tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post3919849332057441329..comments2024-03-28T07:50:06.102-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Another example of the orthodoxy recognizing that Post-Keynesian descriptions of endogenous money are the right onesmike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-51418458584639749462016-07-09T01:47:49.688-04:002016-07-09T01:47:49.688-04:00Auburn Parks: I think your entire "money is a...Auburn Parks: <i>I think your entire "money is a figure of speech" meme is not productive. I dont think it clarifies anything and I dont think its relevant to the general discourse.</i><br /><br />Yes. Saying that doesn't make it so. Claims that there is a problem with MMT's understanding of "money", that the definition of, the viewpoint on money that MMT is built around has some problem, which is never specified - doesn't make it so. Such claims don't make it "a figure of speech" or poorly defined with a confused meaning depending on context, any more than saying the same things about "rest mass" (for instance) would. <br /><br />Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-60832762176550132016-07-05T03:39:26.677-04:002016-07-05T03:39:26.677-04:00“Saving does not by itself increase the deposits o...“Saving does not by itself increase the deposits or ‘funds available’ for banks to lend. Indeed, viewing banks simply as intermediaries ignores the fact that, in reality in the modern economy, commercial banks are the creators of deposit money. This article explains how, rather than banks lending out deposits that are placed with them, the act of lending creates deposits — the reverse of the sequence typically described in textbooks.”<br />http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q102.pdf<br />Postkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11747509012748106827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-84509733440280636822016-07-04T19:37:22.743-04:002016-07-04T19:37:22.743-04:00And PS the article isnt even correct:
"Bank ...And PS the article isnt even correct:<br /><br />"Bank financing of investment projects does not require prior saving,"<br /><br />Go to a bank to get a loan for a car that doesnt even exist, or a property that isnt even built... they wont lend you the munnie...<br /><br />The car is already manufactured and everybody has been paid with prior savings... the house is already built or the building materials transported and paid for with prior savings...<br /><br />Go try to get a loan against A/R without a signed invoice ie meaning the production is done and everybody has been paid with prior savings (except you of course..)<br /><br />I applied years ago for like a bit over $100k and the bank told me I would have to deposit the loan amount (of prior savings) into a hold account that I would work off as I paid it back...<br /><br />So this IMF article isnt even true all production takes place using prior savings... even the federal govt wont pay until the work is done.... only the final sale is financed and again this financing will not take place unless the production is already completed...<br /><br />Like I said you could get more out the the Tymoigne series without wasting your time scanning for crumbs from these IMF people...Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-8857557866398770162016-07-04T19:20:18.777-04:002016-07-04T19:20:18.777-04:00And Brian is correct we need to stop talking about...<i>And Brian is correct we need to stop talking about "money!" and banks (and GDP) and start talking about USD appropriations and taxations and real issues of public policy related to production/provision...</i> Franko<br /><br />No, he's not correct since once the economy recovers sufficiently the banks will start another boom-bust cycle and concentrate wealth even further.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-60083045390277424892016-07-04T19:14:22.694-04:002016-07-04T19:14:22.694-04:00"I think your entire "money is a figure ..."I think your entire "money is a figure of speech" meme is not productive."<br /><br />Auburn,<br /><br />Only morons would argue about what a figure of speech means... that is working IN REVERSE... the accurate terms logically PRECEDE the utterance of the figure of speech... its a complete waste of time...<br /><br />Here is some data:<br /><br />Time Magazine weeks ago article by idiot MMT people's darling James Grant: "America, we have a problem.<br /><br />We owe more than we can easily repay. We spend too much and borrow too much. Worse, we promise too much. We conjure dollar bills by the trillions–pull them right out of thin air. I won’t insist that this can’t go on, because it has. I only say that it will eventually stop. I don’t know the date, but I believe that I know the reason. "<br /><br />Cover... of.... Time.... Magazine.... April 14, 2016<br /><br />Keep arguing about "money!" you will never get anywhere... <br /><br />And Brian is correct we need to stop talking about "money!" and banks (and GDP) and start talking about USD appropriations and taxations and real issues of public policy related to production/provision...<br /><br />And this is interesting from Brian:<br /><br />"Nobody really cared about the endogenous/exogenous money debate for a long time (for example, during the 1990s), until it became an issue raised by PK/MMT economists."<br /><br />If this is true then these people are actually the ones responsible for starting this whole circle jerk about "money!"