Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Good question Ed.
A) Correct trade deficit,
B) Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals , not to the banks ( this was actually suggested by Milton Friedman and is one of the few points in which I agree with him ). The single condition for this disbursement is that everyone having debt must use it first to cancell its debt.
C) Increase goverment spending in infrastructure ( this is the hardest part). The spending has to be directed in improving the efficiency of resource usage and in allowing corporations to work efficiently. The hard part: which parts of the infrastructure , in which location, aimed at which industries and towards which population groups.
Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals , not to the banks
Are you under the impression that banks have been given helicopter money?
Indeed, banks create money, as stated by the bank of England:
"...and one of the key points in the article is that banks create additional broad money whenever they make a loan. Now, while this is nothing new, its sometimes overlooked as the main way in which money is created and it runs contrary to the view sometimes put forward that banks can only lend out deposits that they already have ( sic). In fact loans create deposits, not the other way around."
"...the authors point out that only currency (cash = coins and notes) is created by the Bank of England (2014a, s. 10). The rest of the money supply, in the UK about 97%, is account money, which originates in banks:
Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created …. This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money…. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out"
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue71/Ravn71.pdf
So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money at any given time.
Indeed, banks create money
Yes, loans increase the money supply.
So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money
Making a loan isn't helicopter money.
Is there anything in economics and banking that you're not confused about?
If banks worked as peer to peer lending it wouldn't be.
But banks don't work that way.
Customer A deposits $1,000 in bank A.
Bank A can then give a loan to customer B for $900 which he transfers to bank B.
Now bank B can make a loan for $810.
Both bank A and bank B can now charge interests on the loans they granted, although they are not producing anything at all. They are getting an income out of money which isn't theirs ( it's actually the money of Customer A)
Why not consider that helicopter money? Because banks made a huge effort filling forms?
Why not consider that helicopter money?
Because loaning out a portion of deposits isn't helicopter money.
Let us suppose now that one day a helicopter flies over this community and drops an additional $1,000 in bills from the sky, which is, of course, hastily collected by members of the community. Let us suppose further that everyone is convinced that this is a unique event which will never be repeated.
Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.
If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?
Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?
Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.
If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?
No, what I meant is that IF productivity increases AND you have a negative trade balance ( which is the case of the US ) and the ratio of wages / GDP decreases (the US case), it is irrelevant that you increase your productivity, because:
a) Your local market is shrinking
b) Your increase in productivity is only increasing private debt and probably producing more goods than the market can take.
Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.
Again , your words, not mine. What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.
What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.
You'll have to show me your proof of "no growth in the internal market".
Again ?Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.
If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?
Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?
Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.
If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?
No, what I meant is that IF productivity increases AND you have a negative trade balance ( which is the case of the US ) and the ratio of wages / GDP decreases (the US case), it is irrelevant that you increase your productivity, because:
a) Your local market is shrinking
b) Your increase in productivity is only increasing private debt and probably producing more goods than the market can take.
Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.
Again , your words, not mine. What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.
What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.
You'll have to show me your proof of "no growth in the internal market".
To be precise, the internal market has grown but only because population has increased and household debt is at an all time high.
Regardless, the purchasing power of consumers has not gone up, a higher percent of their income goes to service debt and a lower percent to purchase goods and services.
a higher percent of their income goes to service debt
Higher than when? Based on your obvious confusion?
And why would you show a chart of median income if you're trying to show anything about purchasing power?
I mean besides your ignorance of economics?
Higher than any time between 1990 to 2006.
And the chart is the real median household income.
Would you rather have the share of labour out of gdp? ... see it tumbling down since 1970.
Share of Labour Compensation in GDP at Current National Prices for United States
Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals , not to the banks
Are you under the impression that banks have been given helicopter money?
Indeed, banks create money, as stated by the bank of England:
"...and one of the key points in the article is that banks create additional broad money whenever they make a loan. Now, while this is nothing new, its sometimes overlooked as the main way in which money is created and it runs contrary to the view sometimes put forward that banks can only lend out deposits that they already have ( sic). In fact loans create deposits, not the other way around."
