If you print and redistribute money to the unemployed on a means-tested basis, you are directly punishing the people who have accumulated wealth (the purchasing power of their money is eroded) for the benefit of those who didn't (that's why they're able to pass the means-test).
Why would rational people expose themselves to economies that do this to them?
Amongst other reasons:
- the cost (in terms of wealth taken) of redistribution is less than the cost of letting things sort out (eg in fallen asset prices or lost opportunities)
- (for those with only a little accumulated wealth) the prospect of attempting to accumulate wealth -- but failing at it -- is very likely and the consequences of failing at it are very high
...though as always a specific situation requires specific analysis, and there's no particular reason to believe the math works out one way or the other in a given scenario (and, also, to pretend to know the shape of someone else's preferences).
You might be able to do better than means-tested (flat-rate payouts to everyone! minksy-style "employer of last resort" arrangements!) but the underlying dynamic doesn't materially change: (loosely speaking) devaluing currency by X% takes away a lot more wealth from billionaires then from dollar-menuaires; if programs A and B both result in X% devaluation but A is means-tested and B isn't the difference in "cost of program" to the wealthy would be a rounding error.
Why would rational people expose themselves to economies that do this to them?
Amongst other reasons:
- the cost (in terms of wealth taken) of redistribution is less than the cost of letting things sort out (eg in fallen asset prices or lost opportunities)
- (for those with only a little accumulated wealth) the prospect of attempting to accumulate wealth -- but failing at it -- is very likely and the consequences of failing at it are very high
...though as always a specific situation requires specific analysis, and there's no particular reason to believe the math works out one way or the other in a given scenario (and, also, to pretend to know the shape of someone else's preferences).
You might be able to do better than means-tested (flat-rate payouts to everyone! minksy-style "employer of last resort" arrangements!) but the underlying dynamic doesn't materially change: (loosely speaking) devaluing currency by X% takes away a lot more wealth from billionaires then from dollar-menuaires; if programs A and B both result in X% devaluation but A is means-tested and B isn't the difference in "cost of program" to the wealthy would be a rounding error.