Talk:Money supply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Click [show] for further details |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] Consistency?
From this article: The rate of interest is the price of money.
From the interest article: "Interest is therefore the price of credit, not the price of money as is commonly - and mistakenly - believed. The percentage of the principal which is paid as fee (the interest), over a certain period of time, is called the interest rate."
Well, which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.113.94 (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- In the interest article, the word "credit" is being used (not entirely correctly) as a synonym for "borrowed money." Credit is the right to borrow money. For example, when a lender extends you credit, the lender is giving you the right to draw on a fixed sum of money. The extended credit is the "credit limit." You don't pay interest on the credit limit; you only pay interest on the portion that you draw down. The portion that you draw down is money (i.e., M1). Wikiant 13:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- So the interest article should be altered then? It seems pretty insistent that it is correct.68.77.113.94 05:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Isn't credit the provision of resources rather than the right to borrow resources? The right to borrow resources seems more like credit-worthiness than credit. Moreover credit money is not strictly equivalent to money, and so saying that interest is the price of money seems semantically misleading. It does not even make sense to say that money has a price unless we are referring to the physical price of creating and transferring money. Access to money over time, say earlier than one could normally have access to, seems to have a price, but that is not the 'price of money'.
-
- This article needs to be more precise and wikipedia needs to be consistent on this issue. 68.77.113.94 00:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- "Credit worthiness" is the borrower's ability to be accepted by lenders as being a "reasonable" risk. Credit worthiness entails no obligation on the part of the lender. "Credit" is an amount of money the lender has agreed to make available to the borrower. There is no such thing as "credit money." If you mean "borrowed money," as far as the definition of money is concerned, the word "borrowed" imparts no distinction. Wikiant 12:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- You are aware that there is an article titled credit money even though you claim that there is no such thing? How many economic articles on wikipedia do you wish to claim are incorrect or should not exist? Do you intend to use standard terminology or not?
-
-
-
- Is any one else going to weigh-on on this? 68.77.113.94 05:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I would say it is non-standard to use wikipedia as proof a term is standard - that's self-referential. The credit money article has three references, only one of which uses the term credit money. von Mises defines credit money as follows: "A third category may be called credit money, this being that sort of money which constitutes a claim against any physical or legal person." Now, I'm no expert in the terminology of money, but this would seem to be a non-standard definition (me writing an IOU would constitute money under this definition). What he has called credit money seems to be what would simply be called a monetary claim: a claim for money from a person.
- But what is it you're trying to settle? I am not clear what distinction the interest article is trying to make. Interest is the price of borrowing money over time, or the price of money over time. I would say that this is the same as the above, although arguably the statement 'interest is the price of money' is not sufficiently clear. (If one were to be a stickler, money is the price of money: a dollar can be exchanged for one dollar upon presentation.)--Gregalton 13:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I have no problem with the definition, "interest is the price of borrowing money." Wikiant 13:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] A simple example, please, something like this
What I'm looking for is, right after the list of M0...M3 near the start of the article, something like this, very concrete. Now, what I wrote is probably really wrong, but that's just because of all of the questions that the article doesn't answer properly. They need to be answered, and an example like this is a good way to do it. Note humor and silly phrases illustrating my puzzlement.
M0:
- I have ten us$100 bills. That represents $1000 in the M0 supply for the United States.
- I take one of my $100 bills and burn it in a fire. The US M0 money supply, and my personal net worth, just went down by $100. (?)
M1:
- I take the remaining nine bills and deposit it in my checking account at my bank. The M1 money supply just went up by $900, but since the bank still has the cash, the M0 supply also still has that $900, and they go and lend it out to someone else. (?)
- I write a check for $400, check number 71. The M1 money supply didn't change total, it includes the $400 check and the $500 left in my account.
- I burn check number 71. M1 and my checking account still have $900 because the check is never cashed.
- I write check number 72 for $100 to my friend Alice and she deposits it into her checking account. M1 still has $900 in it, her $100 and my $800.
- I go to lunch with my friend Bianca. She's out of cash, so I lend her $20 and she promises to repay later. Our mutual memory is sortof a virtual check, and the M1 money supply goes up by $20. She repays on Monday. M1 goes down by $20 as we virtually erase the virtual check.
