Knowing how the bailouts and direct cash payments affect the money supply

[Mad7Scientist]

Is there any way to know what the money supply is in the United States?

Since things have come to a halt and there are far fewer new car loans, business loans, new real estate projects, student loans, and new credit card debt putting new currency in to the economy. This lack of new money in the economy is what starts off a depression, as there is no new money being made available to pay of the interest on the existing loans. The direct cash payments counteract this, so long as you accept that the national debt will never be repaid or ignore Congress' debt to the Federal Reserve.

Is there some statistic that can be used to compare the lack of new loans and new money versus the $1200 being sent to most people in the USA? For instance, if a person doesn't put $1200 on their credit card when they normally would have, and they get $1200 from the government, in the grand scheme of things it balances out in the fractional reserve bank economy.

[franky1]

many banks have had billions over the last decade, they are not going to lose out
and most of the businesses are not getting grants but getting loans to cover losses.
money creation is still happening. but the interest rates are lower/none.

this money creation is happening. government is getting a huge pile of cash to fill the treasury. and when they pay out to citizens. those citizens then buy stuff where 20% goes to sales tax. the 80% goes to company that then pays out corporation tax. and whats left when they pay staff then pays employee income tax

in the end a $1200 treasury output can end up being $600 back into treasure after a few spending hops

i think its better to do this trickle up economics than trickle down.
yea the government just onmasse got billions of credit from banks and spend it to citizens.. rather than banks giving credit to citizens .. but in the end it balances out.
only difference is the government is the 'guarantor'

[Cnut237]

i think its better to do this trickle up economics than trickle down.

Definitely. Money always ends up in the hands of the rich. Better to give it to the poor first and let it work its way through the economy, rather than giving it to the rich directly.

'Trickle down' is absurd and obscene. It did actually begin as a joke:

Humorist Will Rogers jokingly advised in a column in 1932:
This election was lost four and six years ago, not this year. They [Republicans] didn’t start thinking of the old common fellow till just as they started out on the election tour. The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickles down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the driest little spot. But he didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow's hands. They saved the big banks, but the little ones went up the flue.

_{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics}