Thank you for such a positive, thoughtful Response. Only the main outline of the paradigm — creating money as needed to fund the DDI/allotted income (and government, as an option itself), with the total of that money forming the supply of money (as currency) for the economy — is set in stone. That is sufficient to ensure the noted outcomes. All else is up for debate.

I personally don’t agree with allowing entrepreneurs to be paid the allotted income. It seems to me to force some entity to determine what is or is not a valid entrepreneurial effort, as opposed to some fraudulent scheme. There would be plenty of money available for investing — in addition to what already exists, some portion of the money that is now paid in taxes of all kinds would presumably become available for that purpose. Also, people (if any) and businesses that were going to have money collected because they would be over the limit would surely be keen to find opportunities of any kind for investment. I would leave it to that particular market to sort out all that. [That does imply that the lower those limits were set, the more money for investing there would be.]

I acknowledge that the allocation of money from central to local government would be most viable in a democratic nation, such that the money not spent at the central level would be sent to the localities where the voters live. Even then, as you point out, the process would have to be protected against undue influence.

If I am understanding your last point correctly, I have in fact considered at some length the matter the (passive) ethical regulation of this paradigm. I am convinced that the ethic of justice is mutual respect. That ethic can govern personal actions as well as the political process and the economy as societal processes. If curious, see especially “Equality Is All We Need” and/or “Real Justice.”

Again, I do want to thank you for your words. Such reactions have been few and far between. I hope you might see fit to advocate for this paradigm.