tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post2685863119918003880..comments2024-03-28T07:50:06.102-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Richard Murphy — The battle for money has begunmike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-17253629829169368842018-06-10T03:04:48.228-04:002018-06-10T03:04:48.228-04:00which as RM pointed out is a form of monetarism To...<i>which as RM pointed out is a form of monetarism</i> Tom Hickey<br /><br />More precisely "fiat-ism"?<br /><br />And, of course, one reason "fiat-ism" cannot work is that the non-bank private sector may not even use their Nation's fiat except for unsanitary, unsafe, inadequate for modern commerce physical fiat aka "cash" but must instead work through a government-privileged usury cartel.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-15608912340175825832018-06-10T02:57:19.694-04:002018-06-10T02:57:19.694-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-1007820107188396482018-06-10T00:11:21.841-04:002018-06-10T00:11:21.841-04:00The big difference politically is that PM wants a ...The big difference politically is that PM wants a board of unelected technocrats in charge, which as RM pointed out is a form of monetarism, while MMT wants it done through fiscal policy passed by the legislature.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-72629033513127525052018-06-09T23:46:45.101-04:002018-06-09T23:46:45.101-04:00PM just wants OMF (Overt Monetary Financing) with ...PM just wants OMF (Overt Monetary Financing) with ZIRP and a very small horizontal money system. MMT analysis suggests OMF with ZIRP and a much more regulated horizontal system is needed. There is actually very little difference in their policy prescriptions. They just arrived at them from opposite sides of the track<br /><br /><a href="http://clintballinger.edublogs.org/2017/11/02/omfg-mmtpm-get-along/" rel="nofollow">OMFG, MMT & Positive Money Get Along</a>Clint Ballingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16484643778860969972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-85293829658629965882018-06-09T18:52:19.168-04:002018-06-09T18:52:19.168-04:00Calgacus said "Financial assets = credits ARE...Calgacus said "Financial assets = credits ARE financial liabilities = debts.....<br /><br />The only thing dumber than such an argument is thinking that there can be a here that is not a there to someone else, and vice versa.<br /><br />Or that there can be credits/(financial) assets that aren't debts/liabilities, debts/liabilities that aren't credits/assets."<br /><br />Exactly, as the Bank of England said in 2014 'If everyone in the economy were to pool all of their assets and debts together as one, all of the financial assets and liabilities — including money — would cancel out'Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17395348035867237331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-44212024458538443292018-06-09T18:34:01.556-04:002018-06-09T18:34:01.556-04:00Ralph Musgrave:As Warren Mosler said, base money i...Ralph Musgrave:<i>As Warren Mosler said, base money is like points awarded by a tennis umpire: those points are assets as viewed by the players, but they are not liabilities as far as the umpire is concerned.</i><br /><br />John Hope:<i>If Warren Mosler was correct then the currency would be worthless.</i><br /><br />John Hope is of course right. But I doubt Mosler ever said any such thing as the last clause; if he did it is very wrong, crazily wrong to suggest that there can be financial assets without liabilities. Financial assets = credits ARE financial liabilities = debts. They don't "correspond" or "balance" or whatever. They're all just different words for the same thing, that may depend on who is speaking. <br /><br />It is like two people arguing on the meaning of "here" and "there". <br /><br />A:I am here. <br />B:No, I am here, you are there.<br />A:You are crazy. Obviously, you are there, I am here.<br />etc ad infinitum, judging from such discussions.<br />The only thing dumber than such an argument is thinking that there can be a here that is not a there to someone else, and vice versa.<br /><br />Or that there can be credits/(financial) assets that aren't debts/liabilities, debts/liabilities that aren't credits/assets.<br /><br />Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-3226915255038720902018-06-09T16:51:28.869-04:002018-06-09T16:51:28.869-04:00* As a side note: I have also recently discovered ...* As a side note: I have also recently discovered in Australia for instance, that Australia's total savings held in Super is basically the same size as total household debt; meaning, the only savings Australians have at retirement is in their homes. Let's hope they don't all sell at once.<br /><br />#. The types of people which may gravitate toward the non-market sector are economists, researchers, scientists, hobby farmers, hobby traders, preachers, authors, artists, public servants, doctors, nurses, and people who are from cultures which do not practice private property etc. <br /><br />% Of course this a short summary and would need much more explaining, and to be quite frank, has had virtually no traction with anyone I have shared it with because everyone believes money is the only thing which can solve our problems.Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17395348035867237331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-10532390752188861702018-06-09T16:51:03.196-04:002018-06-09T16:51:03.196-04:00John hope said: " I have made it my business ...John hope said: " I have made it my business to try and understand what the hell went on and what continues to go on"<br /><br />I am on a similar path; mine started after my parents won the lottery in 1998 only to end up bankrupt 4 years later - I then found out that this occurs to 19 out of 20 lottery winners. I then find statistics saying 19 out of 20 businesses ultimately fail, 19 out of 20 people retire needing govt support, 19 out of 20 struggle paycheck to paycheck. In a nutshell, 19 out of 20 are either insolvent (i.e. are debtors), or do not have any permanent access to sufficient resources necessary to obey all laws (for example, are homeless or can't send their children to school etc).<br /><br />This was obviously no co-incidence and as I later found out, was not due to attitude either; it is a mathematical and economic certainty which I discovered from studying law of all things. Judges throughout history have known all along what money really is and that economics is a zero-sum game and theories on equilibrium etc are bogus. The GFC just so happen to solidify all of this.*<br /><br />If I was to summarize the last 15 years of searching and study, I would say that it is not the pursuit of self-interest as such which causes things like homelessness, poverty, the GFC, etc, but rather the belief held by most that the 'only' way to fulfill the pursuit of self-interest is to subject every single resource to markets, irrespective of whether they be free or regulated, and then subject the whole population to one economic ideal (i.e. whichever political party wins). As some people are naturally competitive and great at selling and BSing people, and other people are naturally non-competitive, forcing everyone into one economic ideal will never work no matter what the ideal is. The homeless and poor exist today because they are generally non-competitive people and lack permanent access to resources and there is no one left willing to accept their liabilities. Many people in the lower and lower-middle classes are too naturally non-competitive and only accept the economic ideal because they are convinced its the only way to contribute to society.<br /><br />If I was asked to present a solution as a result of all this research I would allow free-competition, commercial bank lending, capitalism etc to continue on as it has for centuries so the naturally competitive people can continue to exercise their right to individual autonomy, but give people (generally the non-competitive) the choice to operate outside of markets if they so choose under mutual trust relations (as opposed to welfare), and have government act as the go-between between the market sector and the non-market sector. Those in the non-market sector would not be allowed to own property nor engage in any economic/commercial activities which have legal effect - this would be the trade off for being in the non-market sector (they would be like non-profit households)#. The market sector would still provide goods and services to the non-market sector, but instead of doing it by taxing the market sector (as is the case today with welfare etc), all those businesses would receive tax-offsets instead (which is commonly done in the US and which are themselves marketable). The benefit to the market sector is also that there are now less people competing over the financial assets and this would mean less government regulation.%<br /><br />This is the only solution I can see where everyone gets to pursue their self-interests (i.e to act in accordance with their human nature) and does not rely on forcing everyone under one political ideal. Of course, such an idea may mean many politicians will be without jobs!<br /><br />notes in part 2...Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17395348035867237331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-28624923040803487892018-06-09T16:01:51.582-04:002018-06-09T16:01:51.582-04:00Richard Murphy
You say: “You have not shown there...Richard Murphy<br /><br />You say: “You have not shown there is a thing wrong with MMT, which is wholly familiar with and uses (I use in my theoretical work) the type of analysis you are doing.”*<br /><br />Actually, this is the case:<br /><br />(i) MMT is built upon this macroeconomic balances equation (X−M)+(G−T)+(I−S)=0 which is shown at any MMT presentation and is to be found all over the econoblogosphere including Wikipedia.#1<br /><br />(ii) The MMT balances equation (i) is provably false. The axiomatically correct balances equation reads (X−M)+(G−T)+(I−S)−(Q−Yd)=0.#2<br /><br />(iii) The MMT balances equation is false because MMTers are too stupid to understand the elementary mathematics of macroeconomic accounting and do not know how the monetary economy works.<br /><br />(iv) Because the foundational equation is false the whole analytical superstructure is false. By consequence, MMT policy proposals have NO sound scientific foundations.<br /><br />(v) The main defect of the MMT policy of money creation/deficit spending is that it produces a distribution that is generally regarded as socially unacceptable.#3<br /><br />So, MMT is scientific junk and political fraud.