"...the authors point out that only currency (cash = coins and notes) is created by the Bank of England (2014a, s. 10). The rest of the money supply, in the UK about 97%, is account money, which originates in banks:
Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created …. This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money…. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out"
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue71/Ravn71.pdf
So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money at any given time.
Indeed, banks create money
Yes, loans increase the money supply.
So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money
Making a loan isn't helicopter money.
Is there anything in economics and banking that you're not confused about?
If banks worked as peer to peer lending it wouldn't be.
But banks don't work that way.
Customer A deposits $1,000 in bank A.
Bank A can then give a loan to customer B for $900 which he transfers to bank B.
Now bank B can make a loan for $810.
Both bank A and bank B can now charge interests on the loans they granted, although they are not producing anything at all. They are getting an income out of money which isn't theirs ( it's actually the money of Customer A)
Why not consider that helicopter money? Because banks made a huge effort filling forms?
Why not consider that helicopter money?
Because loaning out a portion of deposits isn't helicopter money.
Let us suppose now that one day a helicopter flies over this community and drops an additional $1,000 in bills from the sky, which is, of course, hastily collected by members of the community. Let us suppose further that everyone is convinced that this is a unique event which will never be repeated.
So assume I accept your savings... and then offer AndyIllusion a loan.
Then I charge him interests on that loan.
Then I receive monthly payments for that loan.
I was pennyless at the beginning of the transactions and now I receive monthly installments out of nothing but a note.
It's like having a monthly helicopter money drop... except it only works for the bankers.
help increase the aggregate demand.
Why do you want to increase demand rather than supply when you know we got from the stone age to here thanks to the supply of new inventions?
Ans: because you have been brainwashed by libcommies who don't care about economic growth for all but rather about any idiotic excuse for more welfare payments with which to buy votes.
And after all these years, you still pretend to not know what economic demand is. Wow. What a fucking idiot.
As a matter of fact, you are proposing supply side econ. Of course, since you are a mindless con troll. It will work when the economy is really good, and aggregate demand is really good. Best of luck with that. Perhaps what you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy, and try stimulus spending like he did. worked for reagan. But increasing supply did not.
you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy,
How does a tax decrease tank the economy?
The budget has to be reduced and the government has to cut spending, laying off people and reducing purchases.
Bad idea during a recession, but probably acceptable with a low level of private debt.
They said the same thing after World War 2. They warned that cutting all these jobs, and cutting the spending, would cause a drop in purchases.
They were wrong.
Indeed, banks create money, as stated by the bank of England:
"...and one of the key points in the article is that banks create additional broad money whenever they make a loan. Now, while this is nothing new, its sometimes overlooked as the main way in which money is created and it runs contrary to the view sometimes put forward that banks can only lend out deposits that they already have ( sic). In fact loans create deposits, not the other way around."
"...the authors point out that only currency (cash = coins and notes) is created by the Bank of England (2014a, s. 10). The rest of the money supply, in the UK about 97%, is account money, which originates in banks:
Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created …. This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money…. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out"
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue71/Ravn71.pdf
So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money at any given time.
Indeed, banks create money
Yes, loans increase the money supply.
So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money
Making a loan isn't helicopter money.
Is there anything in economics and banking that you're not confused about?
If banks worked as peer to peer lending it wouldn't be.
But banks don't work that way.
Customer A deposits $1,000 in bank A.
Bank A can then give a loan to customer B for $900 which he transfers to bank B.
Now bank B can make a loan for $810.
Both bank A and bank B can now charge interests on the loans they granted, although they are not producing anything at all. They are getting an income out of money which isn't theirs ( it's actually the money of Customer A)
Why not consider that helicopter money? Because banks made a huge effort filling forms?
Why not consider that helicopter money?
Because loaning out a portion of deposits isn't helicopter money.
Let us suppose now that one day a helicopter flies over this community and drops an additional $1,000 in bills from the sky, which is, of course, hastily collected by members of the community. Let us suppose further that everyone is convinced that this is a unique event which will never be repeated.
So assume I accept your savings... and then offer AndyIllusion a loan.
Then I charge him interests on that loan.
Then I receive monthly payments for that loan.
I was pennyless at the beginning of the transactions and now I receive monthly installments out of nothing but a note.
