Three recent U.S. editorials have argued that Quantitative Easing would be more effective and more equitable if the money was given directly to the people in the form of a basic income—if only a temporary one. Martin Hutchinson discusses the Feds goal of buying $40 billion dollars worth of debt each month for as many months as it takes. He argues that for only $31 billion dollars per month the Fed could send a $100 check to each of the 310 million US citizens. Anatole Kaletsky argues that $2 trillion (the amount the Fed spent on Quantitative Easing in 2009) could finance a cash dividend of “$6,500 for every man, woman and child, or $26,000 for a family of four.” All three agree this would be a superior anti-recession policy than Quantitative Easing, which directly benefits bankers and has a lesser effect on overall economic activity.
Brown, Ellen, “Why QE3 Won’t Jump-Start the Economy—and What Would,” Web of Debt, September 21, 2012; reprinted by Truth Dig Sep 22, 2012.
https://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_qe3_wont_jumpstart_the_economyand_what_would_20120922//
https://www.resourceinvestor.com/2012/09/20/for-qe-ben-should-have-tried-the-helicopter
Kaletsky, Anatole, “How about quantitative easing for the people?” Reuters Opinion, August 1, 2012
https://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2012/08/01/how-about-quantitative-easing-for-the-people/
Hutchinson, Martin, “For QE, Ben Should Have Tried the Helicopter,” Resource Investor, September 20, 2012
https://www.resourceinvestor.com/2012/09/20/for-qe-ben-should-have-tried-the-helicopter