- I get paid a paycheck for $10,000 into my checking account. That chunk of M1 money came from my employer's checking account, which got it from customer payments and stuff. I need it for the rest of these examples.
M2 and higher:
- I write check number 74 for $500 and bring it to the bank and start a Money Market account. Even though the bank is an 'institution', this qualifies as a 'non-institutional money market fund'. Cuz I dunno. M2 goes up by $500 as M1 goes down by $500.
- I write check number 75 for $3000 and invest in Dreyfus Efficiency Restaurants Fund, a mutual fund that invests in small fast-food chains. This $3000 is no longer in M1? In the short term it goes into the company's checking, they go spend it somewhere, and M1 is conserved?. Then they make a ton of money and eventually I cash out and get a check for $6000. This money came from other people's checks when they bought stuff from the company, so it's all in M1? But that means that capital is never created. I don't understand. It's almost like it's in M7 or something, far less liquid than m1 or m2.
- My grandma dies and leaves me her money market fund with $50 million in it. Somehow this is an institutional money market fund... cuz when they started the fund, they checked off this box on their application that says "Do you want your Money Market to be Institutional? [ ] yes [ ] no". So this money is in M3?? You have to have a minimum of what, $5 million, to get it into M3 accounts?
Foreign Currencies:
- I write check number 73 for $200 and bring it to a bank teller and tell him I want to convert it to British Pounds. On this particular day, the exchange rate is exactly 2.00 dollars = 1.00 pound. The bank takes my $200 check, finds some other customer in their branch office in Hong Kong who has pounds and wants dollars, and brokers the trade. (Both bank branch offices have piles of dollars and pounds for just such an occasion.) US M0 still has the $900, although the customer in Hong Kong now has $200 of it. The 100 pound note I walk off with is part of Britain's M0 money supply.
OsamaBinLogin (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A question for the experts
- The school-book definition of money is all assets (if you will) that don't pay interest. Would that include the M1 bank deposits? Or do they also pay a little bit of interest sometimes?
- The destinction is made to explain why the money supply increase with lowered rates. Because money doesn't burn so much in the pocket people are more willing to hold then in an interest-free form.
- This is the thought process for that (here a rate HIKE):
- The Fed decides to pay better interest on their loans from banks (the repo lending)
- That makes banks lend more of THEIR assets to the Fed (not the customers money in M1 bank accounts).
- (Note that the rates on the Fed lending affects ALL loans instantly. So it's not just the new loans that pay more, it's all loans.)
- I RETURN the banks can now afford to pay their deposit customers better interest rates.
- That makes people want to move money from their interest-free accounts to interest paying accounts.
- Voilá: The money supply has DECREASED
- If people just moved money from interest-free M1 accounts to interest-bearing M2 accounts (for examplea Money Market Fund that IS included in M2) that would leave the M2 money supply UNCHANGED by this.
- My answer to my own question would be that the rate in the M2 accounts are also made less interesting in relation to other longer term rate investments. For example something just outside the Ms, like a BOND FUND or something like that. And in that way M2 decrease to.
- Anybody have any ideas?--Jerryseinfeld 08:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I never heard the definition that money doesn't pay interest. I have heard interest described as the "price of money" which contradicts that. M1 bank deposits certainly pay interest. Generally money is defined as a means of exchange, a store of wealth, and a measure of value. M1 money has to be immediately available to buy things - I guess maybe savings accounts don't count as they are intended to be used for saving, whereas current accounts are intended for buying things.
