- Joined
- 13 February 2006
- Posts
- 5,058
- Reactions
- 11,460
1. Really ? They changed the act ? Along with 5 others that would need changing whilst I was asleep. I did quote the 1913 act. Someone else is able to issue notes and is doing so in the USA ?
2. I note, the two key issues where we stumble, you have gone they are irrelevant or not answered. Cash goes up and down and round and round. That 4.5% of the 1,000 billion increase in a month in M1 is via cash and the rest is something else seems to elude you.
3. On issue. That in 1920 the economy in the USA was 100 billion and in 2020, was 22.5 trillion, there would likely be say 10 billion of cash as such on issue. In 2020, USD is used instead of local currency on the main as the currency in 7 nations that the USA has invaded and destroyed. I believe each of them alone has 10 billion of USD in notes, in circulation. That's the whole total of the notes on issue in 1920.
4. Of course as the size of an economy rises, so too must the notes on issue. I did provide a long scale of notes issued and USA economy rose 250% and notes issued rose around 290%. The difference being likely invaded and destroyed economies of other nations. So i suppose yes, they printed more money, but irrelevant in the bigger picture. It moved a total of 40% NET in 20 years in the already provided Chart of notes and currency on issue. In the meantime, Afghanistan, Syria, Venezuela, even inside Iran, Yemen, Libya and Iraq. Likely I missed a few, now conduct part of in some cases most of their transactions in USD. There are others things such as the USA drug habit which are, amusing but the missing cash that month was likely a disruption in nose candy !!
Second easy one, is banks actions and Repo or QE flows.
You say its irrelevant.
Sadly so is monetary policy was your response.
5. Its missing the forest through the trees. Your myopic view of things. One dimensional. There are a few deeper dimensions which, since your not even seeing the first, I did not want to confuse you further.
6. I did try, however, failed. I await your answers to my curiosity before we proceed.
7. I would humbly ask you respond. Lawyer ? Or ex ? USA ? but not born there ? Language suspicion ?
8. It is relevant to our discussion we have been having.
1. You claim to have cited the Act. Where? I saw no citation in any of your posts. Of course I accept that it is possible that due the length and incoherency of your posts I missed it. Still, highlight this citation and I will discuss.
2. The issue under discussion is 'printing (creating/expanding) the money supply'. Cash is the issue. Therefore as far as this discussion is concerned, the rest is irrelevant.
3. And your point is?
4. Incorrect. There is no necessity to increase the volume of money in an expanding economy. That is the purpose and function of prices. This is simply economics. Government expands or inflates, for a reason.
5. Irrelevant.
6 - 7. Irrelevant.
8. How is it relevant?
jog on
duc