Currently, new fiat money is generally created by central banks that gives out that money as loans, or more recently, by central banks simply creating money to buy assets (called quantitative easing).
What would likely the effects be, if a new country decided that their central banks created a fixed amount of money per year, let's say 4% new money per year, and gave this money directly to the government?
Arguments for:
Arguments against
Unsure if for or against
This is a complicated topic. https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Temple-Federal-Reserve-Country/dp/0671675567 provides a good overview of the origins and purpose of the Federal Reserve system.
Who has the authority to enforce this plan when the government wants to spend more than they have? Even if it were enforceable, it runs into the standard monetary-policy-mismatch boom/bust problems as the real economy (actual trade in goods and services) expands faster or slower than 4%.
Interesting comment and good points that I had not considered.
I guess there is a risk of the government simply taking control of the central bank whenever they want (assuming they don't already have control from the start), and then set the interest rate to whatever they want (most likely something very low, so they can spend extra, perhaps during a war). However, to me it seems likely, that governments will have a harder time changing a fixed rate, than a dynamic one. Further, the currency's value would likely drop abruptly if the government would decide to change the fixed rate, since then there is no guarantee what they will do with the currency. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
I wonder if having a decentralized currency might solve these issues, since the fixed rate would be "impossible" to tamper.
For your statement about boom/bust problems, I would argue that current systems with central banks is somewhat more likely to cause booms and busts, since what generally happens, is that interest rates are lowered, and leverage is increased, to the point it's no longer sustainable, and there is a bust (like 1929). If the rate is fixed, the market should regulate itself, and be stable over time. Do you disagree with this being the case? If so, I would like to hear your reasoning.
Good question. I agree it's not obvious whether the government would use the money better than companies picked by banks.
The money could replace certain taxes. It might be more efficient to simply decrease taxes for all companies (and maybe people too), rather than having banks pick companies. I don't claim to know this to be true, but it seems plausible. What do you think?