- The rate hike - it's much simpler. When the Fed wants to reduce the money supply, it just sells a repo, i.e. it lends a T-bond to a bank. The bank has to give up lots of cash to the Fed in exchange, and this cash "disappears" because the Fed will not spend it. This means there is less money. When the repo unwinds, the money re-enters the system. I think that the effect of this is to drive up overnight rates (since there is less cash, banks charge more to lend it), and drive down longer maturity rates (since there is a larger supply of t-bonds). --Dilaudid 19:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- "Money" as in M1 either doesn't pay interest (e.g., cash) or pays only enough interest to compensate for inflation (e.g., checking). So, in purchasing power terms (which is what matters), M1 doesn't earn positive interest. Savings aren't M1 because you can't buy anything with a savings account. You must first withdraw the money (as cash) or transfer it to a checking account. Wikiant 20:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Err - you can get checking accounts that pay interest, at least in the UK. The bank of Scotland offers an account that pays 3.67% real return right now ([1], [2]). You can get checking accounts in the US that pay interest too - the only reason checking accounts don't pay much interest (nominal or real) is because they are costly to run. Where does this idea that M1 doesn't pay interest come from? I've tried googling it and I can't come up with anything. I agree wholeheartedly that you can't buy anything with a savings account, which is why it isn't M1. --Dilaudid 20:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ah this explains quite a lot of it. Until 1930 checking accounts in the US were not permitted to pay interest: Demand_account#Interest --Dilaudid 20:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Money" as in M1 either doesn't pay interest (e.g., cash) or pays only enough interest to compensate for inflation (e.g., checking). So, in purchasing power terms (which is what matters), M1 doesn't earn positive interest. Savings aren't M1 because you can't buy anything with a savings account. You must first withdraw the money (as cash) or transfer it to a checking account. Wikiant 20:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] the balance sheet example
Can anyone tell me why the example shows the 1 dollar bond purchased by the C bank from B1 not on B1's liabilities?
thanks
- The example is just not clear enough, if not plain wrong.
As someone with absolutely no background in economics, I found this article left me more confused than before! I was lost after the second sentence. Also it only convers "U.S. Money Supply", with all the examples being "Fed this..." and "Fed that..." The article should either clearly label itself as only addressing Money Supply in the U.S., or be more carefully to acknowledge at the start of each paragraph "In the United States, the Fed handles this situation by doing X,Y, and Z..."
Start of J.G.'s comments:
You may be asking a lot if you want to be able to understand the "money supply" and its effects if you have no background in economics. Not understanding is nothing to be ashamed of, of course! I suggest you consult additional sources, keep reading, and in time you'll return to this article and see that it makes a lot more sense.
Regarding "globalizing" the article, it's hard to make the article inclusive of or descripive of every other economy in the world, because most governments or central banks are not so open as the U.S.'s when it comes to stating their economic policies, principles, and actions. Not that the U.S.'s central bank is always crystal clear.
- I'd suggest there are many economies with policy objectives as transparent as the Fed. The UK, New Zealend, Sweden, Canada, Spain, Finland, Australia and others pursue explicit inflation targeting, more precise than commitments Greenspan would give. More specifically, after the UK government made the Bank of England independent in 1997 policy this transparency has improved further. I'm not qualified to write a 'globalising' update to the entry, but I'd say there's a strong argument for doing so if anyone is? Jamestplunkett 16:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
As far as the article focusing on the U.S. central bank, this makes sense inasmuch as the U.S. economy remains the most influential in the international economy for the time being, and it's policies are often "copied" by other central banks. In addition, I would think there are few persons with enough expertise to write about the inner workings of more than a single country's central bank. You would need to have a different person from each country, knowledgable about the history and policies of their own country's central bank.
Know, too, that the actions a central banks can be highly influenced by the political environment they operate in. They may have to make economic decisions based on what is good for the party in power, instead of doing what is best for the economy in an absolute sense. So it may be difficult to state clearly that "in situation A, the Fed (or another central bank) does B, which causes C".
A related thought: the economic situation confronted by a given central bank at a given time may be unique. The combination of factors may be such as was not ever encountered by another central bank before. So the actions of a central bank in those conditions may be unique to those circumstances. Certainly there are basic principles of operation, but they can and have to be shaded and molded to meet the specific situation. This can also make it more difficult to understand central bank policies.
It may help to realize that banking and economics at this level - the level of national goverments and international bodies - is a rather rarified field. It's not supposed to be easily understood by the lay person, any more than nuclear physics or other areas of specialization. But I exaggerate, it's not such a difficult subject. Keep studying; there are many good resources on the Net.
