UGagain wrote:
With pounds sterling. They are the monopoly issuer of them.
That is a cunning plan. Back to the rugby forums for me.
Pathetic.
You came here demanding maths. Now you're confronted with maths that doesn't fit your bigoted ideology, you cry off.
Not really pathetic. I just think this is pointless and I have better things to do than bang my head against a brick wall on here. We have entirely different outlooks - we can go round in circles but I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. Now we've gone into an area of wholly changing the dynamics of the economy. I don't want to discuss that, just as I don't want to discuss anything else I believe to be preposterous and wholly unlikely to happen. Discussing changes within the present system is fine. Fanciful discussions, and ones I don't believe in, about changing the entire system don't interest me.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths, not for the SNP to shout numbers out of context. When Jared showed his Tax Research maths I didn't decry it or just call it a lie, I just pointed out the potential for bias.
Mellsblue wrote:
That is a cunning plan. Back to the rugby forums for me.
Pathetic.
You came here demanding maths. Now you're confronted with maths that doesn't fit your bigoted ideology, you cry off.
Not really pathetic. I just think this is pointless and I have better things to do than bang my head against a brick wall on here. We have entirely different outlooks - we can go round in circles but I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. Now we've gone into an area of wholly changing the dynamics of the economy. I don't want to discuss that, just as I don't want to discuss anything else I believe to be preposterous and wholly unlikely to happen. Discussing changes within the present system is fine. Fanciful discussions, and ones I don't believe in, about changing the entire system don't interest me.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths, not for the SNP to shout numbers out of context. When Jared showed his Tax Research maths I didn't decry it or just call it a lie, I just pointed out the potential for bias.
Austerity is mathematical drivel.
I'm discussing the monetary system as it is. As opposed yo your fantasy notions of macroeconomics.
Where do you think Pounds come from?
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
You came here demanding maths. Now you're confronted with maths that doesn't fit your bigoted ideology, you cry off.
Not really pathetic. I just think this is pointless and I have better things to do than bang my head against a brick wall on here. We have entirely different outlooks - we can go round in circles but I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. Now we've gone into an area of wholly changing the dynamics of the economy. I don't want to discuss that, just as I don't want to discuss anything else I believe to be preposterous and wholly unlikely to happen. Discussing changes within the present system is fine. Fanciful discussions, and ones I don't believe in, about changing the entire system don't interest me.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths, not for the SNP to shout numbers out of context. When Jared showed his Tax Research maths I didn't decry it or just call it a lie, I just pointed out the potential for bias.
Austerity is mathematical drivel.
I'm discussing the monetary system as it is. As opposed yo your fantasy notions of macroeconomics.
Where do you think Pounds come from?
As before, I disagree.
No, you want to keep the components of the system but want to flip the system on it's head, ie change the dynamics. I don't think it should happen and it's certainly not going to happen any time soon.
Mellsblue wrote:
Not really pathetic. I just think this is pointless and I have better things to do than bang my head against a brick wall on here. We have entirely different outlooks - we can go round in circles but I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. Now we've gone into an area of wholly changing the dynamics of the economy. I don't want to discuss that, just as I don't want to discuss anything else I believe to be preposterous and wholly unlikely to happen. Discussing changes within the present system is fine. Fanciful discussions, and ones I don't believe in, about changing the entire system don't interest me.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths, not for the SNP to shout numbers out of context. When Jared showed his Tax Research maths I didn't decry it or just call it a lie, I just pointed out the potential for bias.
Austerity is mathematical drivel.
I'm discussing the monetary system as it is. As opposed yo your fantasy notions of macroeconomics.
Where do you think Pounds come from?
As before, I disagree.
No, you want to keep the components of the system but want to flip the system on it's head, ie change the dynamics. I don't think it should happen and it's certainly not going to happen any time soon.
As I said, I'm out.
Well give me the maths. 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't it?
Or are we going to have to agree to disagree on that because Tory maths is different somehow?
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
Mellsblue wrote:
Not really pathetic. I just think this is pointless and I have better things to do than bang my head against a brick wall on here. We have entirely different outlooks - we can go round in circles but I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. Now we've gone into an area of wholly changing the dynamics of the economy. I don't want to discuss that, just as I don't want to discuss anything else I believe to be preposterous and wholly unlikely to happen. Discussing changes within the present system is fine. Fanciful discussions, and ones I don't believe in, about changing the entire system don't interest me.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths, not for the SNP to shout numbers out of context. When Jared showed his Tax Research maths I didn't decry it or just call it a lie, I just pointed out the potential for bias.
Austerity is mathematical drivel.
I'm discussing the monetary system as it is. As opposed yo your fantasy notions of macroeconomics.
Where do you think Pounds come from?
As before, I disagree.
No, you want to keep the components of the system but want to flip the system on it's head, ie change the dynamics. I don't think it should happen and it's certainly not going to happen any time soon.
As I said, I'm out.
