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

RE: [LandCafe] Re: LT: RE: How banks create money out of nothing.

Expand Messages
  • Harry Pollard
    Roy, You are arguing for the sake of arguing with no intention of discussing the question. This is shown immediately by your ... They drop a value into our
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 14, 2008

      Roy,

       

      You are arguing for the sake of arguing with no intention of discussing the question. This is shown immediately by your reply when I said:

       

      >However, banks also lend us 'money'. Well, not >exactly. They drop a value into our account and we >can write purchasing media until this value is gone.

      You replied:

      “Oops, you forgot: we can also withdraw the same amount in currency.”

      Well. I hadn’t forgotten. I dealt with it later in the post. But you don’t appear to read a post. You read paragraph by paragraph – or sentence by sentence – and throw in your comments and funnies.

       

      One more example. I said

       

      >We write a check and give it to someone to >purchase a new television set. The TV appliance >owner takes it to the bank and deposits it into his >account. Then he writes a check to buy a new sofa.

      >The furniture company then . . . . . . .

      >All these are book transactions or perhaps electronic
      >blips on a screen. To describe them as money is
      >ridiculous.

      “No, it is denying that what changes hands in return
      for the goods is money that is ridiculous -- to put it
      charitably.”

      >They are neither measures of value, nor exchange media.

      “The amount of the bank balance transferred using the check paid for the new TV set is self-evidently and indisputably both a measure of its value and the medium used for the exchange. To deny this is simply absurd
      .”

       

      I was describing the accounting at the bank which, I repeat, I repeat are simply bookkeeping transactions. 

       

      “Using the check” is without doubt using purchasing media. I never denied that. In fact, I’ve made the point many times. A check is written in terms of the measure of value, whatever that may be, but it isn’t the “yardstick” itself.

       

      Thus, the $700 I pay for the television set with my check indicates the exchange value of the TV in terms of the outside measure of value. Neither the check, not the bookkeeping change in the bank, is in any way the measure of value.

       

      Harry

       

      ******************************

      Harry Pollard

      Henry George School of Los Angeles

      Box 655

      Tujunga  CA  91042

      (818) 352-4141

      ******************************

       

      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roy Langston
      Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:13 AM
      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [LandCafe] Re: LT: RE: How banks create money out of nothing.

       

      Harry Pollard;

      >What the bank sells - and gets paid for is its integrity.

      Well, yes, I guess you could say a bank makes money by
      selling its integrity...

      >Perhaps our acceptance of the notion that banks are
      >rock-solid is the reason we go bonkers one fails.

      We go bonkers if one fails because it has then defrauded us
      of our money (which has usually been given to the CEO and
      his cronies as rewards for exercising their business acumen
      on the shareholders' behalf).

      >However, banks also lend us 'money'. Well, not exactly.
      >They drop a value into our account and we can write
      >purchasing media until this value is gone.

      Oops, you forgot: we can also withdraw the same amount in
      currency.

      >We write a check and give it to someone to purchase a
      >new television set. The TV appliance owner takes it to
      >the bank and deposits it into his account. Then he
      >writes a check to buy a new sofa.

      >The furniture company then . . . . . . .

      >All these are book transactions or perhaps electronic
      >blips on a screen. To describe them as money is
      >ridiculous.

      ?? No, it is denying that what changes hands in return
      for the goods is money that is ridiculous -- to put it
      charitably.

      >They are neither measures of value, nor exchange media.

      ?? The amount of the bank balance transferred using the
      check paid for the new TV set is self-evidently and
      indisputably both a measure of its value and the medium
      used for the exchange. To deny this is simply absurd.

      >The checks we write are exchange media - or as I call
      >them purchasing media. Checks are involved in the act of
      >purchase. They exchange for the sofa or TV.

      ?? More absurdity. If it was really the check that was
      being exchanged for the sofa or TV, what would be the
      purpose of the seemingly superfluous checking account
      balance that backs it up?

      Blank out.

