Does this mean that the paper supports basic income? I don't know much about these topics but I see basic income pop up in conversation on HN every now and then, so it came to mind when I read this.
Does this mean that the paper supports basic income? I don't know much about these topics but I see basic income pop up in conversation on HN every now and then, so it came to mind when I read this.
Cantillon effects: In Essai, Cantillon provided an advanced version of John Locke's quantity theory of money, focusing on relative inflation and the velocity of money.[61] Cantillon suggested that inflation occurs gradually and that the new supply of money has a localised effect on inflation, effectively originating the concept of non-neutral money.[62] Furthermore, he posited that the original recipients of new money enjoy higher standards of living at the expense of later recipients.[63] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon#Monetary_the...
Right now, banks and then gov't are the first recipients of new money being injected into the system a la central banking.
Wealth distribution schemes implemented through fiscal policy (taxes and tax credits/grants/UBI) can be undermined through monetary policy this way.
Basic income proponents tend to focus on on sums big enough to live on though, but on this particular topic the size isn't really an issue, and smaller amounts could be interesting to try. Things like http://www.qe4people.eu tend to come up as a type of basic income. More permanent things like the Icelandic souverign money proposal ( https://www.forsaetisraduneyti.is/media/Skyrslur/monetary-re... ) has similar elements.