Oh well. Another dull right wing unthinker bites the dust. Thick as custard.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
There is no gov monopoly of the issuance of money in our credit-based monetary system. If anyone has anything close to a monopoly on the creation of money it is the privately owned banks.
The point you should be making is that the gov gave away their monopoly of the issuance of money.
UGagain wrote:I've given you the accounting reality or the 'rationale' in your terms.
You've asserted that the reality of the accounting identities is "wrong".
What more is there?
Ok I retract the claim you are 'wrong'. But I need to understand your argument better.
When you say the gov have a monopoly on the issue of pounds sterling, what are you referring to by pounds sterling? For example to me this means money as a functional entity, and therefore includes demand deposits. Are we agreed on this point?
UGagain wrote:I've given you the accounting reality or the 'rationale' in your terms.
You've asserted that the reality of the accounting identities is "wrong".
What more is there?
Ok I retract the claim you are 'wrong'. But I need to understand your argument better.
When you say the gov have a monopoly on the issue of pounds sterling, what are you referring to by pounds sterling? For example to me this means money as a functional entity, and therefore includes demand deposits. Are we agreed on this point?
My understanding is Banks loan to deposit ratios mean they lend out in loans what the take in as deposits. They aren't creating money, just moving it horizontally within the non government sector. At the end of each day their account must be balanced with the central bank. It is the central bank that controls the reserves, and therefore "creates" new money.
UGagain wrote:I've given you the accounting reality or the 'rationale' in your terms.
You've asserted that the reality of the accounting identities is "wrong".
What more is there?
Ok I retract the claim you are 'wrong'. But I need to understand your argument better.
When you say the gov have a monopoly on the issue of pounds sterling, what are you referring to by pounds sterling? For example to me this means money as a functional entity, and therefore includes demand deposits. Are we agreed on this point?
My understanding is Banks loan to deposit ratios mean they lend out in loans what the take in as deposits. They aren't creating money, just moving it horizontally within the non government sector. At the end of each day their account must be balanced with the central bank. It is the central bank that controls the reserves, and therefore "creates" new money.
Which country are you referring to in your explanation? What is the reserve requirement there?
UGagain wrote:I've given you the accounting reality or the 'rationale' in your terms.
You've asserted that the reality of the accounting identities is "wrong".
What more is there?
Ok I retract the claim you are 'wrong'. But I need to understand your argument better.
When you say the gov have a monopoly on the issue of pounds sterling, what are you referring to by pounds sterling? For example to me this means money as a functional entity, and therefore includes demand deposits. Are we agreed on this point?
My understanding is Banks loan to deposit ratios mean they lend out in loans what the take in as deposits. They aren't creating money, just moving it horizontally within the non government sector. At the end of each day their account must be balanced with the central bank. It is the central bank that controls the reserves, and therefore "creates" new money.
No. Loans create deposits. Every new loan is new money.
Banks create money in the act of making loans but they cannot create net financial assets (as for each loan (asset) they create an equal liability (deposit) and can not create reserves).
All interbank transactions and all bank to government transactions are done in reserves (central bank liabilities and thus non-government assets).
Government spending creates net financial assets in the non-government sector and taxation and charges extinguishes them.
Bank credit is denominated in and redeemable for state currency but the state currency only comes from the state.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
Zhivago wrote:
Ok I retract the claim you are 'wrong'. But I need to understand your argument better.
When you say the gov have a monopoly on the issue of pounds sterling, what are you referring to by pounds sterling? For example to me this means money as a functional entity, and therefore includes demand deposits. Are we agreed on this point?
My understanding is Banks loan to deposit ratios mean they lend out in loans what the take in as deposits. They aren't creating money, just moving it horizontally within the non government sector. At the end of each day their account must be balanced with the central bank. It is the central bank that controls the reserves, and therefore "creates" new money.
No. Loans create deposits. Every new loan is new money.
Banks create money in the act of making loans but they cannot create net financial assets (as for each loan (asset) they create an equal liability (deposit) and can not create reserves).
All interbank transactions and all bank to government transactions are done in reserves (central bank liabilities and thus non-government assets).
Government spending creates net financial assets in the non-government sector and taxation and charges extinguishes them.
Bank credit is denominated in and redeemable for state currency but the state currency only comes from the state.
Indeed.
But I still do not grasp how the reserves quite work. This part I admit my understanding is still lacking. What form do the reserves take?
UGagain wrote:Reserves are LFIs' electronic balances at the central bank + vault cash.
The cash in the vault is clear, but the electronic balances are still not clear to me. Are these just a portion of the banks deposits that it holds/owns?
UGagain wrote:Reserves are LFIs' electronic balances at the central bank + vault cash.
The cash in the vault is clear, but the electronic balances are still not clear to me. Are these just a portion of the banks deposits that it holds/owns?
No. They are central bank money.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
UGagain wrote:Reserves are LFIs' electronic balances at the central bank + vault cash.
The cash in the vault is clear, but the electronic balances are still not clear to me. Are these just a portion of the banks deposits that it holds/owns?
No. They are central bank money.
How do commercial banks get this central bank money?
