> Of course hyperinflation would be a concern at the $100 trillion level. If it wasn't harmful to hand out "free money" to everyone, then they could actually d

> Of course hyperinflation would be a concern at the $100 trillion level. If it wasn't harmful to hand out "free money" to everyone, then they could actually do it at the $100 trillion level. The difference is in the degree/expediency of harm caused. Hyperinflation would be a concern at the $3000 level too. The point is that there is no "free money". Money being "free" equates to money being worthless, and that's exactly where the suggested operation would lead. > Rather, the idea is to switch channels from open-market operations to money giveaways. I see you've adopted the Fed's jargon. The massive difference between what the Fed is doing now (handing out $85B/month to banksters) and handing out money to the masses is that in the latter case, all of that money could potentially enter the real-world economy right away, thus potentially causing all the inflation it could possibly cause. That's way different from the same amount of "nominal wealth" sitting in some bank's balance sheet, having replaced some worthless-in-reality asset's nominal valuation with the equivalent amount of money. In this case, the money is not going anywhere, and thus, not causing the inflation it could. But the original article is thoroughly full of shit. No wonder, because the article was meant to mislead the public.