      A check is merely a transfer instrument that moves the real
      measure of value and medium of exchange -- the funds in the
      checking account -- from buyer to seller.

      >This is true also of credit card slips. They actually do
      >the purchasing.

      More absurdity. A credit card slip is merely the _record_
      of a tripartite transaction that created an obligation for
      the credit card company to pay the vendor, and for you to
      pay the credit card company. Unlike bank lending that
      creates a liquid account balance ex nihilo, no money is
      created by this transaction.

      >Not the credit card, nor the credit card company, but
      >the slip you sign. So the credit card slip changes
      >hands and is the purchasing medium.

      It is not a purchasing medium. It simply records the
      creation of an obligation.

      >But what about the value the bank adds to your account
      >when they make a loan? It's an obligation taken on by
      >the bank. It's a promise to pay anyone who has a claim
      >on your account.

      ?? But it is also the _means_ to make such payments! When
      a credit card company takes on an obligation to honor your
      word, it must come up with the money from its other
      resources. The bank has simply created the money out of
      thin air.

      >It's not "money creation" for again it
      >is neither an exchange medium, nor a measure of value.

      ?? It is self-evidently and indisputably both.

      >(I would hate to get into the 'Ms'.)

      No doubt...

      >As I said, you can put anything you wish into a defined
      >concept and attached any label to the result.

      As long as your intention is to mislead rather than
      enlighten...

      >However, there should be a certain homogeneity to the
      >contents of the concept and the label you attach to the
      >concept should be acceptable.

      And all credible economists accept the definition that
      checking account balances are money. No credible economist
      claims that credit card slips are money.

      >Contrast this with the clutter contained in the modern
      >concept of money. It is a "store of value" (which
      >sensible people should avoid);

      Readers may find it difficult to fathom how the wisdom of
      providing for one's future by storing value, which dates at
      least to Old Testament times, could suddenly have become
      not sensible. I know I do.

      >it is a "measure of value" (that doesn't seem to relate
      >to anything in particular);

      ?? Because it relates to everything in general that has
      value. Hello?

      >it is a "medium of exchange" (whose function has
      >overwhelmingly been replaced by other instruments).

      Try making a check function as a replacement for the
      account balance it represents, and tell us how that works
      for you (you might want to secure a "Get Out Of Jail Free"
      card, first).

      >All purchasing media are actually "promises to pay".

      Again, that is just false. A gold coin is not a promise to
      pay. It is payment.

      >Emulating the goldsmiths of yesteryear, bankers found
      >they could issue many more 'promises to pay dollars'
      >than they actually had. This, because people bringing
      >in checks to a bank did not want to cash them for dollar
      >bills, but instead deposited them to their accounts.

      >So a reputable, well-run, bank could lend a lot more
      >'promise to pay dollars' to its customers than it
      >actually had. It would keep a reserve of dollar bills
      >for customers who actually wanted them, but this would
      >be a fraction of the outstanding 'promises' it had
      >issued to its customers.

      ?? That is arrant question-begging: you are merely
      _assuming_ that a bank that engages in such questionable
      dealings is "reputable" and "well-run."

      >How much of a reserve? That depends on the bank.
      >Different banks would hold different reserves. It is a
      >mistake to make reserves a legal requirement. Reserves
      >should be the responsibility of the banks who should
      >publicize their reserve percentage.

      That might suffice if banks were not making money by
      driving down their reserve ratios to increase their
      interest income.

      -- Roy Langston

      __________________________________________________________
      Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at
      http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.

    • Roy Langston
      ... I ll thank you to keep your speculations about my intentions to yourself. ... No, you did not. What you dealt with later in the post was in the entirely
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 15, 2008
        Harry Pollard wrote:

        >You are arguing for the sake of arguing with no
        >intention of discussing the question.

        I'll thank you to keep your speculations about my
        intentions to yourself.

        >This is shown immediately by your reply when I
        >said:
        >However, banks also lend us 'money'. Well, not
        >exactly. They drop a value into our account and we
        >can write purchasing media until this value is gone.