...<br /><br />Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-42951536083561665842016-07-04T16:29:32.273-04:002016-07-04T16:29:32.273-04:00"The debate above underlines my view that mon..."The debate above underlines my view that money (and banks) need to be banned from economic theory, so we can talk about what really matters... "<br /><br />L.O.L.<br />Postkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11747509012748106827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-71554318903271346282016-07-04T16:13:39.310-04:002016-07-04T16:13:39.310-04:00Returning to the original article, I think there h...Returning to the original article, I think there has always been flashes of common sense around economics. Nobody really cared about the endogenous/exogenous money debate for a long time (for example, during the 1990s), until it became an issue raised by PK/MMT economists. (The original debate flared up when Monetarism was a thing, but nobody cared after money supply targeting jumped the shark. Sure, textbooks were wrong, but who really cared, besides academics?)<br /><br />The debate above underlines my view that money (and banks) need to be banned from economic theory, so we can talk about what really matters...<br /><br />Brian Romanchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02699198289421951151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-15091054588059904072016-07-04T15:58:48.461-04:002016-07-04T15:58:48.461-04:00Make that OMP's not OPM's.Make that OMP's not OPM's.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-22549347630251095532016-07-04T15:25:56.023-04:002016-07-04T15:25:56.023-04:00Individual citizen, business, State and local gove...Individual citizen, business, State and local government, etc. accounts at the central bank would constitute an alternative payment system to the one that must work through banks.<br /><br />Why are you against that? Do you prefer that the banks hold the economy system hostage via the payment system?Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-39758994843781078072016-07-04T15:17:11.331-04:002016-07-04T15:17:11.331-04:00the interest rate in the reserve market is set by ...<i> the interest rate in the reserve market is set by the fed, </i> ap<br /><br />Yes, unjustly so. The proper way to lower interest rates is via equal fiat distributions to all citizens, not loans from or OPM's by the central bank.<br /><br /><br /><i>The natural rate of interest on reserves is zero so Im not sure what you are talking about here either </i> ap<br /><br />Who can say what interest rates in fiat would be if the citizens were allowed to deal with it? Currently, only depository institutions may do so and that's unjust on its face.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-61786874873618844232016-07-04T15:11:03.726-04:002016-07-04T15:11:03.726-04:00Your deposits are insured by the Govt so youre not...<i>Your deposits are insured by the Govt so youre not fully private....moron</i> ap<br /><br />Since there's no need for that insurance then it's clearly a privilege for the banks.<br /><br /><i>Wrong again, citizens have full access to fiat use thanks to Govt deposit insurance as that promise basically guarantees citizen savings exactly as if they were narrow Govt currency.</i> ap<br /><br />A lot of words to admit that my point is correct - citizens do not have full access to fiat since they must work through government-insured private banks. If they did have full access then the banks would have to pay higher interest rates for fiat since individuals, businesses, etc have a greater need for liquidity in aggregate than the banks do.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-69946537736127047522016-07-04T15:06:37.522-04:002016-07-04T15:06:37.522-04:00AA-
"Yes, it does since otherwise the bank ...AA-<br /><br /><br />"Yes, it does since otherwise the bank might have to borrow additional reserves should deposits move to another bank or be cashed out."<br /><br />This is irrelevant to whether the depositors are rich or poor. It doesnt help whatever argument you are making at all. the interest rate in the reserve market is set by the fed, not the ratio between rich and poor depositors.<br /><br />"Currently, deposit insurance and the lack of accounts for all citizens at the central bank mean deposits are largely captive at depository institutions so the cost of reserves is artificially low - so the effect is admittedly but still unjustly, small."<br /><br />The cost of reserves is set by the CB and it has nothing to do with anything you just wrote here. The natural rate of interest on reserves is zero so Im not sure what you are talking about here eitherAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-3024679571800699442016-07-04T14:49:38.083-04:002016-07-04T14:49:38.083-04:00Matt-
