Let's assume you successfully created a new currency and let's assume it does not result in hyperinflation. What do you mean by "success"? For Gresham Dollar

Let's assume you successfully created a new currency and let's assume it does not result in hyperinflation. What do you mean by "success"? For Gresham Dollar to have truly succeeded, it will have ultimately become be a single world currency that basically everyone on the planet uses. What mechanism will be used to give everyone a cut? Gresham Dollar is a purely digital currency. Everyone would have an online PayPal-like account and we would simply add the basic income to people's accounts as a continuous stream. So, if the income were, for example, $10/day, you'd get 1 cent every 86.4 seconds. The basic income is always going to be new money that didn't exist before. We don't take it from anywhere. Have you even crunched the numbers on how much money you will need to give everyone a cut? I'm not sure what you mean by "how much money." The basic income is a continuous stream of newly-created money for every person on the planet. We don't need the money. We are the money. Assuming a basic income of $10/day, and 7 billion people on the planet, we'd be creating 70 billion new dollars (GD) every day. Prices will equilibrate to a level that depends on whatever the basic income happens to be. If we had a basic income of $20/day, prices would equilibrate to double the $10/day price level. It might sound weird to you that prices could remain stable if we're constantly pumping new money into the economy, but it's actually true. To illustrate, let's imagine what would happen if we weren't constantly pumping new money into the economy. Let's say that the supply of money is fixed. There are a certain number of dollars in our economy and there will only ever be that number of dollars. Furthermore, let's imagine that the only thing humanity produces is bananas and our level of banana production is also fixed. Over time, more and more of that money will accumulate in people's savings accounts, leaving less money actively circulating and therefore less money to chase each banana. The price of bananas drops and you have deflation. So even in an economy where the amount of wealth we're producing and trading is fixed, we need to continually inject new money to keep prices stable. The simplest and most elegant way to inject money into an economy is through a basic income. A basic income, because it's evenly distributed throughout the economy, results in the minimum possible amount of market distortion. But in the real world, we humans are always improving our technology and figuring out ways to produce more bananas. This means that even if we have found the appropriate basic income to keep fixed the amount of money circulating, that same amount of money will be chasing more and more bananas and we'll still see price deflation. The answer to this problem is a continually increasing basic income. If we want to keep prices stable, we want to scale the amount of the basic income to keep pace with the amount of additional real wealth that humanity is trading. How many dollars per month are you planning to distribute to "everyone"? The number of dollars doesn't really matter in the long term. What matters is that the amount is continually increasing as the amount of wealth we trade increases. I chose $10/day as an example because 10 is a nice round number. $10/day is also an income level that will make a difference for poor people in America while still being low enough that we only need a few million USD to back a basic income for thousands of people for a few months. But as nice as $10/day is for an American, it would be really huge for someone living in India or Mexico today. Unifying the world economy under a single currency removes a barrier preventing regional price alignment. Providing everyone with a basic income in that currency actively pushes price differences to even out to some degree. Since people receive their basic incomes regardless of where they live, they'll have incentive to migrate to locations where the cost of living is lower. Prices in cheaper locations will rise while prices in more expensive locations will fall. This migration will stabilize once regional prices reach levels such that people are, on average, indifferent to location. I wonder if some of the initial Gresham Dollar basic income recipients will take their basic income and flee to Mexico so they can be rich off their $10/day. =) Even though the overall effect of a basic income is unlikely to be inflationary, there will necessarily be pockets of inflation and deflation around the world. This is not a bad thing because the net effect is progress toward more consistent and reliable prices across and between regions. Thank you. You're welcome. Thanks for asking these questions!