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

Re: Four Horsemen

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... How so? ... We know currency is a small fraction of the money supply (and half of it is held overseas, where it circulates unregulated and has no effect on
    Message 1 of 90 , Jan 25, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "harrypollard" wrote:

      > Demand deposits are not the only kind of money but they are the largest component by far.

      How so?

      > Wiki mentions that in 2010 of the broad money supply (M2)
      > only $915.7 billion of the $8,853.4 billion was physical coins and paper money.

      We know currency is a small fraction of the money supply (and half of it is held overseas, where it circulates unregulated and has no effect on domestic inflation). But how much of M2 is demand deposits? Your previous message said demand deposits had increased from $310G to $460G in 2008. So currency ($916G) is nearly double demand deposits ($460G). And now you seem to have twigged that M2 is $8853G, a sum nearly _20_ times demand deposits.

      Your "argument" has fallen apart under the attack of your own "supporting" evidence.

      > Nothing you say addresses the lack of inflation effect from the almost 50% increase in demand deposits in a few months.

      That claim is false. I addressed it directly, and provided a source showing that lending declined by far more over a somewhat longer period.

      > If there were countervailing
      > financial actions, it doesn't show in measurement of total demand deposits which rise precipitously over long periods.

      Because demand deposits are not the only kind of money. Look at the grahphs I provided links to.

      -- 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
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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.