I want to begin by asking a simple question: Why can’t I have my own money printer? It may seem like a silly question, but the principles and effects that emerge from thinking about it are profound.
To understand the effects, we must also ask another question: What would happen if I had my own money printer? The answer is simple: I’d print my own money, of course. The consequences of having the power to print money would be innumerable, as it would change almost everything, from the decisions I make to the whole direction of my life.
This ability to print money would allow me to rid myself of many of the restrictions and disciplines of life caused by scarcity and the economizing nature of reality, at least as long as I were the only one with this power, and I will explain more on this topic later.
These changes would result from the fact that, instead of the current way people receive money, people would receive money. Typically (and legally), to get money, one must work, produce, and trade. One must offer something of value to society, and then in exchange one is given money to represent that value, which can then be traded elsewhere if desired.
If, however, I had my own money printer, I could bypass this tedious, restrictive, tiresome, and difficult work. Instead of trading my time, skill, and other scarce resources to obtain the certificates of labor (money) that someone else currently owns, I could simply print them myself.
So what would the negative consequences be for the economy if I had my own money printer? Well, obviously, my portion of production would decrease to zero. As I mentioned, instead of working and trading my time, skill, and other scarce resources to produce something of value in exchange for the certificates of labor that someone else has, I’d print money, which adds very little in terms of goods and services.
It is far easier to print new money than to invest the time, energy, and effort required to develop skills and earn the same amount of money in the current labor market. Every one of us would choose the easier labor of printing money rather than the labor required to acquire money from someone else (i.e., working). At least that is what I would choose.
For a while, I could live at the expense of everyone else’s labor, as they would all work and produce goods and services for my printed money, which is illegal for them to print but legal and easy for me, since I can print more. But what if people began to catch on that printing money was easier than working?
This leads us to the next serious question, which builds on the question of why I can’t have my own money printer, and that is: What if everyone had their own money printer?
If everyone had their own money printer, we could assume everyone would act the same way I would. Everyone would print money rather than work. And what would happen if everyone spent their time printing new money instead of working? There would be a lot of paper bills and no goods or services to trade for those paper bills.
Moreover, even if there were any goods and services left from before everyone started printing money, if I can print money just as easily as you can, then why would I bother giving up some of my goods or services for something we both have a near limitless supply of? For these specific reasons, it is illegal for citizens to have their own money printers.
Now I ask, why is this any different from the government? If an action would be destructive at the individual level, why is it virtuous at the institutional level? It may be argued that the government has checks and balances, is ruled by law, is voted in by the people, and would never abuse its power this way, but it already has, because the central bank is not voted in by the people and creates new money without assuring that there has been new production to accompany this latest increase in the supply of money.
Furthermore, why do we deem it a necessary evil that a central authority has the power to print new money and distribute it as they see fit? Often, this increase is without any increase in the production of goods and services. Isn’t their action subject to the same outcomes as the individuals with the same printing press? Moreover, why do they have the power to decide who gets the new printed certificates of labor, without either party having to perform any labor?
How can something be so bad when everyone else does it, yet so good when the central authority does it? Some may say it helps increase demand. In the short run, money creation can temporarily boost spending. In the long run, however, it cannot substitute for production, skill formation, or capital accumulation. Furthermore, if everyone had their own money printer, the effect would be the same. Therefore, if this is our conclusion, we should each have our own money printer to increase demand and boost the economy.
Some argue that, due to the affordability crisis, the government must step in and lower rates, begin quantitative easing, add stimulus checks, and take other measures to increase the money supply to help the economy. If this is the case, then my conclusion is this: let me help the economy as well, and let me have my own money printer.