It's like having a monthly helicopter money drop... except it only works for the bankers.
So assume I accept your savings... and then offer AndyIllusion a loan.
Then I charge him interests on that loan.
Then I receive monthly payments for that loan.
Yes, you're borrowing and lending.
It's like having a monthly helicopter money drop
Borrowing and lending is nothing like helicopter money.
Indeed, banks create money, as stated by the bank of England:
"...and one of the key points in the article is that banks create additional broad money whenever they make a loan. Now, while this is nothing new, its sometimes overlooked as the main way in which money is created and it runs contrary to the view sometimes put forward that banks can only lend out deposits that they already have ( sic). In fact loans create deposits, not the other way around."
"...the authors point out that only currency (cash = coins and notes) is created by the Bank of England (2014a, s. 10). The rest of the money supply, in the UK about 97%, is account money, which originates in banks:
Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created …. This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money…. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out"
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue71/Ravn71.pdf
So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money at any given time.
Indeed, banks create money
Yes, loans increase the money supply.
So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money
Making a loan isn't helicopter money.
Is there anything in economics and banking that you're not confused about?
If banks worked as peer to peer lending it wouldn't be.
But banks don't work that way.
Customer A deposits $1,000 in bank A.
Bank A can then give a loan to customer B for $900 which he transfers to bank B.
Now bank B can make a loan for $810.
Both bank A and bank B can now charge interests on the loans they granted, although they are not producing anything at all. They are getting an income out of money which isn't theirs ( it's actually the money of Customer A)
Why not consider that helicopter money? Because banks made a huge effort filling forms?
Why not consider that helicopter money?
Because loaning out a portion of deposits isn't helicopter money.
Let us suppose now that one day a helicopter flies over this community and drops an additional $1,000 in bills from the sky, which is, of course, hastily collected by members of the community. Let us suppose further that everyone is convinced that this is a unique event which will never be repeated.
So assume I accept your savings... and then offer AndyIllusion a loan.
Then I charge him interests on that loan.
Then I receive monthly payments for that loan.
I was pennyless at the beginning of the transactions and now I receive monthly installments out of nothing but a note.
It's like having a monthly helicopter money drop... except it only works for the bankers.
So assume I accept your savings... and then offer AndyIllusion a loan.
Then I charge him interests on that loan.
Then I receive monthly payments for that loan.
Yes, you're borrowing and lending.
It's like having a monthly helicopter money drop
Borrowing and lending is nothing like helicopter money.
Indeed, banks create money
Yes, loans increase the money supply.
So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money
Making a loan isn't helicopter money.
Is there anything in economics and banking that you're not confused about?
If banks worked as peer to peer lending it wouldn't be.
But banks don't work that way.
Customer A deposits $1,000 in bank A.
Bank A can then give a loan to customer B for $900 which he transfers to bank B.
Now bank B can make a loan for $810.
Both bank A and bank B can now charge interests on the loans they granted, although they are not producing anything at all. They are getting an income out of money which isn't theirs ( it's actually the money of Customer A)
Why not consider that helicopter money? Because banks made a huge effort filling forms?
Why not consider that helicopter money?
Because loaning out a portion of deposits isn't helicopter money.
Let us suppose now that one day a helicopter flies over this community and drops an additional $1,000 in bills from the sky, which is, of course, hastily collected by members of the community. Let us suppose further that everyone is convinced that this is a unique event which will never be repeated.
So assume I accept your savings... and then offer AndyIllusion a loan.
Then I charge him interests on that loan.
Then I receive monthly payments for that loan.
I was pennyless at the beginning of the transactions and now I receive monthly installments out of nothing but a note.
It's like having a monthly helicopter money drop... except it only works for the bankers.
So assume I accept your savings... and then offer AndyIllusion a loan.
Then I charge him interests on that loan.
Then I receive monthly payments for that loan.
Yes, you're borrowing and lending.
It's like having a monthly helicopter money drop
Borrowing and lending is nothing like helicopter money.
Do you read the whole posts or just reply without reading them ?
I also posted a chart showing private debt at an all time high since 1990 ( I am not posting it again ) .
