That is an excellent exposition. Whenever I read an essay on the topic of the economy and its ills, especially in the scope of the preceding work, I feel compelled to relay that I have in fact found the solution.

I do understand that being apprised of this idea by its author somehow diminishes its credibility, but I don’t have a solution for that. For what it’s worth, I do have an M.A. in economics.

This is not something I came up with this morning. I have been fine-tuning it for years while trying (completely unsuccessfully) to get it into the domain of public discourse (which, once enough people understood it, would presumably ensure its implementation).

This solution to the problems of the existing economic system would send money through the ‘consumer class’ (those whose economic situation generates a high ‘marginal propensity to consume’) to businesses and, by extension, the ‘investor class’ (people with a high ‘marginal propensity to save’ (/invest/speculate). In the process, it would make the existing economy stable and self-regulating (with built-in safeguards against inflation), providing the means to eliminate unemployment (at no cost to anyone), poverty (without having to redistribute anything), taxes (of all kinds) and public debt (at all levels of government), while increasing sustainability (even without additional regulations).

To be clear, there would still be no limit on income or property/wealth. Moreover, those outcomes would not require any changes in economic behavior. Rather, they are built into these proposed changes to the monetary system.

At bottom, this is simply a different way of supplying the economy with money. There would be an ‘allotted income’, the total of which would form the supply of money (as currency, whether material or digital) for the economy. It would not be paid to everyone, but it would be available for an unlimited number of people. The amount of it should be based, I would say, on the current median income. It would be created as needed.

So, money would enter the economy at the ‘bottom’ and flow from there to businesses via purchases of goods and services. At some point, to prevent the devaluation of the money due to excessive supply, some of that money would have to be recaptured, to be returned to the issuer to be recycled as the allotted income. Unlike taxes, however, no money would be collected before it could be used for purchases or investment (/speculation — most of what is called ‘investment’ is mere speculation, purchased for re-selling at a better price or as an appreciative store of value, not to fund additional productive capacity). The issuer of that income would also directly fund government — at the current per capita rate of total government spending forever — which is how this proposal provides for the elimination of taxes and public debt.

There are two different ways this proposal could be implemented, one via the existing central bank and the other via a newly created monetary entity. The latter would be separate from and independent of both government and the banking system.

Either way, the supply of money would be determined by demographics — and only that. No person, group, committee, or organization would be able to influence, much less determine the size of the supply of money or the amount to be returned to the issuer. The system would be utterly self-regulating.

I do have a Web site, such as it is, www.ajustsolution.com. (I’ve been informed that the link doesn’t work, so the address would have to be typed.) I got to this idea in thinking about a really just economy, but it can be evaluated in strictly economic terms. I have also published relevant essays here on medium.com, including “Extending Democracy to Our Capitalist Economy to Transform Our Society,” “A Call for a (Further) Central Bank Revolution” (the central-bank option), and “A Cure for the Ills of Capitalism” (the other option). Those links do work. I acknowledge that I am a better thinker than I am a writer — or a Web site designer.