" @Claudia_Sahm said a major issue with narrowing the checks is the government doesn’t have all the necessary information. People who have just lost their job or seen a pay cut might not qualify because their circumstances changed too recently." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-30/biden-s-stimulus-risks-giving-money-to-people-who-won-t-spend-it?sref=YAR8Qcu4

"If you want to get biggest bang for the buck, you would give it to people who have low balances in their bank accounts -- but the government doesn’t have that information,” said Sahm. “If you get too fancy with targeting, you’re going to miss people who really are in need.”

great piece by @katiadmi. she talks with @ProfJAParker and discusses @WendyEdelberg and Louise Sheiner (also former Fed staff) analysis of fiscal relief (it's good!), as well as studies by JPMorgan Chase Institute and @OppInsights.

I shared my concerns with @OppInsights study this morning (early morning) https://twitter.com/Claudia_Sahm/status/1355471047634673664?s=20

I think JPMorgan Chase Institute study https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3633008 is somewhat misinterpreted. in PERCENT change they find lowest 25% families by income have biggest increase after checks arrive (all incomes increase). in LEVELS, all but highest increase about same.

to be clear, I am not being dogmatic and have an open mind. I've spent more than a decade studying every possible paper on the topic. covering it at the Fed, I couldn't get away with (nor wanted to) do one-side-ism. also pragmatic. we can't target on what we don't know.

one thing that gets lost in the micro-to-macro translation. unless you believe NO ONE above $75,000 spends ANY of their checks then targeting, which would lower aggregate amount of checks, would lower total amount of spending pumped into the economy. we need relief and spending.