The Currency Relativist Theory (Stéphane Laborde's TRM)

[pc]

Basic income will never work, IMO. Mostly because economy is a zero-sum game (more or less). You cannot unconditionally distribute sufficient money for everyone's food, clothing and shelter, because in the end someone will have to create that food, clothing and shelter.

So how big of a difference would it make to me personally if a basic income was adopted to simply replace existing government spending? For starters, I could buy a new car if this were adopted today. If it replaced child support I could buy a new house as well.

This is why a basic income always leads to inflation, IMO. *Everyone* would be able to buy more, which leads to an increase in prices. Furthermore, certain types of low-pay work would no longer be performed. The only way to get workers to do these jobs would be to pay them more. This also leads to an increase in prices.
And suddenly the basic income would no longer be sufficient for food, clothing and shelter.

Regarding inflation,

No one could escape it, the "rich" pay more,

This is naive, IMO. You can escape inflation by investing money into property. The people suffering from inflation the most are those who have only little money and save that up for "bad times" in their bank account or under the mattress.

The rich can even take credit from banks, using their property as collateral. In that case they *win* from inflation.

[VoR0220]

In short, money is created for each human participating in the currency, to a rate that is in function of the lifespan of the human beings, so that it is equilibrated both in space and in time. (For the population of Europe, given the lifespan, that would correspond to a Universal Dividend of about 500 euro per person per month).  That is, the new money is distributed to people, instead of to bansters, and in a reasonned and justified manner, instead of with aphasard "quantitative easings".

Couldn't agree with this statement more.

But the money would have no value absent government coercion demanding it as payment for taxes.

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/26/The-basics-of-Basic-Income/

Even in your blog you say that this is a much better solution than what we currently have (assuming it would work). In my opinion this is better than them printing into oblivion until the currency is worthless, and more ethical. We don't see the new money immediately make its way to the top .01%. We see it distributed to the lower half of society. Furthermore, I'm curious if in your blog that you just assumed that everybody in the populace would get this basic income and calculated from there (I haven't run the calculations and would prefer just to get a straight response from you). One could instead suggest a system akin to Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax, which is what the current US Earned Income Tax Credit is based off of, but instead Mr. Friedman's provides a universal basic income. Did you calculate according to a scheme similar to this, or that even the rich would get a basic income?

[bytemaster]

In short, money is created for each human participating in the currency, to a rate that is in function of the lifespan of the human beings, so that it is equilibrated both in space and in time. (For the population of Europe, given the lifespan, that would correspond to a Universal Dividend of about 500 euro per person per month).  That is, the new money is distributed to people, instead of to bansters, and in a reasonned and justified manner, instead of with aphasard "quantitative easings".

Couldn't agree with this statement more.

But the money would have no value absent government coercion demanding it as payment for taxes.

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/26/The-basics-of-Basic-Income/

[VoR0220]

In short, money is created for each human participating in the currency, to a rate that is in function of the lifespan of the human beings, so that it is equilibrated both in space and in time. (For the population of Europe, given the lifespan, that would correspond to a Universal Dividend of about 500 euro per person per month).  That is, the new money is distributed to people, instead of to bansters, and in a reasonned and justified manner, instead of with aphasard "quantitative easings".

Couldn't agree with this statement more.

[fluxer555]

Paging arhag...

[informatimago]

Hello!

Stéphane Laborde elaborated a theory relativist for a free currency (Théorie Relative de la Monnaie, TRM, in French), which should be of interest.

His book in French:
http://www.creationmonetaire.info/2012/11/theorie-relative-de-la-monnaie-2-718.html
http://www.creationmonetaire.info/videos (in French).

I've translated his mathematical appendix to English:
https://github.com/informatimago/LatexTRM/blob/master/LateXTRM-en.pdf

In short, money is created for each human participating in the currency, to a rate that is in function of the lifespan of the human beings, so that it is equilibrated both in space and in time. (For the population of Europe, given the lifespan, that would correspond to a Universal Dividend of about 500 euro per person per month).  That is, the new money is distributed to people, instead of to bansters, and in a reasonned and justified manner, instead of with aphasard "quantitative easings".