3 ms·

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 wh

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...