Replies

I didn’t say money wouldn’t inflate. But the value would have nothing to do with whether it was earned or given to someone, which is what you said.

The value has *everything* to do with whether the money is traded for production of goods and services, or whether the money is handed out for nothing. Printing money and handing it out does nothing to increase the quantity of goods and services. Throwing more money into the system without adding any value in the form of goods and services cannot have any effect *other* than to cause inflation.

A question: how well do you understand mathematics? If you are math illiterate, then I am afraid that you are incapable of understanding the relationship between quantity of money and quantity of goods and services.

How well do you understand English? I've already acknowledged that printing money decreases the value of each dollar. My point is that each dollar still has the same value as any other dollar regardless of how it was acquired, whatever that value may be. The original poster claimed that dollars given by the government were worth less than dollars earned, just because they came from the government. I say that's nonsense.

And btw, how is that different than what we are doing now? We're running huge deficits already, with trillions and trillions of unfunded liabilities looming. However the money is spent, the effect on inflation is the same.

None of that means I support the idea. Of course I don't support what we're doing now either. I'm just comparing the idea vs. what we have now. It might have some advantages in terms of fairness, and motivating people to work and save. I've been accused of sounding like a Democrat, but the Democrats would never support any idea that eliminated millions of unionized government bureaucrats.