What? you think ZIRP applies to credit cards and mortgages too ?
Indeed, banks create money
Yes, loans increase the money supply.
So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money
Making a loan isn't helicopter money.
Is there anything in economics and banking that you're not confused about?
If banks worked as peer to peer lending it wouldn't be.
But banks don't work that way.
Customer A deposits $1,000 in bank A.
Bank A can then give a loan to customer B for $900 which he transfers to bank B.
Now bank B can make a loan for $810.
Both bank A and bank B can now charge interests on the loans they granted, although they are not producing anything at all. They are getting an income out of money which isn't theirs ( it's actually the money of Customer A)
Why not consider that helicopter money? Because banks made a huge effort filling forms?
Why not consider that helicopter money?
Because loaning out a portion of deposits isn't helicopter money.
Let us suppose now that one day a helicopter flies over this community and drops an additional $1,000 in bills from the sky, which is, of course, hastily collected by members of the community. Let us suppose further that everyone is convinced that this is a unique event which will never be repeated.
So assume I accept your savings... and then offer AndyIllusion a loan.
Then I charge him interests on that loan.
Then I receive monthly payments for that loan.
I was pennyless at the beginning of the transactions and now I receive monthly installments out of nothing but a note.
It's like having a monthly helicopter money drop... except it only works for the bankers.
So assume I accept your savings... and then offer AndyIllusion a loan.
Then I charge him interests on that loan.
Then I receive monthly payments for that loan.
Yes, you're borrowing and lending.
It's like having a monthly helicopter money drop
Borrowing and lending is nothing like helicopter money.
In a peer to peer lending system it isn't. Under the current system in which according to Alan Holmes:
"In the real world, banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for the reserves later. The question then becomes one of whether and how the Federal Reserve will accommodate the demand for reserves. In the very short run, the Federal Reserve has little or no choice about accommodating that demand."
I would say it's quite similar to helicopter money.
Why Banks Don't Need Your Money to Make Loans | Investopedia
There you go toddster... not quite the same but very very similar to helicopter money.
Fail !!!If banks worked as peer to peer lending it wouldn't be.
But banks don't work that way.
Customer A deposits $1,000 in bank A.
Bank A can then give a loan to customer B for $900 which he transfers to bank B.
Now bank B can make a loan for $810.
Both bank A and bank B can now charge interests on the loans they granted, although they are not producing anything at all. They are getting an income out of money which isn't theirs ( it's actually the money of Customer A)
Why not consider that helicopter money? Because banks made a huge effort filling forms?
Why not consider that helicopter money?
Because loaning out a portion of deposits isn't helicopter money.
Let us suppose now that one day a helicopter flies over this community and drops an additional $1,000 in bills from the sky, which is, of course, hastily collected by members of the community. Let us suppose further that everyone is convinced that this is a unique event which will never be repeated.
So assume I accept your savings... and then offer AndyIllusion a loan.
Then I charge him interests on that loan.
Then I receive monthly payments for that loan.
I was pennyless at the beginning of the transactions and now I receive monthly installments out of nothing but a note.
It's like having a monthly helicopter money drop... except it only works for the bankers.
So assume I accept your savings... and then offer AndyIllusion a loan.
Then I charge him interests on that loan.
Then I receive monthly payments for that loan.
Yes, you're borrowing and lending.
It's like having a monthly helicopter money drop
Borrowing and lending is nothing like helicopter money.
In a peer to peer lending system it isn't. Under the current system in which according to Alan Holmes:
"In the real world, banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for the reserves later. The question then becomes one of whether and how the Federal Reserve will accommodate the demand for reserves. In the very short run, the Federal Reserve has little or no choice about accommodating that demand."
I would say it's quite similar to helicopter money.
Why Banks Don't Need Your Money to Make Loans | Investopedia
There you go toddster... not quite the same but very very similar to helicopter money.
In the real world, banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for the reserves later.
Reserves now, reserves later, result the same.
I would say it's quite similar to helicopter money.
Because you're an idiot.
Helicopter money is when the central bank creates money out of thin air and hands it out.
A bank borrowing money and then lending it or lending it and then borrowing it is not the same.
