- A rare sighting of the concept of the velocity of money, which the Brit post-war

Radcliffe Commission declared as important as the quantity.

To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com

From: calhorn@...

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:45:59 +0000

Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Reduced Borrowing Under LVT--- In LandCafe@yahoogroup s.com, "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@...> wrote:

>

> On 31 Oct 2008 at 17:10, Walter Horn wrote:

>

> > My question is--if we fix the land problem and concur that most

of

> > the money is created by debt--why is that a problem?

>

> Because the debt still has to be paid. If we don't address the

money

> problem, paying the debt becomes impossible.

I guess I don't understand that point.

>

> > Roy has said that there won't be sufficient lending, but you

> > seem to be pointing to another concern.

>

> I don't know that "sufficient" was Roy's term. Sufficient for what?

I think he was talking about sufficiency for economic expansion. But

I'll let him speak for himself.

> I was agreeing with Roy that borrowing would be reduced, and was

> pointing out that this would cause money to come out of

circulation,

> making it impossible to pay taxes. That is, solving the land

problem

> does not solve the money problem. Rather, it brings the money

> problem to a head.

>

> -ds

>

Again, I don't think I understand "the money problem." I can see

that debts have to be repaid, that banks create currency when they

make loans, that fractional reserving rules have huge effects on the

amount of currency that can be created out of thin air, so that it

may make sense for those rules to be changed if there's too much

inflation, or insufficient velocity for expansion. But I take it

none of these (except maybe the first--that debts have to be repaid)

is "the money problem."

W

For the best free wallpapers from MSN Click here! - On 1 Nov 2008 at 20:16, Fred Foldvary wrote:

> --- On Sat, 11/1/08, Dan Sullivan <pimann@...> wrote:

You've lost the context, Fred. There are many definitions of formulas,

> > A formula

> would be that lowering the price by X would increase demand by Y,

> with various constants and mathematical relationships in between. <

>

> That's a different definition than those in dictionaries:

and you picked one that can't possibly apply. Had you not deleted the

context of my statement when you replied, this would be obvious.

Here it is again:

"This is why I am skeptical of formulas tying the money supply to

population, to land values, or to anything other than a good general

price index. It's hard to reduce human behavior to formulas."

Clearly, I am speaking of one of the other definitions of formula, and

one of the more common definitions at that.

Here are such definitions from dictionary.com

Definition 1: a set form of words, as for stating or declaring

something definitely or authoritatively, for indicating procedure to be

followed.

Definition 2: any fixed or conventional method for doing something.

Definition 5: a recipe or prescription

All these are general use definitions of formulas, and are the

definitions I was using. The definition you posited was similar to a

definition posited as peculiar to mathematics. As I was speaking of

monetary policy rather than mathematics, it should be clear that I was

using the term "formula" as defined above.

-ds

>

> # a group of symbols that make a mathematical statement

>

> For example, the formula for the area of a rectangle is the base times the height. Note that this formula is general and does not have constants or specific numbers.

>

> # a conventionalized statement expressing some fundamental principle

> # a representation of a substance using symbols for its constituent elements

> # rule: (mathematics) a standard procedure for solving a class of mathematical problems

> # In mathematics and in the sciences, a formula (plural: formulae, formulæ or formulas) is a concise way of expressing information symbolically (as in a mathematical or chemical formula), or a general relationship between quantities. ...

> Formulae are symbolic, not necessarily specific (e.g. with constants).

>

> One can express the law of demand as the symbolic equation:

>

> Q = f(P), dQ/dP not positive

> where Q is quantity and P is price.

>

> This agrees with the definitions above.