This money-sucker beaurocracy stuff makes for more sense with e.g. CIA selling drugs rumors than taxation. This isn't some bullion-based monarchy we live in.
This isn't some bullion-based monarchy where you can just debase the silver currency with some copper to deal with your monetary problems.
Be careful this is a dangerous notion: with today's form of fiat concurrency there is net 0 money!
> redistribution
Likewise the "re" is sketchy. The state can pull money in, and take it out. Keeping those balanced because metal bullion skeuomorphisms is confusing. Our insistence that all money is debt is "double entry accounting fetishism" and also needlessly confusing.
Distribution is good. "re" implies some sort of 0 sum, when the fact that the nominal need not be zero sum, and the future us uncertain and full of possibilities, and this is the true beauty of Capitalism we should embrace even as we are sanguine about all the terrible parts.
The methodology in https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/LISCenter/pkrugman/ler... is much better. The state can print money. The state can destroy money. The state can issue securities. The state should not subscribe to any theory a priori, but simply do the simplest thing the achieve agreed-upon goals, and avoid agreed-upon bad things. Theory can be developed afresh, and with far better empiricism, by basing it on actual experiments of the state trying out different levers and seeing what happens.
Only a wealth of practical experience will overcome the highly politicized disputes. We will never achieve consensus while tiny gamut of the policy space is explored.
-------
That is my long-winded way of saying I (think I agree) agree, but please find a different way to say it :).
And as for redistribution, I suppose just “printing” money into peoples account would more or less have the intended effect as well. I do suspect a 10% inflation rate would lead to simple logistics costs as the nominal amounts kept changing.
But yes, if only more policy was evidence based…
[1] https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/is/pdf/2016/09/KPMG-Mon...
Obviously this is just an approximation, but "class is calculus" is a very useful mental model.
By that ones, yes, the vast majority of people have negligible liquid savings. So the interest rate doesn't directly matter. Yet, the rich also "own the means of production" --- i.e. real assets, which also doesn't get inflated away. So it doesn't obviously matter for them. So what does it effect?
The essential original Keynesian insight (what most of the factions since might agree on), is that since the point of owning things in Capitalism as money, even if you aren't holding cash, the interest rate effects how easy it is to invest, but also what investments are productive w.r.t doing nothing. This spooky shit is what is supposed to give monetary policy it's power.
The differences in opinion in those factions come down to whether there is always enough to invest in, and access to credit is the limiting factor, or not. The Post-Keysnians would say relying on monetary policy alone is stupid, because (to distill in a parable) if no one can buy your stuff, it doesn't matter how cheap the factor is it's not worth it. That's when directly employing people (jobs guarantee) or handing out helicopter money can make a difference --- it's "root" demand, not some spooky shit effecting supply.
Back to the calculus stuff, an interesting idea is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage. This is "inflation for stocks not flows". In short, we want money at rest to go bad, so rich people and instutions are forced to spend and we don't grind to a halt via the paradox of thrift. But we don't want people's wages to inflate away, because they certainly cannot bargain hard enough to get enough raise to keep up. Demurrage is wonderfully hamfisted in trying to do the former but not the latter --- money at rest becomes less money, money flows retain their purchasing power.