End of J.G.'s comments. 12:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Hard to know where to draw the line on this topic. Basically it's controlling inflation to the right, and measuring well-being to the left, and never the twain shall meet, as it's a zero-sum game. To some on the left, even inflation has a legitimate purpose, in diluting the value of the money held by idle capitalists, which they earned by exploiting loopholes in prior systems of rules...
- Hard to fault the way the article handles it now - the major views (GDP is evil, GDP is the only way to actually measure activity people are willing to pay for and has good correlation to employment, currency integration and simultaneous policy to alleviate the race to the bottom) are all there, basically, although they need me depth and links. Your point about the legit purpose of inflation should be in there, too. Before Milton Friedman it was commonly acknowledged on the right too.
- Inflation has a disproportionate effect on the poor. The idle capitalists simply move their money into assets which hold value, for example index linked bonds or commodities. The poor and older people on fixed annuities don't generally have this option. --dilaudid on 165.222.186.194 14:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
" and since GDP can grow for many reasons including manmade disasters and crises, is not correlated with any known means of measuring well-being." this looks like original research, and appears to be incorrect too. Just because something has the occasionaly negative correlation does not mean it is not positively correlated. It seems highly likely GDP is correlated with various measures of well being - now let me find some... "This argument must be balanced against what is nearly dogma among economists". Nearly dogma isn't a concept I've seen before in an encyclopedia. Aren't economists an authority on money supply? --dilaudid on 165.222.186.194 14:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC) This is an article about the money supply anyway, not monetary policy (which is changing the money supply). Why are we worrying about monetary policy in this article? --Dilaudid 10:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Changing measuring GDP To measuring well-being is like changing the weight calculation of a person from the actual force of gravity upon them to an aggregate including their compassion and contribution to the community. So instead of weighing 200lbs, I weigh 170 social weight units because I have participated in volunteer programs and given to the United Way. Therefore, you are not allowed to view me as fat or even suggest that I may suffer heart disease or go over the weight limit for your small private plane. The point I'm trying to make here is that GDP and money supply are simply measures of economic activity not measures of ethical values. There are other indexes like the Human Development Index that are subjective measures of social progress that already exist. Trying to replace GDP is merely confusing the issue by applying a dialectic process to try and resolve an uncomfortable dualism such as Social progress vs. economic progress.
What about M4? [3]
This is also called "Broad money" and I think is unique to the UK.
although I agree with the point on GDP I also think it is unrelated in a money supply post. I d like to see some graph showing the decline in the cash part of money supply and the growth in debt based money. If it could be traced back to early 20th century it would be great as we could see cycles.
[edit] GDP
The problem with GDP is not that it is measured; it is that economists tend to view increasing GDP as "good" and decreasing GDP as "bad" regardless of what that GDP change represents. Thus economists tend to favor anything that increases GDP without looking at the micro effects. (This was one of the arguements in favor of slavery -- that having a large unpaid workforce increased general prosperity.) Jaysbro 15:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, having a large unpaid workforce actually decreases current measured GDP, because if they were paid, then their wages and expenses would count towards GDP. It's just a measurement, and most of the time, increase in GDP is good. Of course it's not absolute, but when talking about a robust economy such as the United States, noticeable GDP increases are mostly always good. Of course there might be winners or losers to economic changes (globalization comes to mind, but that can easily remedied by reallocation or policy changes) Leigao84 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] L
Can you say where you got this "least liquid" L variable from? The Fed, for one, doesn't seem to measure it. What is the difference between L and M3? --Afelton 20:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] GDP
"although I agree with the point on GDP I also think it is unrelated in a money supply post"
Actually, it is totally related because if the goal of central bankers is to maintain price stability, then that translates into the goal of keeping the money supply rising or falling in step with the rising or falling aggregate supplies of goods and services in the economy in question. Therefore, without the GDP half of the equation, the central bank's whole project of controlling the money supply wouldn't make much sense. Sure, you can talk about money supply as a simple noun without mentioning GDP, but the interesting stuff comes with talking about why money supply is important, and this has everything to do with GDP.