        >You replied:

        >"Oops, you forgot: we can also withdraw the same
        >amount in currency."

        >Well. I hadn't forgotten. I dealt with it later in
        >the post.

        No, you did not. What you dealt with later in the post was
        in the entirely different context of banks not keeping
        enough currency on hand to provide full conversion to
        everyone who DEPOSITS checks, not the full convertibility
        into currency of the checking account balances the BANKS
        CREATE ex nihilo when LENDING. First, you tried to obscure
        the fact that checking account balances are money by
        putting "money" in scare quotes, and pretending that use of
        the money in the account created by lending is confined to
        "writing purchasing media," eliding the fact that it is
        fully convertible into currency on demand. Given that you
        never identified the fact that the checkable account
        balances created by bank lending are fully convertible to
        currency on demand, I can only assume this elision was
        deliberate.

        >But you don't appear to read a post. You read
        >paragraph by paragraph - or sentence by sentence -
        >and throw in your comments and funnies.

        Perhaps that is your way of complaining that I don't let
        any of your false claims, tendentious redefinitions or
        invalid inferences taint the debate, no matter how
        seemingly minor or innocuous they may be when you introduce
        them.

        >One more example. I said

        >We write a check and give it to someone to
        >purchase a new television set. The TV appliance
        >owner takes it to the bank and deposits it into his
        >account. Then he writes a check to buy a new sofa.

        >The furniture company then . . . . . . .

        >All these are book transactions or perhaps electronic
        >blips on a screen. To describe them as money is
        >ridiculous.

        >"No, it is denying that what changes hands in return
        >for the goods is money that is ridiculous -- to put it
        >charitably."

        >They are neither measures of value, nor exchange media.

        >"The amount of the bank balance transferred using the
        >check paid for the new TV set is self-evidently and
        >indisputably both a measure of its value and the medium
        >used for the exchange. To deny this is simply absurd."

        >I was describing the accounting at the bank which, I
        >repeat, I repeat are simply bookkeeping transactions.

        However, repeating false claims does not make them true.
        "Simply bookkeeping transactions" would describe transfers
        of funds between notional accounts of a single entity, such
        as the bank moving funds from its capital account to loan
        reserves. What happens at the bank when a check clears is
        entirely different: one entity's purchasing power is
        reduced, and the purchasing power of another entity is
        increased. That is not "simply a bookeeping transaction."

        >"Using the check" is without doubt using purchasing
        >media.

        No. A check only AUTHORIZES THE TRANSFER of the real
        medium of exchange: the cash balance the check transfers
        out of the buyer's checking account and into the seller's.


        >I never denied that. In fact, I've made the point
        >many times. A check is written in terms of the
        >measure of value, whatever that may be, but it isn't
        >the "yardstick" itself.

        Right. The check is not a store of value, nor is it the
        medium of exchange. It is only a legal instrument whereby
        the real store of value and medium of exchange -- the MONEY
        in the checking account, which the bank has created ex
        nihilo -- is transferred from one party to another. As I
        have pointed out to you before, this is proved by the fact
        that a check not backed by such a money balance is quite
        useless for purposes of exchange, though it will get you a
        free ride in a police car.

        >Thus, the $700 I pay for the television set with my
        >check indicates the exchange value of the TV in terms
        >of the outside measure of value.

        ?? "Outside" measure of value? What might that mean?
        Money is the measure of value. Period.

        >Neither the check, not the bookkeeping change in the
        >bank, is in any way the measure of value.

        ?? The amount of the check is most certainly and
        indisputably the measure of the TV's value, same as if it
        were paid in currency.

        -- Roy Langston


        __________________________________________________________________
        Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
      • Harry Pollard
        Roy, As is usual, it s a matter of definition. I argue that the present defined concepts are inadequate. You support them. The traditional functions of money
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 15, 2008

          Roy,

           

          As is usual, it’s a matter of definition. I argue that the present defined concepts are inadequate. You support them.

