Comments by "Curious Crow" (@CuriousCrow-mp4cx) on "The government can never run out of money" video.

  1. No. You don't understand. Money is two things. 1. A measure of value, and 2. A commodity. The government can never run out of money, because it is literally as someone else before says like a carpenter running out of inches or centimetres. What changes is not the unit of measuring value, but the perception of the value being measured. Why? Ask yourself why since 1971, bus fares that were £0.02p then, have now inflated to £2.00 for the same journey? What has shrunk is not the measure - 2p is still 2p, but the prevailing belief of the value of what is being measured. This goes back to how money is now mostly credit - from the Latin "credo" meaning "belief" rather than just "currency" i.e. a medium of exchange. You can see that nearly 95% of all money in circulation is now bank credit, with the remainder being physical cash, or central bank reserve credits. So, one cannot run out money. Rather, we can run out of belief it is worth anything.
    6
  2. Please, don't be daft. Who lent them the money they wasted? The international financial markets borrowed them money in return for their sovereign debt. They malinvested it. Instead of repairing their economy, they spent it on staying in power. Sound familiar?
    1
  3. And you don't understand that of the vast amount of money in the world 95% of that is being created by banks in the private sector issuing loans; 3% by central banks creating Reserve credits, and 2% as cash. So whose printer has run out of ink exactly? That's right: those money printing memes showing Jerome Powell printing money are misrepresenting the facts. They should be showing Jamie Dimon printing out the dollar notes. But you never see that. Why I wonder?
    1
  4. Not really. That was only the case after the pandemic and the beginning of the war in Ukraine. Now it's a different story, because household spending is falling, and unemployment is moving upwards. Retail has been hit hard, and the big names are cost cutting. Moreover new orders, as we move into the busiest time of the year - Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas is declining. Also, loan defaults are still climbing. So the economy is not slowing for a lack of goods, but the absence of people who can afford to buy them. Money printing can't solve that directly, but the malinvestment and speculation that is siphoning money out of the productive, job-creating economy can be addressed by removing the incentives to malinvest and hoard money.
    1
  5. No; he isn't being disengenuous. He is being literal. Have you you actually studied the evolution of money? Money came into existence before Finance and Economics. And for good reason. Indeed, Accounting came before Finance and Economics. Money emerged as civilisation did. Why? It is a tool first for representing our beliefs. It is a technology for representing our bekiefs. When we did not need money, it never existed, but when we needed tokens of value, it emerged. And as our civilisation as a species grew, it developed means of valuing, counting, and tokenising value. And we have Accounting, Finance, and Economics respectively. So, as a Chartered Account and an Economist, Professor Murphy can combine the two disciplines to critique the dominance of Finance over Economics. In this we should be careful not to conflate the two disciplines, and their perspectives. You see Finance has different goals to economics, and we often are encouraged to conflate the two. But they are not the same. Hence our confusion about money, and the heterogeneity of beliefs about it.
    1
  6. Wrong. That the job of a financier. Rather the Economist is interested in the effective utilisation of resources to meet society's needs. The financier just wants more effective creation of money. Money is only one commodity. That financiers are obsessed with money, as their success is measured by their own wealth. Financiers are not concerned whether that damages the economy or not. Economists should, but not always be concerned that economic activity does not damage the economy. A subtle but important difference.
    1
  7. None of those practised MMT. Grow up.
    1
  8. Because you can't catch flies with vinegar.
    1
  9. Why do you parrot that old trope without understanding what actually was going on? And why? It comes across as brainwashing. And to boot, MMT is not about money printing. Indeed, the term is deceptive in a world where 95% of money in circulation is "printed" in your words, by commercial banks making loans, and entering digits on a computer. Nobody complains about that, because they don't know that reality. The present reality is that of all the money in circulation, 95% is bank credit, 3% is central bank reserve credits, and the rest is currency as cash. The truth is that money creation is predominantly done by banks, with the government through their central banks being their safety net for the financial acrobatics. Historically, Germany's problems under the very short-lived Weimar Republic stemmed from not money printing but prior malinvestment that failed to create a bulwark of value and the burdens of war debt. Money Printing was a response, not the cause of its economic woes.
    1
  10. Credit is money. According to the Bank of International Settlements, of all the money in circulation, 95% is bank credit created by making loans, 3% is central bank and reserve credits, and 2% is cash. That's why the M2 measure of money is made up of those components. Why is credit now dominant? That's a political decision rather than a financial or economic decision by governments within the postwar global financial system.
    1