tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post3758647909070186908..comments2024-03-28T04:13:36.779-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Krugman at MMT againmike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-45596354912424456232011-04-22T20:32:29.432-04:002011-04-22T20:32:29.432-04:00Fundamentally there is no "fiat money", ...<i>Fundamentally there is no "fiat money", no "commodity money". There is just "money", which is intrinsically and essentially fiat money, credit money.</i><br /><br />Right, and convertible fixed rate is fundamentally different from nonconvertible floating rate operationally.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-26948077544211663562011-04-22T18:45:45.267-04:002011-04-22T18:45:45.267-04:00Matt,
Look also at the history of Tally Sticks - ...Matt,<br /><br />Look also at the history of Tally Sticks - http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html<br /><br />Quote:<br /><br />King Henry the First produced sticks of polished wood, with notches cut along one edge to signify the denominations. The stick was then split full length so each piece still had a record of the notches.<br /><br />The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the market place where it would continue to circulate as money.<br /><br />Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry for payment of taxes, there was a built in demand for them, which gave people confidence to accept these as money.<br /><br />He could have used anything really, so long as the people agreed it had value, and his willingness to accept these sticks as legal tender made it easy for the people to agree. Money is only as valuable as peoples faith in it, and without that faith even today's money is just paper.<br /><br />The tally stick system worked really well for 726 years. It was the most successful form of currency in recent history and the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system, but how is it that most of us are not aware of its existence?<br /><br />Perhaps the fact that in 1694 the Bank of England at its formation attacked the Tally Stick System gives us a clue as to why most of us have never heard of them. <b>They realised it was money outside the power of the money changers, (the very thing King Henry had intended).</b><br /><br />end quoteClonalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18290009954839887975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-80876458323357456992011-04-22T18:40:47.219-04:002011-04-22T18:40:47.219-04:00Hummel comes close, but he doesn't completely ...Hummel comes close, but he doesn't completely understand MMT. But Adam (& Hummel & Berglund) are right on this point. Wray has a lot on this, here and there, along with Bell(Kelton) 's article(s). <br /><br />Fundamentally there is no "fiat money", no "commodity money". There is just "money", which is intrinsically and essentially fiat money, credit money. The illusion, the constraint called "commodity money" is just when the state sets a fiat money price for some commodity. A gold coin is just a constant offer you can put in your pocket of the bullion therein for the face value. If bullion is worth more, you melt it. If not, not. <br /><br />Commodity money in the Austrian / mainstream fairy tale sense is something that never existed anywhere, as Mitchell-Innes for one pointed out. And as Warren just said at DeLong's, the "Modern Money" in MMT is in the sense of Keynes' "Modern money is 4000 years old."Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-71140619297001841892011-04-22T18:16:36.362-04:002011-04-22T18:16:36.362-04:00Hummel's site is linked on the front page here...<i>Hummel's site is linked on the front page here so his views are important enough to not just dismiss as being out of paradigm.</i><br /><br />Clarification: I did not mean that all of Hummel's stuff is out of paradigm but some is. I got this from Warren. I have interacted with Hummel personally a couple of times and so has Warren on many occasions. So don't take what you find there as MMT gospel.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-90249179829028433202011-04-22T17:45:08.522-04:002011-04-22T17:45:08.522-04:00Hi Matt. Here is Hummel's article on the &quo...Hi Matt. Here is Hummel's article on the "Metallism vs Chartalism"<br /><br /><i>Metallism vs Chartalism<br /><br />The following was excerpted, with some editing, from the paper titled The Hierarchy of Money by Stephanie Bell, written for The Jerome Levy Economics Institute. <br /><br />There is no shortage of views on the nature and role of money among the different schools of economics. However subtle the differences may be, they can all be associated with one of two basic theories, metallism or chartalism. Chartalism is a term derived from the Latin word 'charta' meaning a ticket or token. Chartal money is the token for value, while metallist money is the thing of value itself. <br /><br />Precious Metal Viewed as Money<br /><br />Metallists believe money developed spontaneously as a medium of exchange in order to eliminate the obvious limitations of barter. Society is thought to have settled on precious metal as currency so that money would have intrinsic value. Money's value then is explained in terms of its precious metal content or backing.<br /><br />As a producible commodity, metallist money was really no different from any other commodity. To guarantee the weight and purity of precious metal as money, a stamp certifying its integrity came to be required before it could circulate widely. The State could play a role in terms of producing stamped coinage, but its power was viewed as limited to supporting the will of the private sector.