           

          The traditional functions of money are “a measure of value”, a medium of exchange, and “a store of value”.

           

          I mentioned this in my earlier post and said:

           

          Contrast this with the clutter contained in the modern concept of money. It is a "store of value" (which sensible people should avoid); it is a "measure of value" (that doesn't seem to relate to anything in particular); it is a "medium of exchange" (whose function has overwhelmingly been replaced by other instruments).

           

          You replied piece by piece:

           

          >HP: Contrast this with the clutter contained in the >modern concept of money. It is a "store of value" >(which sensible people should avoid);

          RL: Readers may find it difficult to fathom how the wisdom of providing for one's future by storing value, which dates at least to Old Testament times, could suddenly have become not sensible. I know I do.

           

          HP: Well, you changed the subject, but that is to be expected. This is not about putting “value” away for the future. It is about using “money” as your store of value. If you were not sensible and stored away (say) $100,000 30 years ago, it would have lost about two thirds of its value over the three decades.

           

          As I suggested, this “store of value” is something that sensible people should avoid. You continue:

           

          >HP: it is a "measure of value" (that doesn't seem to

          >relate to anything in particular);

          ?? Because it relates to everything in general that has
          value. Hello?

           

          HP: Ed first pointed out that the dollar bill was backed by nothing in particular. All you will get if you take a $10 bill to the Mint is two $5 dollar bills. The dollar bill fluctuates in value – mostly downward. I wonder what could be built in the US if the yardstick over 30 years diminished in length by two thirds? Well, it doesn’t seem to bother you and so be it. You go on:

           

          >HP: it is a "medium of exchange" (whose function >has overwhelmingly been replaced by other >instruments).

          RL: Try making a check function as a replacement for the account balance it represents, and tell us how that works for you (you might want to secure a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card, first).

           

          HP: Very funny. The check is simply a purchasing medium like the credit card slip and the dollar bill. I will exchange these things for whatever I want to buy. It’s the way I exchange my wealth for someone else’s. It’s the way I buy things – which I think is a good reason for calling these pieces of paper “Purchasing Media”.

           

          So, I do.

           

          Finally:

          >HP: All purchasing media are actually "promises to >pay".

          RL: Again, that is just false. A gold coin is not a promise to pay. It is payment.

           

          HP: Just don’t go into Loblaws to buy groceries and offer the gold coin. (Not that you would do such a stupid thing.) The checker would call the manager,

           

          My golly, do I have to explain barter next?

           

          Harry

           

          ******************************

          Harry Pollard

          Henry George School of Los Angeles

          Box 655

          Tujunga  CA  91042

          (818) 352-4141

          ******************************

           

          From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roy Langston
          Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:11 AM
          To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [LandCafe] Re: LT: RE: How banks create money out of nothing.

           

          Harry Pollard wrote:

          >You are arguing for the sake of arguing with no
          >intention of discussing the question.

          I'll thank you to keep your speculations about my
          intentions to yourself.

          >This is shown immediately by your reply when I
          >said:
          >However, banks also lend us 'money'. Well, not
          >exactly. They drop a value into our account and we
          >can write purchasing media until this value is gone.

          >You replied:

          >"Oops, you forgot: we can also withdraw the same
          >amount in currency."

          >Well. I hadn't forgotten. I dealt with it later in
          >the post.

          No, you did not. What you dealt with later in the post was
          in the entirely different context of banks not keeping
          enough currency on hand to provide full conversion to
          everyone who DEPOSITS checks, not the full convertibility
          into currency of the checking account balances the BANKS
          CREATE ex nihilo when LENDING. First, you tried to obscure
          the fact that checking account balances are money by
          putting "money" in scare quotes, and pretending that use of
          the money in the account created by lending is confined to
          "writing purchasing media," eliding the fact that it is
          fully convertible into currency on demand. Given that you
          never identified the fact that the checkable account
          balances created by bank lending are fully convertible to
          currency on demand, I can only assume this elision was
          deliberate.

