If Only the World Had Listened to Me

Stephen Yearwood
3 min readAug 13


This world would be a vastly different place.

Photo by Hector Ramon Perez on Unsplash

Just after I had turned 30 I discovered a new and better way to supply the existing economy with money. Over the course of my adult life (now 70) I have continued to develop that idea. Thanks to the G.I. Bill, along the way I earned an M.A. in economics. (Previously I had taken three economics course in college and studied Marxism informally for about ten years: rejecting that ideology was the impetus for this idea.) Getting a Ph.D. was not necessary in order to learn enough about the structure and functioning of the economy to be able to assess the viability of this new paradigm. Solving any problem does not require being the most knowledgeable person working on it or the most intelligent, only to be intelligent and knowledgeable enough. The former I am not. The latter, I am. Moreover, I started by doubting very seriously that this paradigm would turn out to be a valid idea; I simply decided that I would continue with it for as long as the idea continued making sense. Forty years later, it makes complete sense.

The outcomes for society are astonishing:

  • no unemployment or poverty (at any level of total output);
  • no taxes/public debt (so long as government anywhere does not exceed its allotted funding — which would be equal to the current total spending by government);
  • sustainability would not be an issue (as total output would be governed, passively but effectively, by demographics);
  • all that would be accomplished while making the economy self-regulating, with built-in protections against inflation.

All of those outcomes are absolutely, positively guaranteed; with this New Monetary Paradigm they are built into the structure of the economy. There would be no need to impose any cost on employers, redistribute anything, or require people to act any particular way (such as as altruistically). It could be adopted by any nation — ‘overnight’, with a single legislative Act.

I immediately began trying to share my discovery with the world. Forty years later, I am still trying to get the world to stop summarily rejecting this idea and to start giving it serious consideration.

Forty years — four decades — close to half a century have now slipped into the past. What would the world look like if my discovery had been widely adopted, say, thirty years ago — or even twenty?

Is it too late now? It is never too late to do better.


For anyone interested in gleaning more of the details about the paradigm I have developed, the best place to start might be “Permanent ‘Quantitative Easing’.” It is brief (a “4 min read”), makes an important point about money in the context of this paradigm, and at the end has links to “Same Economy, Way Better Outcomes for Society” and “Paradigm Shift.” The former focuses on details regarding the implementation of the paradigm (with the U.S. as the illustrative example) while the latter relates the paradigm in a much more technical but more generic way. For more income equality there is “The Unnecessariness of Marxism” (for society to go where Marx foresaw). All linked articles are in Medium, but not behind the paywall.



Stephen Yearwood

unaffiliated, non-ideological, unpaid: M.A. in political economy (where philosophy and economics intersect) with a focus in money/distributive justice