<br /><br />Money as A Neutral Medium of Exchange<br /><br />Early metallists and modern metallists, including monetarists, treat money as irrelevant to 'real' analysis in economics. They believed money's ability to operate as the medium of exchange depended on its being a commodity with an exchange value independent of its form as currency. Milton Friedman declared "nothing is so unimportant as the quantity of money expressed in terms of the nominal monetary unit. . . The situation is very different with respect to the real quantity of money." In other words the economy behaves, at least in the long run, as though money were merely a neutral medium of exchange. <br /><br />A Problem with the Metallist Theory<br /><br />When coins or paper with no precious metal content came into use, metallists explained the transition on the basis that they were 'backed' by precious metals which would imbue them with value. When the community continued to accept intrinsically worthless paper after the elimination of metal backing, metallists were left with a fundamental problem.<br /></i><br /><br />Read the rest here<br /><br />http://wfhummel.cnchost.com/metallismchartalism.htmlAdam2https://www.blogger.com/profile/03710514839937913226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-14888006252175807932011-04-22T17:26:51.576-04:002011-04-22T17:26:51.576-04:00Clonal - min too.. But I see your comments in my e...Clonal - min too.. But I see your comments in my emailAdam2https://www.blogger.com/profile/03710514839937913226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-7012825405194122122011-04-22T17:20:59.546-04:002011-04-22T17:20:59.546-04:00my comments appear to be going into never never la...my comments appear to be going into never never land????Clonalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18290009954839887975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-19767591091548825112011-04-22T17:19:23.508-04:002011-04-22T17:19:23.508-04:00Matt, gold was almost never used as a currency (co...Matt, gold was almost never used as a currency (coin). The preference was overwhelmingly for silver, probably because while silver was scarce it was more plentiful than gold. The seignorage for silver was huge in the ancient world because it was mined by slave (non-wage) labor at virtually no cost to the state.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-75836100482516020772011-04-22T17:18:28.677-04:002011-04-22T17:18:28.677-04:00Hi Tom, You might not have read all of Hummel'...Hi Tom, You might not have read all of Hummel's article. Here it is.<br /><br /><i>The Seigniorage Gap<br /><br />The State sets the face value of the tokens, and accepts them in payment of taxes at that value. The difference between the face value and the material value of a token is normally positive, and known as the seigniorage gap. A positive gap will exist only if the production of the tokens is brought under State control and limited in quantity. In the case of fiat money, the gap is large. In the case of commodity money, the gap is small and may even be negative. A negative gap means the token is more valuable as a commodity than it is as money. If the gap becomes too negative, the public will hoard the tokens, or it will convert them to their material use and thus end their role as money. <br /><br />The Material Value of Commodity Money<br /><br />The material value of a token is a real asset without a corresponding liability. An important question then is: who actually owns the real asset? Surprisingly, we will see that it should be credited it to the State. By agreeing to accept the tokens in payment of taxes, the State automatically assumes a liability equal to their face value. But if the State has a liability of that amount, then the bearer must have a claim on the State of the same amount. However the bearer cannot simultaneously have a claim on the State and the material use of the real asset. That would clearly be double-counting. <br /><br />Real versus Financial Assets<br /><br />The claim on the State is inextricably tied to its token, e.g. the coin. No records are kept of who owes what to whom, so there is only one way of exercising the claim, and that is to surrender the coin. If one melts the coin instead, the claim is gone, and so is the State's liability. All that remains is a lump of metal whose material value obviously belongs to the bearer. Melting thus transforms a financial asset into a real asset from the bearer's point of view. From the State's point of view, melting cancels a financial liability but also eliminates the prospect of recapturing the real asset. <br /><br />Resolving the Accounting Dilemma<br /><br />The logical way to reconcile the accounting then is to credit the material value of the token to the State's balance sheet, even though the bearer has physical possession of the token. The State retains title to its material value as long as the token exists as a liability of the State. Keynes once defined the rupee, the Indian currency, as a "note printed on silver" implying that the holder of the rupee could either use it as money or as silver, but not both.<br /><br />Melting then involves two things: (1) cancellation of the financial asset-liability relation, and (2) transfer of the real asset from the State's balance sheet to the bearer's. The State loses the real asset but also the liability. The bearer gains a real asset but loses the financial claim. The net gain or loss depends on the size and sign of the seigniorage gap between face value and material value. </i>Adam2https://www.blogger.com/profile/03710514839937913226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-9719991323270931232011-04-22T17:18:14.156-04:002011-04-22T17:18:14.156-04:00Matt,
