You invented universal basic income. Let's do it.
It's not absurd, fed=Robin Hood. We're too productive to give jobs to everyone. Some must stay home. But we should care for them anyway, we have the technology.
„If you take Krugman at his word, why, one would have to ask him, if printing money is fundamentally a good thing ([…] that is the Keynesian view, which, of course, is absurd and non-sense […]) because it increases consumption, why would you leave it to a central bank or a commercial bank to do that for you? Why don’t they give us a machine that we can put in our attic or spare bedroom and print money when we need it as a family? It would be very popular.“ - Godfrey Bloom in TFTC -448 by nostr:npub1guh5grefa7vkay4ps6udxg8lrqxg2kgr3qh9n4gduxut64nfxq0q9y6hjy
Discussion
I don't want to take credit for the question; it is Godfrey Bloom's whom I was citing.
I believe that in the long run, you can only give away for free what you can produce at virtually zero cost. FIAT, for example. However, if you do, it will very quickly lose its value.
Interestingly, you thought of UBI when reading his quote when, I believe, he had quite the opposite in mind. I think he intended to make an analogy that would help people understand how ridiculous and helpless it is to believe printing more money would make real-world problems disappear.
Let me share a related thought. I was recently reading "Principles of Economics" by nostr:npub1gdu7w6l6w65qhrdeaf6eyywepwe7v7ezqtugsrxy7hl7ypjsvxksd76nak. In the book, he spares no effort to describe real-life examples that make it easy for the reader to understand.
While reading his fascinating book, I asked myself how many readers would adjust their economic beliefs and behavior after reading. Would a convinced Keynesian buy the book? Would she make it past page 20? Or is it mainly the people already sold on or at least open to Austrian economic theories that invest the time to read the book to page 394? In other words: Do we still reach a critical mass of influential people? Do we still have a productive debate?
I don't know.
Yes, I was intentionally playing off the double meaning. Basic physical needs have been getting cheaper and cheaper. Such that the man develops more and more torturous beaurocracy to keep everyone fearful. With ubi it would be harder to exercise control.