I think your entire "money is a figure...Matt-<br /><br />I think your entire "money is a figure of speech" meme is not productive. I dont think it clarifies anything and I dont think its relevant to the general discourse.<br /><br />It certainly doesnt have anything to do with acknowledging that yet another orthodox publication has correctly identified the endogenous money approach as accurate and operative as compared to the myth of the loanable funds market. <br /><br />It may be the case the progress is not happening fast enough to make a serious dent, I am not claiming it is. But one thing I know for sure is that you have no idea have fast the progress is. You have not shared any systematic research program demonstrating that the current ratio of PK-MMT paradigm artilces, interview, papers, conferences, etc to orthodox is greater, less than, or equal to, the ratio between the two from the 90's, 80's, 70s' etc. SO you ahve no logical or scientific basis for concluding that we are going nowhere aka our "pace is effectively zero". <br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-68426645571700852592016-07-04T14:48:23.366-04:002016-07-04T14:48:23.366-04:00And being a depositor at a bank does not lower the...<i>And being a depositor at a bank does not lower the borrowing cost of the rich,</i> ap<br /><br />Yes, it does since otherwise the bank might have to borrow additional reserves should deposits move to another bank or be cashed out. <br /><br />Currently, deposit insurance and the lack of accounts for all citizens at the central bank mean deposits are largely captive at depository institutions so the cost of reserves is artificially low - so the effect is admittedly but still unjustly, small.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-64879892321164916162016-07-04T14:40:12.397-04:002016-07-04T14:40:12.397-04:00Regarding this line:
"Mastercard is not a ba...Regarding this line:<br /><br />"Mastercard is not a bank and no bank issues mastercard."<br /><br />the "no bank issues" part is an overly broad generalization as its unclear what "issues" means in this context. Looks like banks do issue visa and mastercard branded plastic once a vendor license is signed, and then Visa mastercard handle the payments processing parts. But that would have to be in very close cooperation with the banks as they are both effectively payment processing companies and its unclear where the line of separation is drawn without further research. <br /><br />However, none of that belies the fact that Andrew is totally wrong about describing a debit card used for SS and other Govt payments is involuntarily forcing people to have accounts at commercial banks.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-76082544391399691322016-07-04T14:37:49.308-04:002016-07-04T14:37:49.308-04:00"glacial pace of PK-MMT uptake"
The pac..."glacial pace of PK-MMT uptake"<br /><br />The pace is effectively zero... ie not moving over a time rate that is meaningful to a human being...<br /><br />Auburn check out the youtube I posted below where the guy talks about the concept of 'reification' which is explained here:<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)<br /><br />Here is the key take away:<br /><br />"Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. "<br /><br />OK... A FALLACY OF ABIGUITY...<br /><br />The word "money" is a figure of speech, what is a figure of speech? ok here is figure of spech:<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech<br /><br />"However, clarity may also suffer from their use, as <b>any figure of speech introduces an ambiguity</b> between literal and figurative interpretation."<br /><br />so when we use the figure of speech "money!" we are creating a fallacy of ambiguity.... ie we are trying to reify an abstraction... "money" is an abstraction...<br /><br />so you have all of these people confused by the figure of speech "money" and they can never get anywhere....<br /><br />Its not a glacial pace... we are getting NOWHERE...<br /><br />All you uncovered here is that somebody has finally documented how a commercial bank is regulated... you could just read the Tymoigne stuff for better information than this coming from these IMF morons who have happened upon a crumb...<br /><br />If we keep talking about reifications like "endogenous money!" we will continue to get NOWHERE... guaranteed...<br /><br />We should not be using the word "money" at this point anymore we've been at this long enough... .. when we use this word we are trapping ourselves in a fallacy of ambiguity and it is holding us back from making any progress AT ALL...<br /><br /><br /><br />Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-55554126974029015562016-07-04T14:32:25.394-04:002016-07-04T14:32:25.394-04:00"As far as I can see, DirectExpress works thr..."As far as I can see, DirectExpress works through a bank (the one that issues MasterCard) so it still amounts to a forced loan."<br /><br />lol. Mastercard is not a bank and no bank issues mastercard. Just another category error from you.<br /><br /><br />"1) It's deposits are insured by government so it isn't fully private."<br /><br />Your deposits are insured by the Govt so youre not fully private....moron<br /><br />"2) It can't be said to have fully voluntary depositors since citizens are not allowed to deal with fiat except in unsafe, inconvenient physical form. Yet fiat is for the use of all citizens, not just for usurers."<br /><br />Wrong again, citizens have full access to fiat use thanks to Govt deposit insurance as that promise basically guarantees citizen savings exactly as if they were narrow Govt currency.<br /><br />So once agian, you are fully incapable of articulating anything resembling a coherent argumentAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-83043337056257461812016-07-04T14:22:51.800-04:002016-07-04T14:22:51.800-04:00Chase is already a fully private business and it a...<i>Chase is already a fully private business and it already has fully voluntary depositors.</i> ap<br /><br />No, it isn't and no, it hasn't.<br /><br />1) It's deposits are insured by government so it isn't fully private.<br />2) It can't be said to have fully voluntary depositors since citizens are not allowed to deal with fiat except in unsafe, inconvenient physical form. Yet fiat is for the use of all citizens, not just for usurers.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-64467796962704180172016-07-04T14:13:07.971-04:002016-07-04T14:13:07.971-04:00As far as I can see, DirectExpress works through a...As far as I can see, DirectExpress works through a bank (the one that issues MasterCard) so it still amounts to a forced loan.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-22484473435808924532016-07-04T14:04:30.862-04:002016-07-04T14:04:30.862-04:00AA-