Look also at the history of Tally Sticks
Q...Matt,<br /><br />Look also at <a href="http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html" rel="nofollow">the history of Tally Sticks</a><br /><br />Quote:<br /><br />King Henry the First produced sticks of polished wood, with notches cut along one edge to signify the denominations. The stick was then split full length so each piece still had a record of the notches.<br /><br />The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the market place where it would continue to circulate as money.<br /><br />Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry for payment of taxes, there was a built in demand for them, which gave people confidence to accept these as money.<br /><br />He could have used anything really, so long as the people agreed it had value, and his willingness to accept these sticks as legal tender made it easy for the people to agree. Money is only as valuable as peoples faith in it, and without that faith even today's money is just paper.<br /><br />The tally stick system worked really well for 726 years. It was the most successful form of currency in recent history and the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system, but how is it that most of us are not aware of its existence?<br /><br />Perhaps the fact that in 1694 the Bank of England at its formation attacked the Tally Stick System gives us a clue as to why most of us have never heard of them. <b>They realised it was money outside the power of the money changers, (the very thing King Henry had intended).</b><br /><br />end quoteClonalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18290009954839887975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-60734529833231227132011-04-22T16:27:30.445-04:002011-04-22T16:27:30.445-04:00Adam,
I'm not sure about Hummel but I'm s...Adam,<br /><br />I'm not sure about Hummel but I'm starting to believe that there has somewhere in history occured a disconnect if you will or perhaps some 'revisionist history' or a concerted propaganda campaign/deception where we in the west once knew how to run an economy via perhaps termed "state money" and now we have become all confused.<br /><br />It looks to me like Rome knew how to do this. And then there is Clonal's comment above (Thanks!!) where it looks like Adam Smith knew it... I've pulled out my old Alexander Hamilton biography and am looking thru that and it looks like he followed Adam Smith where there was paper bank notes that were redeemable for coins. (parallels with today's T-Bonds redeemable for Reserve balances facilitated by modern IT)<br /><br />Then somewhere we became obsessed and/or deceived by gold and silver so-called "hard money"..... and this looks like where it all went bad for us... we lost track of the authorities of civil government and instead focused on metals? Something like that....<br /><br />This huge historic misunderstanding of how to run a monetary system may be a large part due to public brainwashing by propaganda from the gold-sellers.... it is still happening today by Glenn Beck commercials and Steve Forbes to just name 2.<br /><br />I'm going to continue to look at this and hopefully do some blogs..Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-104022377928908692011-04-22T14:36:51.146-04:002011-04-22T14:36:51.146-04:00Yes, convertibile fixed rate and non-convertibile ...Yes, convertibile fixed rate and non-convertibile floating rate currencies are both state money. MMT says this. MMT holds that they both derive their value from being tax credits not any asset backing.<br /><br />He explains this in terms of claims on the state:<br /><br /><i>When the State declares what kind of asset it accepts in payment of taxes, it assumes a liability equal to the outstanding stock of those assets. At the same time, the declaration creates financial claims on the State by the holders of the assets. Those claims exist as tokens known as money.</i><br /><br />There is no asset claim on the state in state money. State money functions simply a "tax credit" (Warren) in the view of MMT.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-40423193103301966602011-04-22T14:01:57.251-04:002011-04-22T14:01:57.251-04:00Tom - Are you sure? The way Hummel reconciles it ...Tom - Are you sure? The way Hummel reconciles it is not about convertibility but as the State Theory of Money. <br /><br />The State Theory of Money is part and parcel to MMT. <br /><br />Matt Franko has been talking about the State Theory when he brings up the Roman tokens in previous posts. <br /><br />So he and Per Berglund is unifying both commodity money and fiat money as different forms of State Money. <br /><br />Hummel's site is linked on the front page here so his views are important enough to not just dismiss as being out of paradigm. <br /><br />PS - It was Hummel who actually led me to MMT. <br /><br />PPS- He also replied to Krugman's post on his email exchange. Not much different from other MMT responses.Adam2https://www.blogger.com/profile/03710514839937913226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-69066955315991193182011-04-22T13:32:54.596-04:002011-04-22T13:32:54.596-04:00So what is worse? Zero summers like Lansburg or co...<i>So what is worse? Zero summers like Lansburg or confused economists like Krugman?</i><br /><br />The problem with K's post is that he is promoting the false idea that taxes are chiefly revenue necessary to fund government (prevent insolvency), when they don't function this way at all.