[craigc]

Thank you. I think you are right. I think it’s impossible to reach any sort of consensus when two groups have fundamentally different views.

I’m going to just try to stay out of it from now on. Not worth the time or energy. Especially when my view is the minority view.

FWIW I don’t believe it is any sort of quest towards immortality. My biggest problem is how Keynesian economics tends to favor the central banks who are able to create money out of nothing.

[api]

As I said I'm more on the Keynesian/Monetarist side, but you do have a valid point about how new money is introduced. Current central banks introduce new money in ways that disproportionately benefit banks, the rich, and of course the state. This is not surprising since banks, the rich, and the state chartered the central banks.

This is a separate point from the "what should money be?" debate.

There are other potential ways of introducing new money, especially in the digital age. I'm a fan of a smart version of the "money from helicopters" idea-- introduce money across the entire economy rather than just to the state (via bond purchases) or banks (via fed lending-to-lend).

[craigc]

That’s an interesting idea. How could you see that working in practice?

[api]

With a basic income you could make it variable and raise or lower the nominal basic income payment to vary the rate of money supply growth. This could run alongside the regular interest rate system. If inflation got too high you could raise the interest rate to vacuum up excess currency.