Permanent ‘Quantitative Easing’

Photo by Giorgio Trovato on Unsplash
  1. To retain complete freedom from taxes/public debt, total spending by government could not exceed its current per capita level. Any additional spending that any government did undertake could definitely be limited, however, to selling bonds. That would require taxes of some kind/duration for repayment, but would be much different from simply imposing/raising permanent taxes.
  2. There would have to be a limit on hoarding money: at some point money would have to be returned to the central bank — but people and businesses would retain plentiful pools of money (based on income) and (unlike taxes) no money would ever be collected from any person or business before it could be used for purchases/investment.

--

--

--

unaffiliated, non-ideological, unpaid, academically trained in economics and philosophy

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Recommended from Medium

Financial markets and housing financialization

Unbridled Capitalism is Dying.

Economic Growth: Addiction and its Alternatives

The greatest counterfeiting operation in history

Robots Won’t Cause Mass Unemployment and Manufacturing Won’t Save Us: Meeting the Real Jobs…

Malaysia Tanah Airku: Once A Tiger Economy, Now A Laggard Nation

Business Highlights

4 explanations for the shocking decline in new jobs

A “help wanted” sign hangs on a window of a restaurant on June 1, 2018, in Miami, Florida.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Stephen Yearwood

Stephen Yearwood

unaffiliated, non-ideological, unpaid, academically trained in economics and philosophy

More from Medium

Policy Stacking

Monarchy, and its advantages over Communism or Democracy

Is Santa the Patron Saint of Capitalism?

Manufacturing Consent On The Blockchain: The Case of 2021 Russian Election