# The Citizens Standard — Replication Archives

This directory holds the reproducibility archives for the Citizens Standard research
program. Every paper with a computational component has its own self-contained subfolder
that regenerates the figures and quantitative claims printed in that paper. Each subfolder
runs independently and is named `<topic>_replication`.

```
replication/
├── architecture_replication/             ← Paper 1   Architecture (channels, modes, Stable Floors)      (SSRN 6702518)
├── empirical_replication/                ← Paper 2   Historical Counterfactual                           (SSRN 6735078)
├── transition_replication/               ← Paper 3   Transition Architecture                             (SSRN 6810741)
├── macro_replication/                    ← Paper 5   Macroeconomic Model                                 (SSRN 6939418)
├── banking_replication/                  ← Paper 6   Full-Reserve Banking and the Two-Circuit System     (SSRN 6939498)
├── interoperability_replication/         ← Paper 7   External Interoperability                           (SSRN 6939600)
├── structural_buyer_replication/         ← Paper 8   Structural Buyer                                    (SSRN 6945320)
├── empirical_validation_replication/     ← Paper 10  Empirical Validation of the Transactional Aggregate
├── crisis_behaviour_replication/         ← Paper 12  Crisis Behaviour and Failure Modes
├── distribution_inequality_replication/  ← Paper 14  Distribution and Wealth Inequality
└── comparative_replication/             ← Paper 13  Comparative Analysis (distributional cousins)
```

## Which subfolder reproduces what

| Subfolder | Paper | Reproduces | Primary data |
|---|---|---|---|
| architecture_replication | 1 | channel mechanics, base modes, Stable Floors; **+ `demurrage/`: the Mode-A velocity backstop (Section 4.5)** | FRED, BLS, BEA |
| empirical_replication | 2 | the 1960–2055 historical counterfactual; **+ `tool14_inflation/` appendix: Tool 14 vs the 2022 & 1972–1983 inflations** | FRED, Census, Damodaran; BLS CPI + SF Fed |
| transition_replication | 3 | transition and debt trajectories; **+ `cs_debt_band/`: the stochastic DSA behind the 30-60% band endpoint** | FRED, CBO |
| macro_replication | 5 | the two-circuit macro model | FRED, BEA |
| banking_replication | 6 | full-reserve banking figures | FRED |
| interoperability_replication | 7 | external-anchor mechanics | FRED, IMF |
| structural_buyer_replication | 8 | asset-market dynamics, bounded ownership | Damodaran, FRED |
| empirical_validation_replication | 10 | transactional-aggregate horserace | genuine FRED M2/CPI/PCE 1959–2026 |
| crisis_behaviour_replication | 12 | the engine through Depression, stagflation, 2008, COVID, secular stagnation, banking panic | engine + historical crisis calibrations |
| distribution_inequality_replication | 14 | the four-channel distributional microsimulation | **real 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances microdata (bundled)** |
| comparative_replication | 13 | sourced comparison vs UBI, Social Security, Alaska/SWF, Georgism; the comparable axes (per-person benefit, owned wealth stock, capture record) | SSA, APFC, Alaska DOR, BLS; peer-reviewed pilot/LVT studies |

## How to run

Each subfolder is independent. The newer four (10, 12, 13, 14) carry a top-level
`run_all.py` and `requirements.txt`:

```
cd <subfolder>
pip install -r requirements.txt   # where present
python run_all.py                  # or follow that subfolder's README.md
```

The Paper 1–8 subfolders each carry their own README describing their entry point
(`code/…`); several regenerate figures directly.

## Notes

- `distribution_inequality_replication` bundles the public 2022 SCF Summary Extract and
  begins with a read-check that reproduces the published SCF figures (weighted mean
  $1.06M, median $192,700, 0.830 Gini) before any Citizens-Standard channel is applied.
- `crisis_behaviour_replication` and `distribution_inequality_replication` share the same
  audited deterministic issuance engine used across the series, so their floor values are
  identical to the engine's rather than re-derived.

## Supplementary grounded models (distribution_inequality_replication)

Five further modules ground specific claims on the same verified SCF baseline (or the
1960-2025 historical series), each a two-stage build with the calibrated parameters swept
across cited literature ranges. All five run as step 4 of
`distribution_inequality_replication/run_all.py`; each also has its own README and
`code/` + `output/` folders.