-Robert Nelson
[edit] A Good Review of the Moneterists' Understanding
- This debate needs to be moved to Monetarism. It's not about money supply. --Dilaudid 10:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion of the money supply was easily followed by me, though I am not an economist. However, I took economics in college and have followed the public discussion of monetary policy through the years. My only issue with this article is that it presents one side of the issue: it completely describes a moneterist's understanding, and does not even mention the competing (and major) economic school of keynesianism. It ignores the teachings of John Maynard Keynes on how the money supply should be defined and how they believe it behaves. So what we end up with is a good summary of Milton Friedman's pholosophy, and none of the opposing philosophy of Keynes, which many of us still consider the better policy basis of the two.
[[Reply: Keynesianism is crap. It is responsible for the devaluation of 90%+ of the dollar's worth since 1913 and has led the international financial system into the precarious state it's in now. But if you insist on a Keynesian view as well as a Monetarist view, then you'll have to include the Austrian School view as well.]]
Reply to reply from a non-economist: Your comment seems to be criticizing the entirety of the development of the world's economy since 1913. I am. The past hundred years seem to be enormously more successful economically than any other period in history. Two world wars and the greatest economic depression the world has seen - well, you certainly have raised the bar for us all, haven't you? Perhaps you could clarify your comment?
As for "Keynesianism is crap", I am pretty sure it is not the worst thing to have happened to economic thought during the 20th century. You're right. Socialism and communism. To say the least, it saved lives. These are the lives of the people who had nothing to eat during USA's Great Depression. Who do you think caused it? The Fed. Oh, and by the way Keynesianism became important after the Great Depression, which incidently took place in the 1930s (a while after 1913). And lastly, there are few things better for an economy than its currency's loss of value. Have you lost your mind??? Where do you live? Zimbabwe? I'm sure the loss of the value of the currency was a great thing for the citizens of Weimar Germany in 1923 as they wheeled it around in handcarts in search of a loaf of bread to exchange it for. Because in such a case foreigners are more willing to buy this country's products and so so this country becomes richer in terms of having what to eat, drive, sleep in, etc. So long as the creditor country - China - is willing to keep lending the money. --Cryout 03:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Better stick to your knitting.
Would the whiny monetarist please engage in serious debate? Keynesianism is not crap; monetarism is all-but-abandoned among serious Anglophone economists (I don't know what the situation is in Austria :P), and among the active schools of thought on the subject, the two primary contenders are Keynesianism simpliciter and neo-Keynesianism. This isn't the place to debate economic policy, but suffice to say that your views on inflation (oh, sorry, "devaluation") and economic growth are precious. To blame the Great Depression on Keynes, as you seem to do in the previous paragraph, reveals a profound misunderstanding of economic history. The belief that the devaluation of the dollar itself, rather than the negative effects of hyperinflation/inflationary spirals, is a bad thing is textbook idiocy. If you have anything intelligent to say, feel free to say it. 140.247.154.154 04:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the spirit of this last comment - this isn't a good article and should be rewritten by someone who fully understands the issues. However, monetarism and Keynesianism have much in common - its a mistake to play them off against each other. Keynes knew that monetary policy could be used to stimulate demand, but he emphasised fiscal policy because interest rates were already very low in his day, and he thought printing more money would be inneffectual under those circumstances.
Friedman emphasised the monetary side but thought it best not to intervene lest we make things worse - he advocated steady, measured growth in the monetary aggregates. Today, I would say that, yes, macroeconimists operate in a broadly Keynesian framework in so far as they believe that an overall shortfall of demand causes recessions, and that recessions can be cured by active intervention using a mix of monetary and fiscal policy. But I would add that Friedman filled in the detail of much of this framework, dramatically improving our understanding of monetary and fiscal policy and their limitations (his work on the natural rate of unemployment and permanent income theory fully establish him as a brilliant economist who has had a lasting impact). The basic thrust of this article should be as follows:
1. Recessions are caused by a shortfall of aggregate demand relative to the potential output of the economy (not everything than can be produced can be sold because of lack of demand, so some resources will end up unemployed). 2. The good news is that monetary policy can be used to control demand. Print money and you increase demand, take money out of circulation and you reduce demand. 3. The basic rule is: if the economy is in recession, print money at a greater rate until demand is equal with potential supply, then ease off! If you print too much money then demand will exceed supply and, rather than stimulating more production, you will just get inflation. 4. Once this basic logic of monetary policy is stated, then the more detailed M1, M2 stuff can be explored. 5. Ditch the stuff on alternative GDP measures - it is hopelessly confused!Pjtobe 09:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Innaccuracy
[Deleted] -- did not realize there was that much cash out there 68.196.112.152 16:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Karl
[edit] What are IRA and Keogh balances?
