Talk:Helicopter money

Untitled
PPI is a Helicopter Drop.


 * What is PPI? Stanjourdan (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

PPI is Payment Protection Insurance, which is a big thing happening in Britain. In reality, nothing was mis-sold when people took out their loans, and in their supposedly paying back money to consumers, they are instead paying freshly printed money to those who took out loans in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.218.106 (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Australia, 2009. Stimulus Package
Helicopter Money? ==

The 2009 Stimulus Package in Australia, initiated whilst Kevin Rudd was PM, appears to match the description of Helicopter Money quite nicely. Each taxpayer received a cheque between $200 and $900 depending on their income bracket. Stimulus package was reported in media to be $42 Billlion, about $12.7 Billlion of which was to go into cash bonuses, with the intention of avoiding a recession. Zarkme (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * http://finance.nine.com.au/pfmanagingmoney/spending/8125566/900-cash-bonus-who-gets-it
 * "Reserve Bank economists endorsed the first two phases of stimulus a year later, saying it was "undeniable" that government spending had supported the economy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudd_Government_(2007%E2%80%9310)#Economy


 * Yes I think this is one of the closest precedent of a helicopter money policy. There already a short reference to this under the section "Implementation". Please feel free to elaborate!Stanjourdan (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

While undeniable that this quickly supported the economy for a very brief time, the overhanging question is whether it would've been better to inject this money in a targeted sense. Goes to the Eco1001 principal that the free market is the most efficient allocator of wealth in society and doesn't carry a dead-weight loss etc. Policy makers wanted the money straight into the economy and in the most equitable way possible (ie. everyone's a winner). Other measures, such as tax breaks, would have had a lagged effect and therefore not good enough to stave-off the risk of short-term job losses. The fact of the Australian experience, however, is that the country remained essentially in full employment and most people simply went out and spent the cash on foreign goods, such as new flat-screen TVs, mobile phones, appliances, cars and even overseas holidays. So all that money's gone now, never to be seen again and was certainly not recycled though the economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C252:3B00:55F2:C140:A3DA:FEA5 (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Merging section 'controversies' and 'critics'
It seems both sections are touching upon similar ongoing discussions in a similar fashion. In fact all critics are frequently questioned and their assumptions are addressed by commentators so it would make sense for me to regroup everything as controversies. Would you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanjourdan (talk • contribs) 09:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Name change proposal --> Overt monetary financing
The motivation for this proposed name change is that the term "helicopter money" violates NPOV, since it is commonly used as an absurd image to denigrate those who advocate money creation by the state. Historically, this may not have been the intention of the metaphor, but in common usage today, usage of this term rather than neutral alternatives such as "overt monetary financing" indicate a particular perspective on usage of this monetary tool. Uses of the neutral term may be found in the financial press, such as this story, or by experts in central bank operations such as Lord Adair Turner in his book "Between Debt and the Devil: Money, Credit, and Fixing Global Finance", pages 104 and 180. If there is no comment opposing at the end of the next two weeks, I will assume everyone can go along with this change. J JMesserly (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Helicopter money has become the buzzword and a whole concept on its own. The issue is rather that too many people use 'helicopter money' to describe a policy that is nothing else than an old fashioned debt/deficit monetization or what other call overt monetary financing (OMF). In fact renaming this article OMF would make it overlap with money creation and debt monetization.


 * On the other range of the debate we have people now using 'helicopter money' to talk about basic income experiments, which is an equally confusing attitude which nonetheless proves that many people use HM for describing different ideas than OMF.


 * My point is: HM is best described as a specific sub-category of OMF where the money created goes directly to individuals. HM should not be used as a generic term for all forms of central banks's money creation otherwise it has no meaning anymore.


 * However I do agree that wikipedia should provide more knowledge about OMF-related ideas. In that vein I would suggest start by improving this section and monetization (and make sure those articles do not overlap). Stanjourdan (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

But you do not dispute that the particular term "helicopter money" has a meaning that is pejorative. I comprehend your thoughtful response that OMF is not a suitable replacement term. Can you propose an alternate synonym for Helicopter money that conforms to wikipedia NPOV guidelines? -J JMesserly (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "Helicopter money" seems the common name, and per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVNAME I think we should stick to it. We certainly shouldn't be coining a new name, so IMO we'd need to be shown substantial usage in reliable sources of a different name to change. Rwendland (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * To JMesserly, yes I agree with you that helicopter money is often used to ridicule the idea. I would personally describe it as a "Universal Monetary Dividend" but I'm probably the only one using this term, so it is not eligible neither. So overall I see stronger arguments to stick with it because there is an historical origin to the concept and for the lack of other terms that are commonly used to accurately describe the idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanjourdan (talk • contribs) 11:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helicopter money. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160326035650/https://www.mpls.frb.org/~/media/files/pubs/books/models/pcc169.pdf?la=en to https://www.mpls.frb.org/~/media/files/pubs/books/models/pcc169.pdf?la=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helicopter money. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160518205952/http://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/EN/Interviews/2016_01_29_weidmann_funke_mediengruppe.html to http://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/EN/Interviews/2016_01_29_weidmann_funke_mediengruppe.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)