Not close. Not similar.
Quit playing stupid, me boy. It does not. What it does is decrease revenues, causing decreases in spending, and increases ue. You know, like 10.8% in a year. Read history, me boy.help increase the aggregate demand.
Why do you want to increase demand rather than supply when you know we got from the stone age to here thanks to the supply of new inventions?
Ans: because you have been brainwashed by libcommies who don't care about economic growth for all but rather about any idiotic excuse for more welfare payments with which to buy votes.
And after all these years, you still pretend to not know what economic demand is. Wow. What a fucking idiot.
As a matter of fact, you are proposing supply side econ. Of course, since you are a mindless con troll. It will work when the economy is really good, and aggregate demand is really good. Best of luck with that. Perhaps what you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy, and try stimulus spending like he did. worked for reagan. But increasing supply did not.
you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy,
How does a tax decrease tank the economy?
Fail !!!Why not consider that helicopter money?
Because loaning out a portion of deposits isn't helicopter money.
Let us suppose now that one day a helicopter flies over this community and drops an additional $1,000 in bills from the sky, which is, of course, hastily collected by members of the community. Let us suppose further that everyone is convinced that this is a unique event which will never be repeated.
So assume I accept your savings... and then offer AndyIllusion a loan.
Then I charge him interests on that loan.
Then I receive monthly payments for that loan.
I was pennyless at the beginning of the transactions and now I receive monthly installments out of nothing but a note.
It's like having a monthly helicopter money drop... except it only works for the bankers.
So assume I accept your savings... and then offer AndyIllusion a loan.
Then I charge him interests on that loan.
Then I receive monthly payments for that loan.
Yes, you're borrowing and lending.
It's like having a monthly helicopter money drop
Borrowing and lending is nothing like helicopter money.
In a peer to peer lending system it isn't. Under the current system in which according to Alan Holmes:
"In the real world, banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for the reserves later. The question then becomes one of whether and how the Federal Reserve will accommodate the demand for reserves. In the very short run, the Federal Reserve has little or no choice about accommodating that demand."
I would say it's quite similar to helicopter money.
Why Banks Don't Need Your Money to Make Loans | Investopedia
There you go toddster... not quite the same but very very similar to helicopter money.
In the real world, banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for the reserves later.
Reserves now, reserves later, result the same.
I would say it's quite similar to helicopter money.
Because you're an idiot.
Helicopter money is when the central bank creates money out of thin air and hands it out.
A bank borrowing money and then lending it or lending it and then borrowing it is not the same.
Not close. Not similar.
Read again moron:
"The question then becomes one of whether and how the Federal Reserve will accommodate the demand for reserves. In the very short run, the Federal Reserve has little or NO CHOICE about accommodating that demand"
Quit playing stupid, me boy. It does not. What it does is decrease revenues, causing decreases in spending, and increases ue. You know, like 10.8% in a year. Read history, me boy.help increase the aggregate demand.
Why do you want to increase demand rather than supply when you know we got from the stone age to here thanks to the supply of new inventions?
Ans: because you have been brainwashed by libcommies who don't care about economic growth for all but rather about any idiotic excuse for more welfare payments with which to buy votes.
And after all these years, you still pretend to not know what economic demand is. Wow. What a fucking idiot.
As a matter of fact, you are proposing supply side econ. Of course, since you are a mindless con troll. It will work when the economy is really good, and aggregate demand is really good. Best of luck with that. Perhaps what you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy, and try stimulus spending like he did. worked for reagan. But increasing supply did not.
you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy,
How does a tax decrease tank the economy?
Milton Friedman clearly stated that Helicopter money should be a one time event..
Why do you want to increase demand rather than supply when you know we got from the stone age to here thanks to the supply of new inventions?
Ans: because you have been brainwashed by libcommies who don't care about economic growth for all but rather about any idiotic excuse for more welfare payments with which to buy votes.
And after all these years, you still pretend to not know what economic demand is. Wow. What a fucking idiot.
As a matter of fact, you are proposing supply side econ. Of course, since you are a mindless con troll. It will work when the economy is really good, and aggregate demand is really good. Best of luck with that. Perhaps what you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy, and try stimulus spending like he did. worked for reagan. But increasing supply did not.
you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy,
How does a tax decrease tank the economy?
