3 ms·
It doesn't have to be funded by taxation. Basic income could become the primary lever of the money supply or of monetary policy generally. e.g. imagine if Qua
by inopinatus 10y ago
It doesn't have to be funded by taxation.
Basic income could become the primary lever of the money supply or of monetary policy generally.
e.g. imagine if Quantitative Easing had been implemented via an adjustment to a basic income, rather than buying bonds from merchant banks.
- dragonwriter 10y agoMonetization is equivalent to a global tax on net dollar denominated assets; doing it to a major ongoing program is a good way to trash your currency. It's not necessarily bad to use direct benefit payments as a monetary policy tool when there are monetary policy reasons (e.g., your proposed QE alternative), but unless you're willing to see BI go away completely when the traditional concerns governing monetary policy call for tight money, then you shouldn't call for it to be monetized unless your goal is to destroy the dollar rather than provide a stable public benefit program.
- inopinatus 10y agoSince I am suggesting that BI be a major lever of monetary policy, it should follow that I am willing for it be tightened as necessary. Do you think it would go to zero? That would be more extreme than any of today's austerity programmes.