          >But you don't appear to read a post. You read
          >paragraph by paragraph - or sentence by sentence -
          >and throw in your comments and funnies.

          Perhaps that is your way of complaining that I don't let
          any of your false claims, tendentious redefinitions or
          invalid inferences taint the debate, no matter how
          seemingly minor or innocuous they may be when you introduce
          them.

          >One more example. I said

          >We write a check and give it to someone to
          >purchase a new television set. The TV appliance
          >owner takes it to the bank and deposits it into his
          >account. Then he writes a check to buy a new sofa.

          >The furniture company then . . . . . . .

          >All these are book transactions or perhaps electronic
          >blips on a screen. To describe them as money is
          >ridiculous.

          >"No, it is denying that what changes hands in return
          >for the goods is money that is ridiculous -- to put it
          >charitably."

          >They are neither measures of value, nor exchange media.

          >"The amount of the bank balance transferred using the
          >check paid for the new TV set is self-evidently and
          >indisputably both a measure of its value and the medium
          >used for the exchange. To deny this is simply absurd."

          >I was describing the accounting at the bank which, I
          >repeat, I repeat are simply bookkeeping transactions.

          However, repeating false claims does not make them true.
          "Simply bookkeeping transactions" would describe transfers
          of funds between notional accounts of a single entity, such
          as the bank moving funds from its capital account to loan
          reserves. What happens at the bank when a check clears is
          entirely different: one entity's purchasing power is
          reduced, and the purchasing power of another entity is
          increased. That is not "simply a bookeeping transaction."

          >"Using the check" is without doubt using purchasing
          >media.

          No. A check only AUTHORIZES THE TRANSFER of the real
          medium of exchange: the cash balance the check transfers
          out of the buyer's checking account and into the seller's.

          >I never denied that. In fact, I've made the point
          >many times. A check is written in terms of the
          >measure of value, whatever that may be, but it isn't
          >the "yardstick" itself.

          Right. The check is not a store of value, nor is it the
          medium of exchange. It is only a legal instrument whereby
          the real store of value and medium of exchange -- the MONEY
          in the checking account, which the bank has created ex
          nihilo -- is transferred from one party to another. As I
          have pointed out to you before, this is proved by the fact
          that a check not backed by such a money balance is quite
          useless for purposes of exchange, though it will get you a
          free ride in a police car.

          >Thus, the $700 I pay for the television set with my
          >check indicates the exchange value of the TV in terms
          >of the outside measure of value.

          ?? "Outside" measure of value? What might that mean?
          Money is the measure of value. Period.

          >Neither the check, not the bookkeeping change in the
          >bank, is in any way the measure of value.

          ?? The amount of the check is most certainly and
          indisputably the measure of the TV's value, same as if it
          were paid in currency.

          -- Roy Langston

          __________________________________________________________
          Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com

        • Roy Langston
          ... Depends what you mean by the present definitions. Some are adequate, others are not. The definition of money as a broadly accepted medium of exchange,
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 17, 2008
            Harry Pollard wrote:

            >As is usual, it's a matter of definition. I argue
            >that the present defined concepts are inadequate.
            >You support them.

            Depends what you mean by "the present" definitions. Some
            are adequate, others are not. The definition of money as a
            broadly accepted medium of exchange, and consequently a
            measure and store of value and unit of account appears to
            be one of the former.

            >HP: Contrast this with the clutter contained in the
            >modern concept of money. It is a "store of value"
            >(which sensible people should avoid);

            >RL: Readers may find it difficult to fathom how the
            >wisdom of providing for one's future by storing value,
            >which dates at least to Old Testament times, could
            >suddenly have become not sensible. I know I do.

            >HP: Well, you changed the subject, but that is to be
            >expected.

            No, I did not. Your false claim that I did was what was
            really to be expected.

            >This is not about putting "value" away for
            >the future. It is about using "money" as your store of
            >value.

