I realize that the chances that this author will give any consideration to this Reply are vanishingly small, but here goes anyway. It is never a bad thing to propose a new approach to an unsolved problem.

Fundamentally, the problem this economy has is that all of the macroeconomic variables in it, to include the size of the supply of money, are too interdependent. That makes it 'chaotic', i.e., unable as a system to achieve a stable equilibrium--or even a self-constrained range of functional chaos: there is always the threat of a cataclysmic economic disaster. Since 1980 it has been left to the Fed to try to 'manage' the unruly beast that is the existing economy--to prevent the worst outcome, anyway.

Surely some better approach within the existing institutional structure is possible. I have come up with, I am convinced, a viable paradigm to act as a starting point for developing a better approach to supplying the economy with money. In relating it I don't mean to suggest that every last detail is rigidly in place.

With that disclaimer in mind, one obvious solution to that fundamental problem would be to make the amount of money supplied to the economy (as currency, as opposed to the money supplied by banks when they extend credit in making loans) an exogenous variable. It turns out that doing that the way I stumbled upon would produce astonishingly improved outcomes for the nation from the existing economy.

It does require limiting the amount of money that can be hoarded, but in this proposal people and businesses could retain plentiful pools of money (based on income) and, unlike a tax, no money would be collected before it could be used for purchases/investment. Moreover, the total supply of money would be fully self-regulating, making the economy self-regulating.

To be clear, no limit would be imposed on income/wealth. The Fed would still oversee the banking system, which would operate as it does today.

If curious: "Paradigm Shift" is here in Medium (but not behind the paywall).