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-48174291927934932172011-04-22T13:30:22.949-04:002011-04-22T13:30:22.949-04:00Hummel is out of paradigm. There is no way to reco...Hummel is out of paradigm. There is no way to reconcile convertibility with nonconvertibility, fixed rate and floating rate. The only "unification" is that they both function equally as money of the denominated value. The liability is totally different. In the case of convertibility, there is a claim on the state's real assets and in the latter, not.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-1180025711601714982011-04-22T13:20:16.870-04:002011-04-22T13:20:16.870-04:00"HOW WOULD HAVE MMT SOLVED THE LAST ECONOMIC ..."HOW WOULD HAVE MMT SOLVED THE LAST ECONOMIC CRISIS OR HAVE PREVENTED IT?"<br /><br />According to MMT'er Bill Black, this was a control fraud perpetrated by the CEO's of the big banks with the collusion of regulators who were in many cases (Black's word) "suborned." <br /><br />Warnings were sent and ignored, and now no prosecutions even though people like Black, Yves Smith, Janet Tavakoli, Elliot Spitzer and others have documented the wrong doing during the run up and after the crash. They are still on the case.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-89657891028958655752011-04-22T12:08:25.004-04:002011-04-22T12:08:25.004-04:00Krugman's post was not just about MMT, althoug...Krugman's post was not just about MMT, although he mentioned it. I was also about the zero-sum adherents such as Steve Landsburg.<br /><br />So what is worse? Zero summers like Lansburg or confused economists like Krugman?Adam2https://www.blogger.com/profile/03710514839937913226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-43839769682270747842011-04-22T12:07:14.256-04:002011-04-22T12:07:14.256-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Adam2https://www.blogger.com/profile/03710514839937913226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-84571330328162456472011-04-22T11:38:46.682-04:002011-04-22T11:38:46.682-04:00The Seigniorage Gap
The State sets the face value...<i>The Seigniorage Gap<br /><br />The State sets the face value of the tokens, and accepts them in payment of taxes at that value. The difference between the face value and the material value of a token is normally positive, and known as the seigniorage gap. A positive gap will exist only if the production of the tokens is brought under State control and limited in quantity. In the case of fiat money, the gap is large. In the case of commodity money, the gap is small and may even be negative. A negative gap means the token is more valuable as a commodity than it is as money. If the gap becomes too negative, the public will hoard the tokens, or it will convert them to their material use and thus end their role as money. <br /><br />The Material Value of Commodity Money<br /><br />The material value of a token is a real asset without a corresponding liability. An important question then is: who actually owns the real asset? Surprisingly, we will see that it should be credited it to the State. By agreeing to accept the tokens in payment of taxes, the State automatically assumes a liability equal to their face value. But if the State has a liability of that amount, then the bearer must have a claim on the State of the same amount. However the bearer cannot simultaneously have a claim on the State and the material use of the real asset. That would clearly be double-counting. <br /><br />Real versus Financial Assets<br /><br />The claim on the State is inextricably tied to its token, e.g. the coin. No records are kept of who owes what to whom, so there is only one way of exercising the claim, and that is to surrender the coin. If one melts the coin instead, the claim is gone, and so is the State's liability. All that remains is a lump of metal whose material value obviously belongs to the bearer. Melting thus transforms a financial asset into a real asset from the bearer's point of view. From the State's point of view, melting cancels a financial liability but also eliminates the prospect of recapturing the real asset. <br /><br />Resolving the Accounting Dilemma<br /><br />The logical way to reconcile the accounting then is to credit the material value of the token to the State's balance sheet, even though the bearer has physical possession of the token. The State retains title to its material value as long as the token exists as a liability of the State. Keynes once defined the rupee, the Indian currency, as a "note printed on silver" implying that the holder of the rupee could either use it as money or as silver, but not both.<br /><br />Melting then involves two things: (1) cancellation of the financial asset-liability relation, and (2) transfer of the real asset from the State's balance sheet to the bearer's. The State loses the real asset but also the liability. The bearer gains a real asset but loses the financial claim. The net gain or loss depends on the size and sign of the seigniorage gap between face value and material value. </i>Adam2https://www.blogger.com/profile/03710514839937913226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-53199600006963684102011-04-22T11:37:57.745-04:002011-04-22T11:37:57.745-04:00About seignorage and the difference between commod...About seignorage and the difference between commodity money and fiat money, have you read William Hummel's explanation on his site? <br /><br />He calls it the unified view and it is based on an analysis done by Swedish economist Per Berglund.