            Which sensible people have been doing since before the
            Parable of the Talents, as archaeologists' routine
            discoveries of coin hoards just flat-out PROVE.

            >If you were not sensible and stored away (say)
            >$100,000 30 years ago, it would have lost about two
            >thirds of its value over the three decades.

            >As I suggested, this "store of value" is something
            >that sensible people should avoid.

            Which only shows that our present money does not store
            value as well as some other things -- but not very many
            other things. Some of the qualities that make even our
            present money a good store of value are convenience and
            liquidity, which is why almost everyone who has any value
            to store stores some of it in the form of money. How many
            things can you name that maintain their value more reliably
            than money, but do not involve a greater storage expense,
            illiquidity, volatility, or other inconveniences?

            And just out of curiosity, Harry, how much M1 (currency and
            checking account balances) are you not-very-sensibly using
            to store value right at this moment

            >HP: it is a "measure of value" (that doesn't seem to
            >relate to anything in particular);

            >?? Because it relates to everything in general that has
            >value. Hello?

            >HP: Ed first pointed out that the dollar bill was
            >backed by nothing in particular. All you will get if
            >you take a $10 bill to the Mint is two $5 dollar bills.
            >The dollar bill fluctuates in value - mostly downward.
            >I wonder what could be built in the US if the yardstick
            >over 30 years diminished in length by two thirds?

            You mean, other than everything in the economy that HAS
            been built using our diminishing monetary yardstick?
            Granted, some shaky structures such as the dot.com and
            housing bubbles, Enron, etc. have been built. But
            diminishing money was not the only or even the main reason
            for their shakiness -- and the occasional bridge or
            building collapse is not unknown, despite engineers' use of
            more reliable yardsticks.

            >Well, it doesn't seem to bother you and so be it.

            Just as it doesn't seem to bother you that the diminishing
            value of dollars is fully explained by banks' irresponsible
            creation of additional supplies of them through lending, in
            order to fabricate interest income for themselves out of
            nothing -- in fact, you even go so far as to deny they do
            so!

            >HP: it is a "medium of exchange" (whose function
            >has overwhelmingly been replaced by other
            >instruments) .

            >RL: Try making a check function as a replacement for the
            >account balance it represents, and tell us how that works
            >for you (you might want to secure a "Get Out Of Jail Free"
            >card, first).

            >HP: Very funny. The check is simply a purchasing medium
            >like the credit card slip and the dollar bill.

            Nope. Wrong. I have already explained to you why a dollar
            bill is an exchange medium, but checks and credit card
            slips are merely legal documents that effect transfers of
            or create obligations to transfer exchange media. They are
            not themselves exchange media because they stand for
            something else: the dollar bills, which don't stand for
            anything else.

            >I will exchange these things for whatever I want to buy.

            As I have already proved to you, you CAN'T exchange a check
            for whatever you want to buy unless the check effects a
            transfer of the ACTUAL exchange medium: money in your
            checking account. Likewise, you CAN'T exchange a credit
            card slip for whatever you want unless you somehow arrange
            to reimburse the credit card company for the MONEY it gives
            the vendor in return for the slip.

            >It's the way I exchange my wealth for someone else's.
            >It's the way I buy things - which I think is a good
            >reason for calling these pieces of paper "Purchasing
            >Media".

            But it is a better reason to call them "transfer
            instruments."

            >HP: All purchasing media are actually "promises to
            >pay".

            >RL: Again, that is just false. A gold coin is not a
            >promise to pay. It is payment.

            >HP: Just don't go into Loblaws to buy groceries and
            >offer the gold coin. (Not that you would do such a
            >stupid thing.) The checker would call the manager,

            I would be much safer offering a gold coin (still legal
            tender, btw, however much its bullion or numismatic value
            might exceed its face value) than a check not backed by
            _genuine_ money.

            >My golly, do I have to explain barter next?

            Please, no more "Just So" stories.

            -- Roy Langston


            __________________________________________________________________
            Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.