The budget has to be reduced and the government has to cut spending, laying off people and reducing purchases.
Bad idea during a recession, but probably acceptable with a low level of private debt.
They said the same thing after World War 2. They warned that cutting all these jobs, and cutting the spending, would cause a drop in purchases.
They were wrong.
Ah , you probably missed part of the discussion, but my point is you can only do that if you have a positive trade balance.
And wages are growing at the same rate as the gdp and a low level of private debt.
That is not the actual situation right now.
So , yes, if all your 10 children are living in your house and all of them are employed and don't have much debt you can cut your spending and pay off your debts.
Different situation if you have 2 of them unemployed, 4 of them have problems paying their credits and their wages have been stagnated for the last 10 years.
Milton Friedman clearly stated that Helicopter money should be a one time event..
yes clearly, if you wanted to create inflation in a thought experiment economy. He never proposed it for real. Economies grow thanks to new inventions not govt fiddling. Do you understand?
Milton Friedman clearly stated that Helicopter money should be a one time event..
yes clearly, if you wanted to create inflation in a thought experiment economy. He never proposed it for real. Economies grow thanks to new inventions not govt fiddling. Do you understand?
Not quite Ed, he did stress the importance of monetary policy. And at some point he made a thought experiment in which he proposed a government which every year burned 10% of the bills it collected. Such a government would be creating a monetary bottleneck . It was then pertinent to do the helicopter money drop.
In the current state the US has a similar situation, a lot of money has gone out of the economy: either through foreign investment, moving it to fiscal paradises or to stock exchanges.
In this case the helicopter money drop would help reduce the level of debt and rise the interest rates once again.
Now , all of this would not produce growth by itself, but all the other factors are in place : infrastructure, capital goods , land. So the US really has everything it needs to get on its feet.
Overnight? Now , nothing absolutely nothing in the sentences of Alan Holmes implies that the banks pay for those reserve overnight or at any given time. I've heard some countries require banks to get the reserves 3 months later.Fail !!!So assume I accept your savings... and then offer AndyIllusion a loan.
Then I charge him interests on that loan.
Then I receive monthly payments for that loan.
I was pennyless at the beginning of the transactions and now I receive monthly installments out of nothing but a note.
It's like having a monthly helicopter money drop... except it only works for the bankers.
So assume I accept your savings... and then offer AndyIllusion a loan.
Then I charge him interests on that loan.
Then I receive monthly payments for that loan.
Yes, you're borrowing and lending.
It's like having a monthly helicopter money drop
Borrowing and lending is nothing like helicopter money.
In a peer to peer lending system it isn't. Under the current system in which according to Alan Holmes:
"In the real world, banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for the reserves later. The question then becomes one of whether and how the Federal Reserve will accommodate the demand for reserves. In the very short run, the Federal Reserve has little or no choice about accommodating that demand."
I would say it's quite similar to helicopter money.
Why Banks Don't Need Your Money to Make Loans | Investopedia
There you go toddster... not quite the same but very very similar to helicopter money.
In the real world, banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for the reserves later.
Reserves now, reserves later, result the same.
I would say it's quite similar to helicopter money.
Because you're an idiot.
Helicopter money is when the central bank creates money out of thin air and hands it out.
A bank borrowing money and then lending it or lending it and then borrowing it is not the same.
Not close. Not similar.
Read again moron:
"The question then becomes one of whether and how the Federal Reserve will accommodate the demand for reserves. In the very short run, the Federal Reserve has little or NO CHOICE about accommodating that demand"
The Fed lending money overnight to a bank is not helicopter money.
Helicopter money is money dropped, for free, never to be repaid, from a helicopter. Dolt.
Not according to Reagans people. Which is why the increased taxes and spent like crazy.Quit playing stupid, me boy. It does not. What it does is decrease revenues, causing decreases in spending, and increases ue. You know, like 10.8% in a year. Read history, me boy.help increase the aggregate demand.
Why do you want to increase demand rather than supply when you know we got from the stone age to here thanks to the supply of new inventions?