#4 That’s what is wrong with MMT!<br /><br />Richard Murphy and the rest of the MMT crowd (Kelton, Mitchell, Mosler, Tcherneva, Wray, Fullwiler, Forstater, Kaboub, Pettifor, Keen, Tymoigne, Willingham, Grumbine, Ehnts, Hickey, etcetera) are snake-oil sellers.#5<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />* Tax Research UK<br /><br />http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/06/06/the-battle-for-money-has-begun/comment-page-1/#comment-807847<br /><br />#1 Down with idiocy!<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/12/down-with-idiocy.html<br /><br />#2 Rectification of MMT macro accounting<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/09/rectification-of-mmt-macro-accounting.html<br /><br />#3 Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump and exploding profit<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/12/keynes-lerner-mmt-trump-and-exploding.html<br /><br />#4 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT<br />http://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/07/mmt-cross-references.html<br /><br />#5 MMT: academic snake oil for the people<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/02/mmt-academic-snake-oil-for-people.htmlAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-56660178553613601912018-06-09T16:01:11.178-04:002018-06-09T16:01:11.178-04:00John,
"Matt, In 2008 some very clever people...John,<br /><br />"Matt, In 2008 some very clever people blew up the financial world"<br /><br />They are NOT clever, this is the true problem... <br /><br />This is a response to some sort of dissonant thinking on your part... its like you dont want to think these people could be so stupid, so then this is causing you some sort of cognitive dissonance in your mind when confronted by the reality that yes I'm afraid they actually are that stupid ... you dont allow yourself to believe what is really going on..<br /><br />and you are going all conspiracy theory here its a textbook human reaction to such dissonance in your thinking... Scott Adams terms it 'mind reader mode' when you are asserting that you can read the mind of these people and know that they did this "on purpose" to somehow benefit by crashing the whole thing down...<br /><br />Nothing works that way.<br /><br />They were saying all along incorrectly that "banks lend out the reserves!" so when things got a bit dicey in 2008 the CB did large scale asset purchases in September and spiked non-risk Reserve Assets at the depositories and the depositories had no choice but to fix the amount of risk assets in response and the credit system shut down...<br /><br />there was no conspiracy... just incompetence as usual...Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-10091114271074562502018-06-09T13:12:15.897-04:002018-06-09T13:12:15.897-04:00Konrad, I don't understand why you have to res...Konrad, I don't understand why you have to resort to abuse . What you've described is the theoretical basis of MMT . I have no issue with that at all. What I have described is how that translates to the real world.John Hopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03689779103955348010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-68676150421215330012018-06-09T12:38:43.978-04:002018-06-09T12:38:43.978-04:00Accounting and operations are interactive, but dif...Accounting and operations are interactive, but different. <br /><br />Accounting is an ex post record of individual transactions recorded in journals and transferred to general ledgers from which aggregated reports are generated. Stocks and flows are reflected from this, and also financial ratios. This is essentially to business, money & banking, and finance. It also interfaces with economics, which is about production, distribution and consumption of real goods, through market exchange based on value as price.<br /><br />However, operations precede accounting, since operations are the foundation on which transactions are generated. Operations cannot be deduced from accounting, since substantially the same accounting records can be generated by different operations, e.g, different monetary systems. This makes comparison of different entities with somewhat different operations and accounting rules error-prone without comparing operations. For example, comparing countries historically without taking different monetary systems into account, and presently where the norm is floating rates but some countries use fixed rates.<br /><br />It also lies at the root of many controversies in financial economics, either from failure to understand accounting practice, or attempting to deduce operations from the accounting alone, without reference to the operations involved at the foundational level.<br /><br />For example, from the sources and uses statement, it would appear that taxes and public debt fund public expenditure. But operational analysis shows how that is not the case under current conventions with respect to currency issuers. The confusion results from conflating the meaning of "funding" in the accounting sense with "are needed to pay for" operationally, which in turn involves the failure to distinguish between currency issuers and users of the currency. <br /><br />Unfortunately, those not trained in rigorous thinking don't seem to be able to get this. Nor those wearing ideological blinders.