3 ms·
100 years ago, you could have just set the money on fire and had a pretty similar net effect (reduce the money supply, increase the value of the remaining money
by academia_hack 4y ago
100 years ago, you could have just set the money on fire and had a pretty similar net effect (reduce the money supply, increase the value of the remaining money for everyone else). There are some caveats. Money burning benefits aren't distributed evenly - rich people gain more than poor people since they have more of the remaining money. You also have to already have at least some money to benefit from it.
Still, it's possible the low overhead and fraud risks of burning money compared to distributing it might make it a more cost effective way to equitably distribute the $8 billion globally than any other route.
Modern finance is unfortunately more complicated. Burning money doesn't necessarily have any impact on the value of money.
- f_devd 4y agoIf 100 years go, This is probably the most practically doable answer but not one that accomplishes any of the goals. It only benefits pre-existing holders of USD, and this problem exists even in holders of USD. Since USD is not distributed equally among the population, the actual effect would proportional to the existing holdings; most people would effectively receive a lot less than 1$.