To be devil's advocate:
Imagine that the central banks paid the freshly-printed money equally to every person.
When the economy is doing badly, central banks currently create incentives - via changes to interest rates - to cause commercial banks to increase the money supply. But a more direct - and fair - way is to distribute the money directly to the people.
In this approach, nobody could complain about unfair access to the money printer
Login to reply
Replies (1)
Good morning. Your way does sound more fair but it still creates distortions. Imagine everyone gets a stimmy check no matter their wealth. The goods and services in the economy remain the same but now they are being chased by more dollars so at first cut you could expect that everything will just get more expensive in proportion. So that doesn’t help anyone. But I don’t actually need a stimmy check to survive so i spend all of mine on bitcoin. But a poor person may have to spend all of theirs on food and shelter. In effect you gave rich people free bitcoin and made them wealthier. Was that your intention? In Australia they came up with the genius idea of giving all first home buyers a grant. All that happened was house prices went up in lock step, housing there is still unaffordable. All the well intentioned ideas for centrally managing the money supply makes it worse.