Apoorcalypse

$5000 for every U.S. baby? Maybe Clinton is not so bad after all. This is the very best kind of left-liberal policy, (a) being universal rather than means-tested, and (b) offering cash rather than specifically delimited goods, and thus ceding control over the spending decision to the recipients. It's really wonderful to see this idea floated in mainstream politics. (See here for why it is such a good idea.)

It's strange to read the objections from right-wingers in the comments here. There are some real head-scratchers. (Some appear to confuse the end of poverty with the end of the world.) 'Justin', for example, mockingly asks:

If she's serious, why not pay for all basic food products? You shouldn't have to pay for things like flour!

But one of the major arguments in favour of general (cash) redistribution is that it doesn't distort incentives and price signals the way specific interventions (flour) would. We're talking about redistribution whilst maintaining a market economy. That's a pretty important difference.

'The Ghost' adds: "there's nothing you can do that would aggravate American poverty more than promise every poor kid $18,000 when they turn 18."

Yeah, there's nothing like an unconditional cash injection to keep people poor. I guess we ought to ban trust funds for rich kids too. We shouldn't want them to be disadvantaged by all that money waiting for them when they grow up, just because they were unfortunate enough to have wealthy parents. They should enjoy the same freedom from resources as everyone else.