<br /><br />http://wfhummel.cnchost.com/unifiedview.html<br /><br /><i><br />Commodity money and fiat money are commonly viewed as two quite different kinds of money. The transition from commodity to fiat money occurred in the mid-20th century when the State ended the gold backing of its notes. But are they really as different as most people think? In the following we abstract from the analysis of the Swedish economist Per Berglund to show how the two kinds of money actually fit into a single framework, based on the State theory of money.<br /><br />Money as a Claim on the State<br /><br />When the State declares what kind of asset it accepts in payment of taxes, it assumes a liability equal to the outstanding stock of those assets. At the same time, the declaration creates financial claims on the State by the holders of the assets. Those claims exist as tokens known as money. The tokens may have a material value as in precious metal coins, or may simply be paper certificates with no intrinsic value. The former is referred to as commodity money, and the latter as fiat money.<br /><br /> </i>Adam2https://www.blogger.com/profile/03710514839937913226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-49644914488385234482011-04-22T10:01:22.817-04:002011-04-22T10:01:22.817-04:00In response to googleheim's question "HOW...In response to googleheim's question "HOW WOULD HAVE MMT SOLVED THE LAST ECONOMIC CRISIS OR HAVE PREVENTED IT?"<br /><br />MMT is not the solution to all the world's problems, or even all the world's macroeconomic problems. There are distributional issues (allocation of national income to labor and capital, for example) that are not part of MMT. Also, globalization presents challenges that are not directly addressed by MMT, as far as I know. <br /><br />The employer of last resort (ELR) is one offshoot of MMT that could have kicked in to stabilize incomes for workers at the time of the financial collapse. Even before the financial collapse, unemployment was high, and ELR would have helped with that. Most MMT advocates, even if not sold on the ELR, favor automatic stabilizers which would cool the economy when it is overheating and generate employment at times of low aggregate demand...Detroit Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03718490473585220856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-64369058044510871472011-04-22T09:41:29.568-04:002011-04-22T09:41:29.568-04:00"So far, none of the people commenting on MMT..."<i>So far, none of the people commenting on MMT or criticizing it have read any of the MMT literature, including the most introductory presentation, Warren's book. They are just reacting to blog posts and comments. <br /><br />This is not taking MMT seriously, and I don't take them seriously. Anyone serious about taking one MMT has to be familiar with the basic literature which deals in detail with what they bring up. This is just a bad joke.</i>"<br /><br />yep.<br /><br />but i do take krugman's readers seriously (and i don't doubt you do as well).<br /><br />which is why i disagree with commenters who evaluate responses to krugman based on how he might respond.<br /><br />imo, the majority of <b>responses to krugman are best written for his readers</b> -- most of whom also haven't read any of the MMT literature -- in order to attempt to 1) state clearly that krugman is wrong and 2) engage the readers and the material sufficiently to spark their interest to do their own investigation (rather than relying on krugman's statements).<br /><br />it would be great if krugman were persuaded and informed enough to use his perch at the nyt to educate his readers. but i'm afraid that may be wishful thinking on my part. and besides, i'm tired of attempting to appeal to TPTB. mostly useless and always personally degrading.<br /><br />just my 2 cents....selisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17903820543584680220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-70909144072039793612011-04-22T07:44:55.368-04:002011-04-22T07:44:55.368-04:00HOW WOULD HAVE MMT SOLVED THE LAST ECONOMIC CRISIS...HOW WOULD HAVE MMT SOLVED THE LAST ECONOMIC CRISIS OR HAVE PREVENTED IT?<br /><br />would crediting ( aka "printing" )<br />controls have prevented the commission game ?<br /><br />are you serious about commissions ? like the banking system was Avon or pyramid with downlines and all that ?<br /><br />and the tea party is on a "free market" platform ? how much more freedom to destroy do they want ?<br /><br />they are smoking what ?googleheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14459089745473598235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-35881711041476284592011-04-22T07:38:55.484-04:002011-04-22T07:38:55.484-04:00Goog,
It seems to me the easy credit came from a ...Goog,<br /><br />It seems to me the easy credit came from a breakdown in lending standards.<br /><br />All "lenders" transitioned to an 'originate-distribute' model. They would origniate the loans and then as quickly as possible lay them off on someone else (yes some foreigners) including laying some off on the govt (FnMA, Freddie, etc..).<br /><br />At that point everyone at the lender (including the CEO) is on commission. And they are effectively lending other people's money. Bad combination.Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-9565353072942559042011-04-22T07:09:09.510-04:002011-04-22T07:09:09.510-04:00What are taxes for then ?
They are needed to put ...What are taxes for then ?<br /><br />They are needed to put brakes on speculation and unregulated banks like Goldmans, Bears, and any others.<br /><br />More importantly, where did all the "easy credit" come from over the past 15 years ??<br /><br />Was this from tax receipts or Fed crediting the banks ?<br /><br />From treasury debt backed by China, OPEC, Japan, and Britain ?googleheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14459089745473598235noreply@blogger.com