[tw8f969ae5b6f4]

The effects of inflation are neither instantaneous nor uniformly distributed. Those who obtain the new money first are able to spend it before prices have had time to adjust. As that new money propagates, the prices of the relevant goods and services are bid up.

As such, inflation gives an economic advantage to those who receive the new money sooner, and the consequent higher prices harm those further down the flow.

In short, and contrary to the implication of the above comment, inflation benefits banks and corporations (and by extension, the wealthy and powerful), and harms workers and those on fixed incomes.

[imtringued]

>In short, and contrary to the implication of the above comment, inflation benefits banks and corporations (and by extension, the wealthy and powerful), and harms workers and those on fixed incomes.

Yes but going by central bank policy that money isn't supposed to end up in their hands first. The goal of the central bank is to increase consumer inflation. Of course the actions of the central bank don't match their stated goals but this is primarily a policy failure. The rest of the government is supposed to use the cheap money to increase demand for labor through public spending. It's completely failing to do so.

[CuriouslyC]

The rich (particularly banks) are always going to game any system, so saying anything is unworkable because the rich can partially game it is defeatism. If we use UBI to inflate the currency, everyone gets the same chance to use uninflated funds, which ends up benefitting those with less.

If we inflate via UBI, those on fixed incomes wouldn't be hurt unless it was a fat fixed income, in which case it's disingenuous to refer to them that way since they're basically just independently wealthy, and most people think of fixed income means pension/disability.

[imtringued]

I propose a very new unconventional type of asset. It is effectively equivalent to a UBI but since it is also an asset the central bank can easily control it.

The central bank does an IPO and sells UBI tokens at a fixed price. Say $100. If you own at least one token then you will gain a dividend of 1 UBI token per month. To prevent abuse there is a government run exchange where this token can be bought on that verifies your identity. This means you are heavily incentivized to sell your tokens to other people for less than $100 yourself. It's basically an "anti" asset. It's relative utility shrinks the more you own. The central bank then can buy tokens back at any price it desires. The beauty of this system is that the wealthy are a minority so any money that the central bank distributes by buying UBI tokens will primarily go the less wealthy because they are the majority. Since you get one token per month and the central bank can set the minimum value of the token it is effectively a UBI. If consumer inflation heats up the central bank can always stop buying tokens because it isn't a true UBI that people depend on.

[tw8f969ae5b6f4]

> so saying anything is unworkable because the rich can partially game it is defeatism

Thankfully I wasn't saying that. I was disagreeing with your claim that "[inflation] hurts you in direct proportion to how well off you are", arguing instead that:

1. inflation benefits those earlier in the flow of new money, and

2. at present, that new money enters the economy via banks, etc.

> If we use UBI to inflate the currency...

Indeed, this depends on #1 above: change how new money enters and propagates through the economy and you change the wealth transfer effects.