about what I said somehow outnumber the things I actually said.
oops! let me rectify that!
> Do you have hard data for that? (j/k)
ach, i'd answer but you're just kidding. still, it might be worth looking into?
> is not what happened? Pretty much every taxpayer got a series of stimulus checks. It wasn't based on need
I didn't get one. I didn't get a second. In fact, nobody I know except for business owners and one person whose income was skewed for very VERY specific reasons got one. Maybe this is the source of our fundamental disconnect? Only my business owning friends got money, none of my non-business-owning friends got money. The money mostly went, in my experience, to those who were already well set up. Or to business owners, who largely got loans forgiven.
> Literally the only thought I've expressed this entire time is yup, that wave of money given to consumers seems like it had an effect on consumer spending habits
I mean, that's the thing I mostly disagree about, so sure- it can be small but it's all I'm keen on talking about?
In lieu of that, I think "sending a wave of money through the system by handing a check to every taxpayer will not temporarily change some peoples' behavior" is the hypothesis that would need some data to back it up, in my view.