In theory, increasing the supply of a currency eventually lowers its value - and fuels inflation. And when rising cost-of-living is the issue you are trying to tackle, such a move could be viewed as counter productive in the longer term.
On the other hand, when people genuinely need assistance - especially for food - what other choice are there?
I'm no economist, but I think there may be a way to introduce money to subsidise food purchase WITHOUT pushing up inflation. It seems like a wild idea - but there are precedents!
I am talking about introducing a 'secondary' currency, called "FOOD CURRENCY"!
In the United States, the Electronic Benefit Tranfer (EBT) is a debit card that replaced the earlier "Food Stamps Program".
But I'm not a fan of rationing food - and especially not for pushing the consumption of pre-packaged food... So maybe this FOOD CURRENCY could be a real physical currency circulated in a closed loop 'fresh food cycle' going from the governement to buyers to fresh food retailers to local farmers who in turn could redeemed it from the government, partially in regular (primary) currency, and partially for tax-breaks and/or organic agro-inputs. Thus subsidsing producers and consumers of fresh locally-grown food.
Positive impact on healthcare, employment generation and lower import bills are just the beginning...
Since there is no usurious bank debt or other interest component weighing down the currency; and the only thing it can be considered to be pegged against is 'fresh food', a tangible increasingly valuable commodity, there is a distinct possibility that a FOOD CURRENCY will not only be stable, but actually appreciate in value even though it is created out of thin air!
Hey, I'm not an economist, but this just feel like commonsense. And right now, I'd rather go with commonsense than high-falutin' economics.
After all, just look where all the smart financiers and economists have got us today...
Advertising today, in two charts. -
17 hours ago