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-21396184251662422182018-06-09T12:36:01.094-04:002018-06-09T12:36:01.094-04:00JOHN HOPELESS WRITES: “You have repeated what I h...<b> JOHN HOPELESS WRITES:</b> <i> “You have repeated what I have just said, but you are quite wrong about tax and this is the bit you clearly don't understand. </i><br /><br />No I did <b><i> NOT</i></b> repeat what you said. You blathered about some idiotic notion you called an “overdraft” at the central bank. I explained that your nonsense has nothing whatsoever to do with taxation, nor with a sovereign government’s ability to create its currency. <br /><br />I tried to help you, but you insist on clinging to your little dream world.<br /><br />So be it. Have fun.Konradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739209449391854796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-67581795022986525502018-06-09T11:35:55.227-04:002018-06-09T11:35:55.227-04:00Andrew and Matt, In 2008 some very clever people b...<br />Andrew and Matt, In 2008 some very clever people blew up the financial world resulting in chaos and loss for millions . Even within the institutions in which they worked senior managers had little understanding of what was going on . Derivatives is the shorthand for what Warren Buffet called at the time ' Financial weapons of mass destruction ' I have made it my business to try and understand what the hell went on and what continues to go on , but I fully expect to be in a tiny minority so I try to disseminate the knowledge I have in a form that my fellow man / woman can understand. It is no easy task, but I consider it a duty . It won't stop another financial crisis, but at least I can say ' you were warned ' .John Hopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03689779103955348010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-32328964569429050532018-06-09T11:31:37.632-04:002018-06-09T11:31:37.632-04:00You need at least a 4 year degree in a discipline ...<i>You need at least a 4 year degree in a discipline that requires 2 years of basic Mathematics and then 2 more years of Applied Mathematics in a technical discipline...</i> <br /><br />And some of those people need to be able to explain policy to voters simply in terms they can understand or it won't happen politically, that is, institutionally. It will remain abstract ideas. No one in the West is dong this, presumably because they are not able to do it, or leas they are using their knowledge to profit their networks at the expense of the rest.<br /><br />Or the system has to be run by technocrats, like China, most of whose leaders have engineering degrees.<br /><br />Compare China's economic progress with India, where the political leadership is made up chiefly of career politicians.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-58661414298735124302018-06-09T11:13:39.384-04:002018-06-09T11:13:39.384-04:00John those people are not adequately trained in th...John those people are not adequately trained in the skill of Abstraction...<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_(mathematics)<br /><br />You need at least a 4 year degree in a discipline that requires 2 years of basic Mathematics and then 2 more years of Applied Mathematics in a technical discipline...<br /><br />Otherwise you get something like "doughnut economics!" all of a sudden being promoted as some sort of advanced level of thinking as if it is admirable...Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-77059081372692415142018-06-09T11:13:36.322-04:002018-06-09T11:13:36.322-04:00Andrew, Simplicity does NOT imply inaccuracy John...<i>Andrew, Simplicity does NOT imply inaccuracy </i> John Hope<br /><br /><i>In every field of inquiry, it is true that all things should be made as simple as possible – but no simpler. <b>(And for every problem that is muddled by over-complexity, a dozen are muddled by over-simplifying)</b> </i> from https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/ [bold added]Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-30681452121404040002018-06-09T10:55:55.894-04:002018-06-09T10:55:55.894-04:00Andrew, Simplicity does NOT imply inaccuracy and w...<br />Andrew, Simplicity does NOT imply inaccuracy and whilst I am no lover of the banks if we want change we have to say it like it is not how we would like it to be . Its hard enough for the average person ( no such thing I know ) to understand anything at all where money is concerned . Just try explaining fiat money to even a small group of intelligent people; that money is created out of thin air, electronically, on a computer - you choose the term - and see what reaction , and I mean reaction , not response , you get. If you had said ' I'm coming to steal your money ' it could scarcely be less fierce . John Hopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03689779103955348010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-29533864288918494922018-06-09T10:48:09.429-04:002018-06-09T10:48:09.429-04:00What if one sheep herder's sheep produced more...What if one sheep herder's sheep produced more offspring than another's sheep?<br /><br />Would the one with the more sheep have to transfer some sheep over to the one with the less?<br /><br />What about goats? Did they raise chickens? <br /><br />Or the feedstock farmers... what if it rained more on the one wheat farmer's land than anothers? Did they have to send some wheat over to the other to even it out????Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-82563868397466352442018-06-09T10:32:28.897-04:002018-06-09T10:32:28.897-04:00AA,
