Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Four Horsemen

Expand Messages
  • mattbieker
    I figured I d anticipate Roy and butt in and respond to this post. My hope is that, hearing it from someone other than Roy, perhaps you can be persuaded to
    Message 1 of 90 , Jan 23, 2013
      I figured I'd anticipate Roy and butt in and respond to this post. My hope is that, hearing it from someone other than Roy, perhaps you can be persuaded to reconsider your argument, such as it is.

      Checks are not money. Checks affect the transfer of money. Ditto debit cards. You keep getting hung up on the means of the transaction, rather than the underlying content: your bill is paid with money, denominated in US dollars. That you use a check, or a debit card, or whatever, is irrelevant. These are just means of transferring dollars from you to the institution you owe.

      Dollars are not simply pieces of paper, either. Just because no pieces of paper move, does not mean that dollars aren't transferred.


      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "harrypollard" wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > Roy,
      >
      >
      >
      > You exhibit the very problem I was referring to. You have been told certain
      > things and you haven't thought to question these 'certainties'.
      >
      >
      >
      > Your meaning of 'money' is pretty useless. You said:
      >
      >
      >
      > "No, it only requires a willingness to know the fact that money is what is
      > generally accepted in exchange."
      >
      >
      >
      > So, checks are money. Travelers' checks are money. Credit card slips are
      > money. In fact, way back in the 40's the London Coop would give you their
      > own coins in their change. I forget why you took them, but they would be
      > generally acceptable at any Coop store. On the other hand, I recall that on
      > a speaking trip to Northern California, I happened to run into 3 shops that
      > would not take a check, not take a credit card, not take a $20 bill. (I
      > remember it because I was amused and added it to a speech.)
      >
      >
      >
      > However, that's by the way.
      >
      >
      >
      > Money has two functions, It is an "exchange medium" and it's a "measure of
      > value".
      >
      >
      >
      > As Henry George observed (in 1879!) the "exchange medium" function has
      > diminished in importance, while the "measure of value" function has become
      > paramount. This change has continued since George and now money - or dollar
      > bills - are used less and less even as most transactions - and certainly
      > important ones - are carried out with an exchange of paper usually written
      > up for a particular purpose.
      >
      >
      >
      > Even this is now superseded by transfers. I haven't paid a utility bill, a
      > credit card. or others, for years - using bits of paper. The payments are
      > automatically deducted from my bank account when due.
      >
      >
      >
      > So, are these deductions 'money'? Not really, they are simply bookkeeping
      > editing in which a value is moved from one account in the computer to
      > another. Yet, they have become 'money' which leads to the thought that banks
      > create money.
      >
      >
      >
      > So, economists - already up to their ears in false reasoning - have decided
      > that this bookkeeping editing is money and have thus declared it so.
      >
      >
      >
      > But then they have a habit of piling error upon error until the original
      > mistake is buried under ever more arcane verbiage. (One notes what they did
      > to Land and its Rent.)
      >
      >
      >
      > In all these kinds of exchanges (and bookkeeping) one thing remains constant
      > - the measure of value. In the US this is the dollar. In all these
      > transactions the measure of value is the dollar.
      >
      >
      >
      > (One notes that changing this value has not escaped the attention of
      > politicians and their economists as they add error upon error.)
      >
      >
      >
      > Anyway, Roy, changing your mind is a hopeless task. You know things because
      > you have been told them - which source makes them true and not subject to
      > question.
      >
      >
      >
      > That's a shame.
      >
      >
      >
      > Harry
      >
      >
      >
      > ***********************
      >
      > The Alumni Group
      >
      > Henry George School
      >
      > Of Los Angeles
      >
      > Tujunga CA 91042
      >
      > (818) 352-4141
      >
      > ***********************
      >
      >
      >
      > From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      > Of roy_langston
      > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:02 PM
      > To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Four Horsemen
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com ,
      > "harrypollard" wrote:
      >
      > > Although it's an idea worth looking at, banks don't create money.
      >
      > We've been through this ad nauseam. Banks indisputably create money.
      >
      > > However, this requires looking afresh at the concept of money,
      >
      > No, it only requires a willingness to know the fact that money is what is
      > generally accepted in exchange. Demand deposits are generally accepted in
      > exchange. Banks create demand deposits. Therefore, banks create money. QED.
      >
      > > something it's probably impossible to get economists to do. They've been
      > taught certain
      > > basics, erected an edifice on them and are not prepared to relearn from
      > the beginning which may mean shattering the edifice.
      >
      > That's true; but in the case of money, the error they've learned is that
      > government creates money.
      >
      > > I don't altogether blame them, but it forces monetary discussion along
      > paths that may be completely incorrect.
      >
      > Like blaming government for inflation. Right.
      >
      > -- Roy Langston
      >
    • roy_langston
      ... Inflation is shorter and more descriptive. ... Having a label and definition for the concept helps people share information about it. ... Maybe that s
      Message 90 of 90 , Feb 1, 2013
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "harrypollard" wrote:

        > So why not say they are changing systematically?

        "Inflation" is shorter and more descriptive.

        > How does calling rising prices inflation help to "understand how, when and why"?

        Having a label and definition for the concept helps people share information about it.

        > Whereas inflation in its original meaning indicates that the money issuer has done something.

        Maybe that's part of it: the apologists for bankster privilege want to conceal the fact that it is private commercial banks that are issuing the money, not government.

        -- Roy Langston
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.