4 ms·

Hyperinflation is not a foregone conclusion of printing new money; it depends on how fast it is printed. >Hyperinflations are usually caused by large persisten

Hyperinflation is not a foregone conclusion of printing new money; it depends on how fast it is printed. >Hyperinflations are usually caused by large persistent government deficits financed primarily by money creation (rather than taxation or borrowing). As such, hyperinflation is often associated with wars, their aftermath, sociopolitical upheavals, or other crises that make it difficult for the government to tax the population. A sharp decrease in real tax revenue coupled with a strong need to maintain the status quo, together with an inability or unwillingness to borrow, can lead a country into hyperinflation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation

ChrisLomont 11y ago
I agree, but printing enough to pay "living" income for a decent percent of a population will lead to hyperinflation. That is a substantial amount. Consider what would happen if instead of using taxes to pay SS in the US we just printed that much each year. It would be a disaster. I was pointing out to the OP that his implication that the money will not be paid by others through taxes at some level is unlikely. Printing enough to make a basic income program for a populace is economic suicide.
- chadzawistowski 11y ago
  >Consider what would happen if instead of using taxes to pay SS in the US we just printed that much each year. It would be a disaster. Would it? In the eight years since 2008, the Federal Reserve's balance sheet has grown by nearly $4.5 trillion[0], mostly to the benefit of financial institutions and the stock market. Meanwhile, the cost of social security in 2015 was $888 billion. The first quantitative easing was an emergency response, sure. Yet it expanded by an additional $2 trillion since 2010! I have to wonder if this money would be better allocated to living income, putting cash in the hands of consumers and boosting aggregate demand. [0] 2015 Federal Balance Sheet Report http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/quarterly_balance_sheet_developments_report_201511.pdf http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/quarterly...

ChrisLomont 11y ago

I agree, but printing enough to pay "living" income for a decent percent of a population will lead to hyperinflation. That is a substantial amount. Consider what would happen if instead of using taxes to pay SS in the US we just printed that much each year. It would be a disaster. I was pointing out to the OP that his implication that the money will not be paid by others through taxes at some level is unlikely. Printing enough to make a basic income program for a populace is economic suicide.

chadzawistowski 11y ago
>Consider what would happen if instead of using taxes to pay SS in the US we just printed that much each year. It would be a disaster. Would it? In the eight years since 2008, the Federal Reserve's balance sheet has grown by nearly $4.5 trillion[0], mostly to the benefit of financial institutions and the stock market. Meanwhile, the cost of social security in 2015 was $888 billion. The first quantitative easing was an emergency response, sure. Yet it expanded by an additional $2 trillion since 2010! I have to wonder if this money would be better allocated to living income, putting cash in the hands of consumers and boosting aggregate demand. [0] 2015 Federal Balance Sheet Report http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/quarterly_balance_sheet_developments_report_201511.pdf http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/quarterly...