3 ms·

If you look up "Quantitative Easing" you'll see that making trillions from thin air is exactly what the world's central banks do. But instead of giving it to p

If you look up "Quantitative Easing" you'll see that making trillions from thin air is exactly what the world's central banks do. But instead of giving it to people, they buy securities from banks, who are, as a result, the primary beneficiaries. QE-scale market activities aside, this general method is also standard monetary policy and the means by which new money is created. Seen in that light, BI provides the opportunity for a whole new economic policy lever, by channeling new money to people rather than banks.

kobeya 9y ago
A lot of economists are freaked out about the effect quantitative easing might have on our economy going forward. But even the highest, recklessly dangerous levels of QE3, that only amounted to about $1,500/yr for each US citizen. BI people are advocating for 10x that, for the smallest proposals under consideration. It's not the mechanism, it's the scale of it.
rsync 9y ago
"If you look up "Quantitative Easing" you'll see that making trillions from thin air is exactly what the world's central banks do. But instead of giving it to people, they buy securities from banks, who are, as a result, the primary beneficiaries." This is not an apples-to-apples comparison since QE (so far) has been "sterilized" so as not to increase the money supply in the same way as you are suggesting BI would: "Also, the Federal Reserve has mostly "sterilized" its bond purchases by paying interest to banks for reserve deposits. This removes money from circulation previously added by the Fed's bond purchases. The net effect is to raise bond prices, lowering borrowing rates for mortgages and other loans, without an inflationary increase in the money supply"[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing
- inopinatus 9y ago
  Yes, the useful message here is that we can indeed inject trillions into economies without overheating them, if the right conditions and structures are used. They will be different for BI, naturally.

kobeya 9y ago

A lot of economists are freaked out about the effect quantitative easing might have on our economy going forward. But even the highest, recklessly dangerous levels of QE3, that only amounted to about $1,500/yr for each US citizen. BI people are advocating for 10x that, for the smallest proposals under consideration. It's not the mechanism, it's the scale of it.

rsync 9y ago

"If you look up "Quantitative Easing" you'll see that making trillions from thin air is exactly what the world's central banks do. But instead of giving it to people, they buy securities from banks, who are, as a result, the primary beneficiaries." This is not an apples-to-apples comparison since QE (so far) has been "sterilized" so as not to increase the money supply in the same way as you are suggesting BI would: "Also, the Federal Reserve has mostly "sterilized" its bond purchases by paying interest to banks for reserve deposits. This removes money from circulation previously added by the Fed's bond purchases. The net effect is to raise bond prices, lowering borrowing rates for mortgages and other loans, without an inflationary increase in the money supply"[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

inopinatus 9y ago
Yes, the useful message here is that we can indeed inject trillions into economies without overheating them, if the right conditions and structures are used. They will be different for BI, naturally.