In your Old Testament, if one Israelite male ...AA,<br /><br />In your Old Testament, if one Israelite male head of household had say 8 children, BUT another male, try as he might, only could produce 2 children, would the 8 child house have to transfer the additional 3 children over to the household that had the 2 ?????? <br /><br />If not... in your prayers, you may want to tell God that His laws for Israel were all f-ed up.....Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-57153187994632615122018-06-09T10:28:02.352-04:002018-06-09T10:28:02.352-04:00"Matt, you are being obtuse . Strictly speaki..."Matt, you are being obtuse . Strictly speaking a bank doesn't have working capital,"<br /><br />It has to have regulatory capital.. and it is on the RHS separate from Liabilities like a non-bank "working capital"...<br /><br />https://www.thirdway.org/memo/capital-requirements-and-bank-balance-sheets-reviewing-the-basics<br /><br />Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-48932616767036672572018-06-09T10:26:04.730-04:002018-06-09T10:26:04.730-04:00Frankly I think it is less than useful to call any...<i>Frankly I think it is less than useful to call any of what you refer to as ' fiat' and ' bank credit ' anything other than money. If you can buy stuff with it it's money .</i> John Hope<br /><br />If you care about equal protection under the law then it is important to note that only banks, credit unions, etc. may effectively and safely use a Nation's fiat when ALL citizens should be allowed to use their Nation's fiat.<br /><br />Instead, citizens are forced to work through a government-privileged usury cartel and use bank deposits/credit/liabilities instead of their Nation's fiat except for mere physical fiat, aka "cash".<br /><br />So yes, the distinction is vital if one cares about justice.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-48247546641574139912018-06-09T10:17:53.958-04:002018-06-09T10:17:53.958-04:00"In the USA, when your bank debits your accou..."In the USA, when your bank debits your account, your bank simultaneously credits a “Treasury Tax and Lien” account, but ultimately the money vanishes back into the nothing from when it came. "<br /><br />Afraid not...<br /><br />Here is yesterday's DTS report:<br /><br />https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=18060700.pdf<br /><br />Show me where any USD balances were transferred into or out of TTL accounts... for the entire FY while your at it.. and last year too... and the year before that...Ill save you a few clicks there arent any....<br /><br />Its all being deposited to and withdrawn from the TGA... this is what was (prior to passage of recent bank regulatory reform legislation) creating all the volatility in non-risk Reserve Assets for the depositories and then resultant chaos in risk asset values and exchange rates as regulated depositories must maintain a near constant ratio of Capital/Total Assets...<br /><br />Recent reforms in both the US and iirc UK have perhaps eliminated this problem for their depositories and should reduce or perhaps even eliminate the possibility of any future banking crisis like those nations experienced in 2008 due to an extreme and fast increase in Reserve Assets by the CB ... have not seen this from either Japan or EZ yet though so Japan still has the zombie banks and EZ EURs are piling up at perennial surplus nation Germany's Deutchebank bringing that bank down the toilet now looking to merge with other sinking ship Commerzbank...<br /><br />US and iirc UK have eliminated this problem for their depositories... its bullish imo...Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-35055292685930137962018-06-09T10:13:34.116-04:002018-06-09T10:13:34.116-04:00Matt, you are being obtuse . Strictly speaking a b...<br />Matt, you are being obtuse . Strictly speaking a bank doesn't have working capital, but that's how your ' deposit ' functions . It enables the bank to run its business.<br /><br />Andrew, I am well aware that government licensed banks create money ' out of thin air ' and expect to earn a profit from this <br />activity and because we have all been taught to believe, erroneously , that it is our ' deposits' that are loaned out and we get to keep some of the bank's profit by being paid interest on these deposits we accept this nonsense. Frankly I think it is less than useful to call any of what you refer to as ' fiat' and ' bank credit ' anything other than money. If you can buy stuff with it it's money .<br />David Mamet in his screenplay for the movie ' Heist' had it exactly right ' Everyone needs money, that's why they call it money ' .John Hopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03689779103955348010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-58028760315330294082018-06-09T10:10:17.587-04:002018-06-09T10:10:17.587-04:00and "bank credit" for private bank, cred...<i> and "bank credit" for private bank, credit union, etc. liabilities.</i> aa<br /><br />Or "private bank deposits".Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.com