tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2277215496195926573.post2763826892102802062..comments2024-01-01T07:41:51.347-08:00Comments on RALPHONOMICS: Giuseppe Fontana and Malcolm Sawyer’s defective criticisms of full reserve banking.Ralph Musgravehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2277215496195926573.post-86338609319270394532016-08-02T06:38:20.185-07:002016-08-02T06:38:20.185-07:00Agreed.
Thanks.Agreed.<br />Thanks.joebhedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04897963104702362045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2277215496195926573.post-50377846301441957782016-08-02T04:18:35.159-07:002016-08-02T04:18:35.159-07:00I can't for the life of me see what's wron...I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with the idea that states that issue their own money can simply create it and spend it, thus putting more dollars into private hands.Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2277215496195926573.post-33207228002807868802016-08-01T13:34:29.706-07:002016-08-01T13:34:29.706-07:00Hey Ralph,
I would like to agree.
But this Post-Ke...Hey Ralph,<br />I would like to agree.<br />But this Post-Keynesian shtick today has morphed into a broad defense of a series of errant MMT constructs, which in turn misinforms the substantive dialogue needed to actually discuss why we have privatized money, and whether we (the public) should take it back from the bankers, or not.<br /><br />MMTs problems are not Post-Keynesian, which evolves mostly around that the public sector must fill the GDP-gap when the private sector stalls.<br />All well and good there.<br /><br />MMTs fails are almost exclusively the Mosler-Wray add-ons, like that (somehow, unexplained) the government actually creates new money (increases the money supply) just by spending.<br /><br />Now, I have an actual workable theme on that matter that supports government spending, as relates to monetary velocity, but MMT claims that actual new dollars are added to the money supply, and thus Guv doesn't need either taxes or borrowing for income. False. Can't happen.<br /><br />As soon as I first read Bell's "Nuances of Reserve Accounting" chapter, I knew they were either faking it, or incredibly ignorant.<br /><br />Because with public money the government WOULD create new money when it spends, the false MMT tenet in this regard, being that they already do it, here puts public reforms off the table ...... there is just no need for discussing public money creation reforms.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the P-Ks see MMT as kindred spirits for the most part, when they are seriously damaging the P-K brand.<br /><br />IMHO.<br />Thanks.<br /> joebhedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04897963104702362045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2277215496195926573.post-35762367883355738142016-08-01T02:39:35.488-07:002016-08-01T02:39:35.488-07:00Re Fisher, Sawyer & Fontana mention him. I oug...Re Fisher, Sawyer & Fontana mention him. I ought to have done so as well.<br /><br />Re the question as to why we have privatised the money system, I think that's actually the central question being debated. It's just that the answer to that question involves answering an amazing large number of subsidiary questions. So the latter basic question does seem to get lost sometimes.Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2277215496195926573.post-67488253838618600832016-07-31T12:24:39.194-07:002016-07-31T12:24:39.194-07:00Hey Ralph,
Thanks so much for this, which really ...Hey Ralph, <br />Thanks so much for this, which really ought to be considered part and parcel to the original ‘Journal’ piece – to which I am unable to subscribe … as such I rely upon your, and Ben’s reply comments for any substance(?) being offered.<br /><br />A couple of minors here.<br />Curious why any list of FR supporters does not include Irving Fisher , who championed this change to central bank operations for many decades, and published more than others on the subject, being considered America’s supreme monetary economist of the last century.<br /><br />Then this observation – having correctly established that this is more of a questionably-purposed unfavorable attack on PM’s work than any quasi-academic undertaking, I would even add that this entire modern money discussion is one that suffers from intellectual myopia, where the value of a ratio of reserves takes precedent over the much larger political-economy question of why we have privatized our national money systems THROUGH fractional-reserve banking.<br />So, my shortcut there …., it’s NOT about the reserves-ratio, it’s about who is issuing the national money, and WHY(?). <br />Bring THAT question to the fore, and the base-money dialogue soon fades to where it belongs.<br />Thanks again for all of this.<br /><br />Joe Bongiovanni<br /><br /><br />joebhedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04897963104702362045noreply@blogger.com