> It's been a while since I've done serious economic analysis. Please correct me if I'm wrong. =) > If you print money on a fixed schedule, the natural market

> It's been a while since I've done serious economic analysis. Please correct me if I'm wrong. =) > If you print money on a fixed schedule, the natural market response is to devalue the currency according to the same fixed schedule. This is wrong. Price levels of a currency are determined by the volume of spending relative to the volume of trade. Furthermore, it's not the volume of any trade that matters. It's the volume of trade of goods whose prices you care about. Money does not spread itself evenly over the course of the economy. To take an extreme example, if we just throw the printed money down a hole, it doesn't affect prices. Or if we spend all that money to buy stocks, it might drive up the price of stocks, but we probably don't care about the price of stocks when calculating the general price level for our currency. Additionally, people borrow in order to spend. The amount of spending in the economy increases when people borrow more. In this sense, an increase in credit and debt in the economy has a very similar effect to an increase in the amount of money. As I alluded to previously, there are places in the economy where money flows in faster than it flows out. Money tends to accumulate in these places. The spending that people would have used that money for must be continually replaced or you end up with deflation. But let's imagine a world in which people are able to buy more of the stuff whose prices we care about. This is the basic income scenario. Assuming that we have the capacity to produce more of that stuff, we will produce more. Note that doubling the number of people who can afford to buy stuff is very different from doubling the amount of money that everyone has. In the former scenario, more people are willing to buy at existing prices. In the latter, people are willing to spend more on the stuff they already buy. The second scenario is always inflationary. Anyway, I could go on and on about this. And I have. The bottom line is that it's complicated. And you always need monetary policy keeping your currency stable regardless of whether you have a basic income. The effects of a basic income could be either inflationary or deflationary. It probably depends on the amount of the basic income. In either case, monetary policy has got you covered. I agree with you though that Circles doesn't seem to have any kind of sane monetary policy.