That is, it doesn’t matter how much money is around you have to be able to “get it out of your pocket”.

The inverse of the blog with regards money migt be with regards production.

That is, if you are in the desert all the money with the lowest “How_hard_to_get_out_of_pocket” attribute value wont get spent because there is nothing to spend it on.

Maybe?

Sorry — the links are ass about.

A direct link to the broadcast is here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pgpkc

I will post this also on the 2009 Retrospect topic. Apologies to all if this has already been corrected.

less blogging? your seriously suggesting we let the inner meglomenaic within us die.

i think steves blog is vital for global security, it stops some of us from wanting to take over a small or for that matter large country.

i personally like sticking to resolutions i find easy to keep,

you know,

be more judgemental,

be superior and condescending,

eat more lasagna and ice cream

interrupt people mid sentence,

shoot off my mouth before actually thinking things through,

all easy ones to keep

Most of the people I debate on the net are inflationists, who seem to think that all that is green is free money out of the fractional reserve system. I titled a post Money, Capital and Inflation. It seems that those that believe in Feda Claus tend to think that a bank can lend what it is already liable for again and it can’t. This is why Mish called it fictional reserves. The reserves are the portion of the asset base of a bank that exceed the assets minus the deposits. If a bank has 10% reserves and only 5% capital, they already owe half the reserves to the depositors and thus they aren’t reserves at all, but assets for payments of debt. Thus if a banks is down to 5% capital, then it is short reserves and any action of the Fed has no influence on that bank. Should that owe another bank that is full of capital, thus one depositor say write a $10 million check that is put in another bank, then the $10 million would come out of cash and deposit liabilities and the new bank might be able to multiply the cash. But, if the new bank is also loaned up, the $10 million is nothing but a counter entry to their deposit liability. They could take the $10 million and buy a t-bill, but they couldn’t create another liability in their own bank where it exceeded the loanable capital they had. This goes right by them.

What else goes by them is they believe in infinite fiat and don’t understand that savings and debt equal each other. There is more than the change in price levels that come with credit money. There is the investing of finished goods into the account at the bank. Thus if I borrow $10 million and buy your goods, your $10 million in goods is now in the bank. I also owe the $10 million plus interest, which means that I owe more than was created. At a low level, where there is plenty of hard money and goods, this is a highly inflationary situation, but in the loaned up times of today, the fact of the matter is the follow through lending that would complete the inflationary effect of this transaction isn’t there.

http://wallstreetbear.com/board/view.php?topic=64567&post=217388

Don’t let ANY of these facts obsure the direction of the AUD exchange rate that Craigs Comm-Bank needs ‘minions to believe’