- `rent_capitalization` — what share of the dividend lane capitalises into rent. ~1.7%
  central (0.5-4.6% swept over Saiz 2010 supply and Ihlanfeldt demand elasticities).
- `mpc_demand_impulse` — the dividend's net demand impulse via the SCF MPC gradient
  (hand-to-mouth share reproduces the Kaplan-Violante-Weidner one-third benchmark).
  Small and sign-contested: -0.52% to +0.31% of consumption depending on what issuance
  displaces.
- `crowdout_split` — the floor's net-new-wealth vs crowd-out split by income decile,
  crowd-out intensity swept over the pension-displacement literature. ~79% net-new
  central (59-91% swept).
- `procyclicality` — the procyclical-dividend magnitude on US history 1960-2025
  (dividend zeroes in all 7 contractions; K1 offsets ~1%) plus a floor-stock survival
  stress test (40% drawdown actual, ~91% adversarial).
- `labor_supply` — the dividend's work-disincentive, calibrated to the Vivalt et al.
  (NBER 32719) $1,000/mo RCT and scaled to the ~$56/mo dividend. ~0.05pp economy-wide
  participation, ~0.23pp in the low-wage segment.
- `asset_price_impact` — the floor lane's effect on equity valuations, combining
  Paper 8's verified absorption flow with the Gabaix-Koijen (NBER 28967) price
  multiplier. The 4.26% attenuated return is broadly consistent with the floor's
  own price impact; the floor's flow is ~1/4 of the buyback flow the market already
  absorbs.
- `growth_measurement` — price drift from real-time GDP measurement error, anchored
  to BEA revision data (advance-to-third avg 0.52pp). Revision noise washes out;
  a persistent measurement bias is the real exposure, smaller in floor-weighted modes.
- `fullreserve_credit_gap` — sizes the credit-creation flow full reserve removes
  (~3.3% of GDP/yr bank-created; ~1.1% residual after CS issuance) and frames the
  unresolved debate on whether intermediation fills it, with both sides cited. Sizes
  the gap; does not claim to close it.
- `capture_override_baserate` — the empirical override base rate of comparable
  monetary/fiscal commitment rules (IMF Fiscal Rules Database; central-bank-
  independence panels). Grounds the capture/fig-leaf objection and finds it real and
  substantial: ~90% breached deficit rules in the 2020 crisis, 20-60% in normal
  times, ~25% of independence reforms reversed. Supports the objection, not the
  design; CS scores worst on the track-record mitigant because it has never run.
- `credit_displacement` — the double-claim / issuance-neutrality test (the most
  load-bearing claim). A cash dividend would need ~73-89% credit displacement to
  stay near price-neutral; the crowding-out literature and the QE episodes show
  displacement is partial and nowhere near that. So issuance neutrality cannot rest
  on displacement: the defense is growth-matching (capping the quantity) plus
  floor-weighting (keeping most issuance out of the goods circuit). Companion to
  Paper 5 section 3.8.
- `transition_debt_path` — tests Paper 3's debt-retirement timeline (102% -> 84% by
  Year 10 -> 58% by Year 20 -> stabilising in the 30-60% operational band, central
  path ~45% by ~Year 26) on current fiscal data. The descent is driven mainly by
  nominal growth expanding the denominator, with KT (~1.5% of M2) an assist that
  guarantees no new borrowing; the endpoint is the welfare-optimal band of the
  cs_debt_band analysis, not a low floor. Cumulative KT ~$12T. Companion to Paper 3.
- `structural_buyer_endgame` — tests Paper 8's ownership-plateau claim (Proposition
  4): that cohort decumulation bounds the floor's equity share rather than letting it
  rise toward one. Largely confirms it — ownership plateaus in every case, the
  central plateau is 10.9% (in the paper's 0.09-0.11 band), and active float stays
  ~79-94% so price discovery survives. One nuance: the plateau level is
  duration-sensitive (~6-21% range), so ~10% is the central case of a range, not a
  fixed number. Companion to Paper 8.
- `anchor_real_shocks` — tests Paper 7's common-anchor robustness against the
  inflation divergences history actually produced (2022 ~6pp spike, Japan's ~17-year
  deflation gap) using the paper's own distortion mechanism, rather than swept
  abstract shocks. Vindicates the claim: the zero anchor absorbs every transient real
  divergence (~0% terminal distortion) while a +2% anchor leaves a ~-5.8% wedge. Honest
  boundary: robustness is to transient divergence around a held commitment; a permanent
  unilateral split leaves a proportional residual (a governance question). Companion to
  Paper 7.
- `dsge_twocircuit` — a two-asset New Keynesian DSGE (textbook calibration) carrying
  out the forward-looking determinacy analysis Paper 5 left to future work. On the
  framework's actual price-level-anchor rule it reproduces "determinacy without a
  Taylor principle" (theta = 1+(1+phi)/alpha > 1 for all phi>=0); the price-stability
  side agrees with credit_displacement (floor-weighting small, large dividend ~3.3%,
  leak load-bearing). Honest scope: the rigorous content is the determinacy result;
  the price response is a validated long-run quantity-theoretic mapping, not a full
  IRF; the stylized two-block system shows the coupling-determinacy direction but not
  the exact ~0.13 threshold. A wrong-rule error (testing a Taylor interest-rate rule)
  and a pass-through derivation error were both caught and documented. Companion to
  Paper 5.
- `mode_choice_welfare` — tests whether a welfare-optimal Mode (optimal dividend share
  kappa_d) exists, backing Paper 1 Section 13.3 (Mode choice is a values question, not a
  technical optimization). Using the architecture's own realizable returns (5.4% at the
  floor-only split, 4.3% at Mode B's 60/40), the Model's MPC schedule, and the Federal
  Reserve SHED liquidity-constrained share, the social-welfare function is monotonic in
  kappa_d: there is no interior optimum. The dial trades immediate liquidity against
  compounding ownership, bounded by the inflation ceiling; because no Mode is
  welfare-optimal, the choice is properly a supermajority vote. Companion to Paper 1.

These are first-round, partial-equilibrium bounds, not general-equilibrium results; the
rent and demand-impulse mechanisms follow an approach developed in discussion with the
independent researcher wilsoniumite and are reproduced here on US data.