Ans: because you have been brainwashed by libcommies who don't care about economic growth for all but rather about any idiotic excuse for more welfare payments with which to buy votes.
And after all these years, you still pretend to not know what economic demand is. Wow. What a fucking idiot.
As a matter of fact, you are proposing supply side econ. Of course, since you are a mindless con troll. It will work when the economy is really good, and aggregate demand is really good. Best of luck with that. Perhaps what you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy, and try stimulus spending like he did. worked for reagan. But increasing supply did not.
you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy,
How does a tax decrease tank the economy?
What it does is decrease revenues, causing decreases in spending
When has a decrease in Federal revenues ever forced a decrease in Federal spending? Derp!
The Fed hiked interest rates, a lot, to kill inflation. That's what caused unemployment to spike you stupid twat.
Overnight? Now , nothing absolutely nothing in the sentences of Alan Holmes implies that the banks pay for those reserve overnight or at any given time. I've heard some countries require banks to get the reserves 3 months later.Fail !!!So assume I accept your savings... and then offer AndyIllusion a loan.
Then I charge him interests on that loan.
Then I receive monthly payments for that loan.
Yes, you're borrowing and lending.
It's like having a monthly helicopter money drop
Borrowing and lending is nothing like helicopter money.
In a peer to peer lending system it isn't. Under the current system in which according to Alan Holmes:
"In the real world, banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for the reserves later. The question then becomes one of whether and how the Federal Reserve will accommodate the demand for reserves. In the very short run, the Federal Reserve has little or no choice about accommodating that demand."
I would say it's quite similar to helicopter money.
Why Banks Don't Need Your Money to Make Loans | Investopedia
There you go toddster... not quite the same but very very similar to helicopter money.
In the real world, banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for the reserves later.
Reserves now, reserves later, result the same.
I would say it's quite similar to helicopter money.
Because you're an idiot.
Helicopter money is when the central bank creates money out of thin air and hands it out.
A bank borrowing money and then lending it or lending it and then borrowing it is not the same.
Not close. Not similar.
Read again moron:
"The question then becomes one of whether and how the Federal Reserve will accommodate the demand for reserves. In the very short run, the Federal Reserve has little or NO CHOICE about accommodating that demand"
The Fed lending money overnight to a bank is not helicopter money.
Helicopter money is money dropped, for free, never to be repaid, from a helicopter. Dolt.
You may think none of this is helicopter money, but it is darn close: banks create money out of thin air, and then even if they exceed their reserves they are helped by central banks which create the reserves for them. On top of that they get interests on the money "they" created.
Not according to Reagans people. Which is why the increased taxes and spent like crazy.Quit playing stupid, me boy. It does not. What it does is decrease revenues, causing decreases in spending, and increases ue. You know, like 10.8% in a year. Read history, me boy.Why do you want to increase demand rather than supply when you know we got from the stone age to here thanks to the supply of new inventions?
Ans: because you have been brainwashed by libcommies who don't care about economic growth for all but rather about any idiotic excuse for more welfare payments with which to buy votes.
And after all these years, you still pretend to not know what economic demand is. Wow. What a fucking idiot.
As a matter of fact, you are proposing supply side econ. Of course, since you are a mindless con troll. It will work when the economy is really good, and aggregate demand is really good. Best of luck with that. Perhaps what you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy, and try stimulus spending like he did. worked for reagan. But increasing supply did not.
you should do what Reagan did when his tax decrease tanked the us economy,
How does a tax decrease tank the economy?
What it does is decrease revenues, causing decreases in spending
When has a decrease in Federal revenues ever forced a decrease in Federal spending? Derp!
The Fed hiked interest rates, a lot, to kill inflation. That's what caused unemployment to spike you stupid twat.
So, when things got bad, and the ue rate went to 10.8%. And Reagan was about as popular as a fart in church. Then, after saying they were supply side guys, they raised taxes 11 times, and spent like drunken soldiers. Tripled the national debt. You know, as reagan spent more than all the presidents before him combined.
did you notice it worked. Reagan did what he said he would not, but it worked very well. Stimulus was a good thing.
