>The researchers found another interesting effect — a "trickle up" flow of wealth quite different from the usual "trickle down" picture of supply-side economics. In an economy with appreciable inequality, capital tends to flow from those with less to those with more, generating a cascade of transactions along the way. Hence, policy interventions aiming to spur economic activity should work better if they inject money into the system at the lower end, rather than from the top.
Does this mean that the paper supports basic income? I don't know much about these topics but I see basic income pop up in conversation on HN every now and then, so it came to mind when I read this.
* Hence, policy interventions aiming to spur economic activity should work better if they inject money into the system at the lower end, rather than from the top.*
Cantillon effects:
In Essai, Cantillon provided an advanced version of John Locke's quantity theory of money, focusing on relative inflation and the velocity of money.[61] Cantillon suggested that inflation occurs gradually and that the new supply of money has a localised effect on inflation, effectively originating the concept of non-neutral money.[62] Furthermore, he posited that the original recipients of new money enjoy higher standards of living at the expense of later recipients.[63]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon#Monetary_the...
Right now, banks and then gov't are the first recipients of new money being injected into the system a la central banking.
Wealth distribution schemes implemented through fiscal policy (taxes and tax credits/grants/UBI) can be undermined through monetary policy this way.
More or less. While there's some controversy on the morals of getting money for nothing, when you get past that the economic viability is usually the focus of debate, and in this discussion it is certainly relevant.
Basic income proponents tend to focus on on sums big enough to live on though, but on this particular topic the size isn't really an issue, and smaller amounts could be interesting to try. Things like http://www.qe4people.eu tend to come up as a type of basic income. More permanent things like the Icelandic souverign money proposal ( https://www.forsaetisraduneyti.is/media/Skyrslur/monetary-re... ) has similar elements.
Does this mean that the paper supports basic income? I don't know much about these topics but I see basic income pop up in conversation on HN every now and then, so it came to mind when I read this.