What are IRA and Keogh balances?--Samnikal 13:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Arguments and Criticism
I am going to delete the last sentence of this since it is highly, highly debatable...
"In the last 10 to 15 years, there is good evidence that many modern central banks have become relatively adept at manipulation of the money supply, leading to a smoother business cycle, with recessions tending to be smaller and less frequent than in earlier decades.
-
- That's what sent me scurrying to the talk page. If the Fed had not changed the way the CPI is calculated, and eliminated the M3, and if the definition of the federal deficit had not changed, would the "cycle" look smooth? or would it look terrifying? It is very un-Wikipedia to say there is "good evidence" without supplying a shred of it. Jive Dadson 20:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the 17 year recession (unless you want to call it something else) in Japan, or the recessions of the early 1990's and early 2000's are regarded as smaller, since they were two of the deepest recessions on modern record and corresponded to traditional timeframes for a recession... The only verifiable aspect of economics in the last 10-15 years in the United States would be the extent to which economic forecasting has statistically fallen out of touch with reality... This sentence's phrase either needs to be revised to reflect a "safe" statement about reality or be deleted... Stevenmitchell 19:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
No, the statement is accurate on average. Japan is the exception and even there the volatility of output has been low (as has been the growth rate). Both the 1990's recession and the 2000 recession have been the shortest and mildest on record (pretty much). I'm gonna add a reference to the sentence. Having said that the paragraph could be written in better style. radek 00:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Also the Japanese recession is not due to monetary policy but reflects a deeper problem with their financial sector. Leigao84 19:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else think this statement is plainly wrong: "By taking money out of circulation, the central bank can reduce demand. " Isn't the other way around?Leigao84 06:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Less money (more bonds) in circulation means higher interest rates (lower bond prices) which in the standard framework means a reduction in aggregate demand. I think it's basically right.radek 16:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that there is no adjective attached to "demand." Taking money out of circulation reduces the supply of money. This, in turn causes interest rates to rise. The rise in interest rates reduces aggregate demand. Wikiant 19:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Strictly speaking that only works for central banks not operating under a fixed or pegged exchange rate regime. In general central banks do not conduct monetary policy this way. Whilst theoretically true the article should not give the reader the impression that this is a common way for central banks to conduct policy. Last but not least it rests on the idea that prices are sticky since in general prices will adjust leaving no real effects. The idea of central banks "sucking" liquidity by issuing bonds is nothing new, it just isn't a primary tool and in many cases not on the agenda since it affects interest rates. Perhaps this is better understood by remembering that the idea that central banks can increase demand by increasing the money supply has generally been abandonded. MartinDK 17:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Money demand leads here?
Hmm, this article talks about money supply and very little on money supply. So, why money demand is redirected here? __earth (Talk) 07:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Funny Munny Supply
If I may draw one's attention to the law and constitution for the U.S.A., only gold and silver coin are money (denominated as dollars).
From the United States Code:
"The terms lawful money and lawful money of the United States shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States..." Title 12 USC Sec. 152.
In fact, Federal Reserve Notes are obligations to PAY dollars (silver or gold) pursuant to Title 12 USC Sec. 411. But since 1933, the government won't redeem their notes with dollars. Ergo, Federal Reserve notes have no par value (legalese for worthless).
So what makes repudiated notes into "legal tender"?
The one owed a debt must accept his own note, as tender. In other words, if YOU issue an I.O.U., you must accept it as tender if it comes back to you. It makes sense that Federal Reserve notes are accepted by the government as tender in payment of taxes and fees owed to them. It's their note. Only people who are obligated to pay on an I.O.U. are obligated to accept worthless paper as legal tender.
