3 ms·

So a monthly redistribution of, say, 10% of the money supply as public dividend would take care of that no?

Ericson2314 5y ago
> money supply Be careful this is a dangerous notion: with today's form of fiat concurrency there is net 0 money! > redistribution Likewise the "re" is sketchy. The state can pull money in, and take it out. Keeping those balanced because metal bullion skeuomorphisms is confusing. Our insistence that all money is debt is "double entry accounting fetishism" and also needlessly confusing. Distribution is good. "re" implies some sort of 0 sum, when the fact that the nominal need not be zero sum, and the future us uncertain and full of possibilities, and this is the true beauty of Capitalism we should embrace even as we are sanguine about all the terrible parts. The methodology in https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/LISCenter/pkrugman/lerner-function-finance.pdf https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/LISCenter/pkrugman/ler... is much better. The state can print money. The state can destroy money. The state can issue securities. The state should not subscribe to any theory a priori, but simply do the simplest thing the achieve agreed-upon goals, and avoid agreed-upon bad things. Theory can be developed afresh, and with far better empiricism, by basing it on actual experiments of the state trying out different levers and seeing what happens. Only a wealth of practical experience will overcome the highly politicized disputes. We will never achieve consensus while tiny gamut of the policy space is explored. ------- That is my long-winded way of saying I (think I agree) agree, but please find a different way to say it :).
- CuriousSkeptic 5y ago
  Yeah, with money supply I actually was thunking of some vague future approach rather than the current setup. Be that some crypto thing, or the intriguing Sovereign Money[1] proposal. And as for redistribution, I suppose just “printing” money into peoples account would more or less have the intended effect as well. I do suspect a 10% inflation rate would lead to simple logistics costs as the nominal amounts kept changing. But yes, if only more policy was evidence based… [1] https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/is/pdf/2016/09/KPMG-MoneyIssuance-2016.pdf https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/is/pdf/2016/09/KPMG-Mon...
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    Nice link! Thanks. Very into centralizing the boring parts of banks as a utility like that, and just letting private banks do their funny stuff without captive regular people, but didn't no Iceland was thinking about it somewhat seriously.
imtringued 5y ago
I hope you mean yearly.

> money supply Be careful this is a dangerous notion: with today's form of fiat concurrency there is net 0 money! > redistribution Likewise the "re" is sketchy. The state can pull money in, and take it out. Keeping those balanced because metal bullion skeuomorphisms is confusing. Our insistence that all money is debt is "double entry accounting fetishism" and also needlessly confusing. Distribution is good. "re" implies some sort of 0 sum, when the fact that the nominal need not be zero sum, and the future us uncertain and full of possibilities, and this is the true beauty of Capitalism we should embrace even as we are sanguine about all the terrible parts. The methodology in https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/LISCenter/pkrugman/lerner-function-finance.pdf https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/LISCenter/pkrugman/ler... is much better. The state can print money. The state can destroy money. The state can issue securities. The state should not subscribe to any theory a priori, but simply do the simplest thing the achieve agreed-upon goals, and avoid agreed-upon bad things. Theory can be developed afresh, and with far better empiricism, by basing it on actual experiments of the state trying out different levers and seeing what happens. Only a wealth of practical experience will overcome the highly politicized disputes. We will never achieve consensus while tiny gamut of the policy space is explored. ------- That is my long-winded way of saying I (think I agree) agree, but please find a different way to say it :).

CuriousSkeptic 5y ago
Yeah, with money supply I actually was thunking of some vague future approach rather than the current setup. Be that some crypto thing, or the intriguing Sovereign Money[1] proposal. And as for redistribution, I suppose just “printing” money into peoples account would more or less have the intended effect as well. I do suspect a 10% inflation rate would lead to simple logistics costs as the nominal amounts kept changing. But yes, if only more policy was evidence based… [1] https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/is/pdf/2016/09/KPMG-MoneyIssuance-2016.pdf https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/is/pdf/2016/09/KPMG-Mon...
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Nice link! Thanks. Very into centralizing the boring parts of banks as a utility like that, and just letting private banks do their funny stuff without captive regular people, but didn't no Iceland was thinking about it somewhat seriously.

imtringued 5y ago

I hope you mean yearly.