3 ms·
A simpler way would be to print more money and cause more inflation. 10% wealth destruction per month matches the hyper inflation of Germany in the 20s.Of cours
by ant6n 10y ago
A simpler way would be to print more money and cause more inflation. 10% wealth destruction per month matches the hyper inflation of Germany in the 20s.Of course the rich who store their assets in non liquid form weren't as affected as the poor who didn't know how to pay for bread.
- visarga 10y agoThere is another way, without issuing money. Create a new currency, dedicated for paying UBI to people. Then require that companies pay part of their taxes in this currency, in order to make it valuable. It should cycle itself back and there would be no need to issue new UBI money. The deeper problem is that companies have a conflict of short term / long term interest. In the short term, they would prefer to sell their products with as little taxes as possible, and hire as few people as possible. But in the long term, their interest is to have a thriving population and a robust market. If companies don't act responsibly towards society, there is a pressing need to organize self-reliance. We need to create a new economy based on unemployed people. With good management, they could cover a part of their needs without external help, maybe even be self sufficient. In a sense, we could employ the mass of jobless to work for their needs, thus finding employment and solving their problems directly.
- fpig 10y agoI see this repeated all the time but I consider it to be completely wrong. It is always in my interest to keep $X rather than give it to someone else. Even if they use the $X to buy my product, that's still less favorable for me than to just keep it and not sell the product. And the chance that they would buy my product with that money is almost zero anyway. Giving people money in hopes that they will buy your product is mathematically a losing strategy, in short or long term.
- visarga 10y agoCompanies are benefiting from paying less salary and thus not supporting society, but in tern, expecting the same society to buy their products. Population was already reliant on salary, which was a part of the cost of production. It won't change much, just that now it is redistributed more.
- Kalium 10y agoI eagerly await you building the society of self-reliance of which you speak. It sounds like there's nothing stopping you!
- visarga 10y agoIf it's so bad, then you take the lead and provide a different idea.
- Kalium 10y agoI earnestly and honestly think that if you believe in the notions you have advanced, then you should work towards implementing them. Surely the jobless masses will be happy to work for their needs, and self-sufficiency will obviate the need for any external assistance.
- Ygg2 10y agoNo, that won't lead to inflation. Quite opposite, it would lead to deflation, since you have same material value, represented by a lower number of bonds/money. The value of money, each month would go up, and printing money could be use to counter act the deflation, creating a stable currency. Keep in mind that if you use your money before it expires each month, you get more value than if you just sit on it.