Thank you for a thoughtful response. I saw two specific criticisms that I’ll address.

As for the “price signal” in the labor market, for people making more than the minimum pay nothing would change. For employees who were being paid the allotted income, their employers would, as I said, compete for their labor using benefits. The benefits would establish the ‘price signal’.

As for “a solution . . . must be at least as complicated as the problem it seeks to solve,” that is interestingly like something I often say: the solution must be as big as the problems is. This is certainly a big enough idea.

This solution approaches the problem of the economy from the standpoint of its institutional structure. (Yes, I’m familiar with institutional economists such as Veblen and Ayers.)

The structure of this economy is way, way simpler than its functioning is. That’s why this solution is so simple — though being simple doesn’t necessarily make something easy, as anyone who has tried to hit a golf ball straight can attest.

The functioning of the economy is so complex because all of the variables in it are interdependent. That is the definition of a chaotic system. This proposal simplifies the functioning of the economy by taking its single most significant variable, money, and making it exogenous. So the size of the supply of money would not be affected by any other economic variable. It would be determined by demographics — and only that. All of the other variables in the economy would adjust to that one.