Interesting theory overall. One more thing I would like to add: it is probably more a question not of how much the M2 money increases, but rather WHO does the money go to? Historically, this newly-created easy money went directly to the big banks, a sort of UBI for the rich. So of course the effects will be at least somewhat destabilizing, as it is so lopsided. We all know now that the "trickle-down" theory is BS, so why don't we simply give all newly-created money to We the People instead? That would have to be better IMHO.
Basically, giving more newly-created money overwhelmingly to the ultra-rich via the banks is what creates "sugar highs" in the form of asset bubbles, followed by protracted busts when these bubbles inevitably burst. In contrast, if that money was given to We the People via Overt Congressional Financing (as Dr. Joseph M. Firestone would call it), we would get broad-based prosperity.
Interesting theory overall. One more thing I would like to add: it is probably more a question not of how much the M2 money increases, but rather WHO does the money go to? Historically, this newly-created easy money went directly to the big banks, a sort of UBI for the rich. So of course the effects will be at least somewhat destabilizing, as it is so lopsided. We all know now that the "trickle-down" theory is BS, so why don't we simply give all newly-created money to We the People instead? That would have to be better IMHO.
Basically, giving more newly-created money overwhelmingly to the ultra-rich via the banks is what creates "sugar highs" in the form of asset bubbles, followed by protracted busts when these bubbles inevitably burst. In contrast, if that money was given to We the People via Overt Congressional Financing (as Dr. Joseph M. Firestone would call it), we would get broad-based prosperity.