160 $ shipped via dhl <| sep |> I ' ll never wash this hand again . <| sep |> One thing you can see in behavioral economics is that they still utilize utility functions and rationality to model . Rationality is not maximizing profit , it ' s maximizing utility . And whether that is also maximizing profit depends on the utility function . Nothing stops you from constructing a utility function that ' s not continuous , not transitive or not quasidifferentiable . It just wouldn ' t be able to be maximized , and maybe rightfully so . Of course we should ditch the notion that everyone is a perfect profit maximizing machine . But there are much to retain . Mainstream economics still stands as an accurate enough option for many situations , such as corporation dealings in competitive markets . Just like how Newtonian physics is still widely used . As for money creation , I think you ' ve got the cause and effect reversed . There ' s nothing in mainstream economics that forbids money creation by anyone . Governments , since the Kingdom days , create money . Deposit and loan are the basic functions of banks since their creation . Economics then seek to explain how they interact to affect the system , and why it is that banks would create more money than the governments create . More public money has always been coming with more private money . Even if you distribute public money directly to people , it always ends up somewhere along the chain in a bank . What I like about UBI , is that the money doesn ' t immediately go into a bank . Our government has shown that helicopter money works , even with mainstream economics , since it has revived the upper part of the economy . But bank money never reaches the lower parts . So I want UBI to put the money directly into the lower parts , and let it trickle up into the big banks . I know mainstream economics needs to move on to better paradigms , but I don ' t think it matters here .