"I've said nothing about replacing c...AA-<br /><br />"I've said nothing about replacing commercial banks, credit unions, etc. They would still exist but as fully private businesses with fully voluntary depositors. "<br /><br />Chase is already a fully private business and it already has fully voluntary depositors.<br /><br />So what on Earthh are you talking about?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-79688230515886900002016-07-04T14:02:49.330-04:002016-07-04T14:02:49.330-04:00AA-
"Sure. A deposit is legally a loan. So t...AA-<br /><br />"Sure. A deposit is legally a loan. So the poor, the least so-called credit worthy, are forced* to lend to banks for the benefit of the banks themselves and to lower the borrowing costs of the rich, the most so-called credit worthy.<br />"<br /><br />You are truly an ignorant person about this stuff. First of all, nobody is forced to have a bank account, so that part is wrong. And being a depositor at a bank does not lower the borrowing cost of the rich, peoploe with high incomes and assets are by definition more credit worthy than poor people, but what the fuck does that have to do with anything? This whole paragraph is so confused Its hard to even parse what concepts you are talking about.<br /><br />"And you're the one who mentions evil banks. I merely wish to de-priviledge them.<br /><br />*Or be limited to unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat."<br /><br />Deposit insurance is not for the privilege of banks, its to protect depositors so your entire argument is wrong here. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-3417044870942295312016-07-04T13:58:44.548-04:002016-07-04T13:58:44.548-04:00but unlike you I have no delusions that postal ban...<i> but unlike you I have no delusions that postal banking can replace all retail commercial bank operations for hundreds of millions of people.</i> ap<br /><br />I've said nothing about replacing commercial banks, credit unions, etc. They would still exist but as fully private businesses with fully voluntary depositors. <br /><br />The central bank would simply provide risk-free accounting and transactions in fiat but for all citizens, not just the "banks."Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-82935432467947492932016-07-04T13:57:58.507-04:002016-07-04T13:57:58.507-04:00AA-
"Au contraire, that's the only way U...AA-<br /><br />"Au contraire, that's the only way US Social Security recipients can receive their benefits.<br /><br />But even if Social Security recipients still received physical checks, it is dangerous to carry large amounts of cash.<br /><br />So yes, people are forced to use depository institutions."<br /><br /><br />Shocking, you are talking out of your ass and are totally wrong.<br /><br />The Direct Express® card is a<br />debit card you can use to access your<br />payments. And you don’t need a<br />bank account.<br />With the Direct Express® card<br />program, we deposit your federal<br />payment directly into your card account.<br />Your monthly funds will be available on<br />your payment day — on time, every time. <br /><br />https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10073.pdf<br /><br />Its literally on the first fucking page. Im holding my breath for you to admit that your entire premise is wrong now that one of the foundations of your logic has been shown to be inaccurate.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-5814268330792085842016-07-04T13:52:52.389-04:002016-07-04T13:52:52.389-04:00Can you please articulate why you think banks are ...<i>Can you please articulate why you think banks are so evil in terms that actually map onto reality?</i> ap<br /><br />Sure. A deposit is legally a loan. So the poor, the least so-called credit worthy, are forced* to lend to banks for the benefit of the banks themselves and to lower the borrowing costs of the rich, the most so-called credit worthy.<br /><br /><br />And you're the one who mentions evil banks. I merely wish to de-priviledge them.<br /><br />*Or be limited to unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-29708534062715288202016-07-04T13:44:06.628-04:002016-07-04T13:44:06.628-04:00The banking system currently is voluntary, nobody ...<i>The banking system currently is voluntary, nobody forces you to have an account at a commercial bank,</i> ap<br /><br />Au contraire, that's the only way US Social Security recipients can receive their benefits.<br /><br />But even if Social Security recipients still received physical checks, it is dangerous to carry large amounts of cash.<br /><br />So yes, people are forced to use depository institutions.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.com