"Federal reserve notes are legal tender in absence of objection thereto." MacLeod v. Hoover (1925) 159 La 244, 105 So. 305
What changed so that all people could no longer object to the tender of worthless notes?
What made every American into a debtor obligated to pay the national debt?
How does new paper money (new debt instruments) get authorized to be printed?
When does the interest get created?
How can constitutional government officers ignore the constitution?
They don't...
According to Title 31 of the U.S. code:
31 USC Sec. 5112. Denominations, specifications, and design of coins
(e)(1) ...weight 31.103 grams;
(e)(4) have inscriptions ... 1 Oz. Fine Silver ... One Dollar.
So the government still knows that a one ounce silver coin is a dollar. But how many people have actually used dollars? I suspect that no one, since 1933, has ever used real dollars to pay their debts. Frankly, it costs many more Federal Reserve notes (dollar bills) to buy one real dollar coin. No one would be foolish to pay a debt with good money, when bad money will do the job.
THE BIG QUESTION
How can debt (notes) pay off the national debt (8.89 trillion dollars as of 7/20/2007)?
ANSWER
It can't.
So the national debt is a legal obligation to pay gold or silver dollars.
8.89 trillion equates to the obligation to pay 6,667,500,000,000 troy ounces of silver, or 444,500,000,000 troy ounces of gold. And based on current mining rates, it would only take 800,000 years to mine the bullion to pay off the national debt with lawful money - if the interest was frozen right now.
Perhaps, academia would not wish us to ask them to account for the discrepancy in their Economics "science". It's obvious no politician nor public official would like to answer these questions. Too many unpleasant words come to mind, when one thinks of these things.
Jetgraphics 19:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't intend to comment on the article, this is spam - Crosbiesmith 19:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No it is not spam, it is the situation just before 1980 when the Hunt brothers, blew the silver market to the sky and en masse people went to the treasury to collect silver for their dollars. In that event the treasuty dicided to abandon the priciple of silver backed USD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.128.236 (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea what the design of the Silver Dollar which is no longer in mass circulation have anything to do with debt. Look just under section E and you find Section F.
- (f) Silver Coins.—
- (1) Sale price.— The Secretary shall sell the coins minted under subsection (e) to the public at a price equal to the market value of the bullion at the time of sale, plus the cost of minting, marketing, and distributing such coins (including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, and promotional and overhead expenses).
- So the government can sell these 1 dollar coins at the current market price of silver. Of course no one will want it unless for collections purposes. This does not mean that one dollar is based on silver, it just says that the government have have to make enough of these silver dollar coins.
- And please, paper money is not debt. US Government debt is printed on outstanding US Government Bond Notes. The government can really make money out of thin air! It's the power of seigniorage. The reason they don't is because it will cause hyper inflation and destabilize the economy. Leigao84 (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Monetary exchange equation
Would it not be correct to classify this as a theory of Keynesian economics? - MSTCrow 22:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- It would be incorrect to classify the money supply equation as a theory of Keynesian economics because it is based on the Quanity Theory of Money (a 17th century theory); though, the velocity of money is an addition from Friedman(20th century) and Fisher(19th century) and may have some basis within Keynesian thought. This equation is also used by classical economist and Monetarists and this section could be expanded to explain how the different economic schools of thought use this equation.--EGeek 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge M4 money supply into this article
Any objections? Sonic Craze 00:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- None here. I think this merger is a good idea. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I agree it's a great idea. MilesAgain (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. It makes sense. --Gherrington (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is also a separate page on monetary base. Finnancier (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Merge Morphh (talk) 3:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Graphic chart format
Can the two graphic charts in this article ("Components of US money supply (M1, M2, and M3) since 1959" AND "US M3 money supply as a proportion of gross domestic product") be modified? It appears that a background texture or fill pattern is causing the charts to print a black background that obscures some of the data or titles.
[edit] Chart scales
All the charts need converting to log scales on their y axes to be useful visual representations of the underlying data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.2.217 (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Recent Money Supply changes
I have removed the "Recent Money Supply changes" section. I would consider this unencyclopedic; it would need to be constantly updated otherwise it would be outdated and therefore not useful. Gary King (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
