AndySir wrote:kenneal - lagger wrote:FFS just watch the Money as Debt videos with an open mind. Listen to what the man is saying before you start disagreeing with him. He goes through all this in a beautifully simple but horrifying way.
There is only enough money in circulation at any one time to pay off the capital on the loans. To pay off the interest the economy has to grow. Therefore the Fractional Reserve banking system is driving growth.
Actually that's precisely what I'm saying is incorrect. Paul Grignon himself acknowledged that his oversimplification was grossly misleading. When I said I fell for this hook line and sinker two pages ago this was exactly what I was thinking about. Turns out a lot of that video is just plain wrong or worse.
May I suggest you try looking at some of the Money as Debt debunking sites with an open mind. Or, alternatively, any one of my posts from the last two pages in which I explain why that is incorrect?
Stevecook wrote:Virtual mind games?
What on earth are you on about?
He may be referring to the fact that we've been discussing anything but the subject we disagree on for a page and a half, to the point where I've now been challenged on the ratio of debt based money to base money on the off-chance that there might be a disagreement. I'd have gone for 95% debt to 5% base. It was based on the literature from a monetary reform party here in Glasgow five years ago, so... happy to hear a better figure.
I do have this quote from Prof Charles Goodhart to throw into the mix though. According to him the money multiplier model is "such an incomplete way of describing the process of the determination of the stock of money that it amounts to mis-instruction".
You entered this thread at precisely the point at which I made the case for the multiplier effect to JSD and it was at this point that you said that I and someone else had been unfair to him in that respect. At that point I reiterated the point about the money multiplier and you then went on to deny the process. I then demonstrated the relatively straightforward maths behinds it and you then went on to dismiss it some more but without any reference to specifically which part of it you did not consider accurate or why. You then went on to introduce unrelated aspects of the money supply, at least insofar as they directly related to the multiplier effect. All of which I am bound to say, is rather suspect in debating terms.
You now seem, albeit, in an extremely roundabout way, to be acknowledging that the money multiplier does in fact operate. You could have saved us both a lot of time if you had simply put your ego to one side and acknowledged that at the beginning.
Or are you still denying the existence of the money multiplier effect? You see, it is still not entirely clear to me even now since you have not made your position plain, even though you have been afforded ample opportunity to do so. If you are, then you really do need to come up with which specific parts of the explanations that have been given to you are incorrect and why. You have
still not done this.
All of the other points you have made about the money supply are all open for debate and I would be happy to debate them. But, not until you make your position in this particular issue clear. For the life of me, I am baffled as to why you seem to find it so difficult to be transparent on this. Is it, perhaps, because to concede this point would be to undermine other aspects of your more general arguments about the money supply?
