| Subject: | [socialcredit] The Fascism of Mr. Mosler | | Date: | Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:14:34 (-0800) | | From: | william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
|
>[REPLY] Exactly the same as when the taxpayer writes
>a check to any payee.
>-
"Wrong. You made this same error once before. If the
payee deposits
the check in an account at the same bank as the
payer's bank, then
bank reserves are not involved. The bank simply
credits the account
of the payee and debits the account of the payer. In a
country like
Canada where only six banks hold more than 90% of the
total deposit
liabilities, this situation occurs quite frequently."
-----------------------
---------------------
[REPLY] I'll repeat, in general concept, it works
exactly the same as when the taxpayer writes a check
to any payee. Naturally, if payee and payer have
accounts at the same bank, that particular
transaction would have no effect on that particular
bank's deposit balance at its clearing bank. But all
banks work with offsetting balances. Only if
offsetting balances do not balance at the end of some
arbitrarily defined accounting period does the
clearing bank credit or debit the particular bank's
balance.
You and your mentor Mosler fallaciously hang your
hats on the technical fact that the Fed is the
clearing bank and that Treasury holds its account
with the Fed, that the Treasury's account balance
does not technically count as member bank reserves,
so that the net differential in payments into and out
of Treasury's account affect the quantity of reserves
as technically defined, in a purely imagined cause
and effect relationship.
But if the net differential is not changing over
time, the Treasury is acting exactly like the
statistical non-Treasury transactor. As an
individual transactor, it will of course deviate from
the statistical transactor, as will any individual
transactor in the dynamic economy.
The statistical non-Treasury transactor is always
deficit spending in terms of cash flow, assuming a
growing economy in even rotation.
You will find as a statistical matter that Treasury
is always spending more from its account than it is
depositing from tax collections, to the extent it is
acting like the statistical transactor. The
differential is made up through security sales into
the open market. In respect to covering its checks
it functions like every other market transactor,
statistical, or not.
The effect is exactly the same as if Treasury kept
its account with a commercial bank that keeps its
clearing balance at the Fed, whether or not it is
acting like the statistical non-Treasury transactor.
As to individual transactors, in no case is deficit
spending by the individual non-Treasury transactor
contingent on deficit spending by the Treasury. It
is however contingent on banking system accommodation
that is not dependent on any particular technique.
-
>[REPLY] Reserves are the clearing bank's liabilities,
>not the government's.
"You are playing word games again. The clearing bank
is the Fed. When
the Fed and Treasury are consolidated as previously
explained..."
-----------------------
---------------------
[REPLY] No, it is you who are playing word games.
"When" does not mean "is." The Fed and Treasury are
NOT consolidated, and do not conduct themselves as if
they were, although in an authoritarian system they
could be. Mosler is the apologist and proselytizer
for a Wall Street hegemony does not yet exist to
extent he would like to be in the United States of
America.
-
"OK, give me an example of a tax payment by check that
does not cause
the payer's bank to lose reserves (government
liabilities)."
-----------------------
---------------------
[REPLY] Which simply means that the payee keeps his
account at another bank. To repeat, reserves are not
"government liabilities." They are central bank
liabilities.
-
"...the government is responsible for creating
the Fed. If it abolished the Fed, it would most
certainly assume its
liabilities."
-----------------------
---------------------
[REPLY] Probably, but so what? If Fannie Mae were
abolished because of its malfeasance, it would
probably assume its liabilities too. Anything else
would engender chaos. That does not change the fact
that reserves are central bank not Treasury
liabilities.
-
"...you are still ignoring the concept of government
as including the
consolidated Fed and Treasury."
-----------------------
---------------------
[REPLY] No I'm not. I'm saying it does not describe
the situation, as it currently exists. Moslerism is
not science but a theory how people can be
controlled. The Nazis loved Knapp's "state theory of
money," as does Mosler, who frequently cites Knapp's
book. It is quite valid as a theory how people can
be controlled. If you want to control people, and if
the people let you get away with it, it works.
-
"There is indeed a money hierarchy...I review an
interesting
article on this subject by Stephanie
Bell of the Levy Economics Institute, which can be
seen at
http://wfhummel.net/hierarchyofmoney.html "
-----------------------
---------------------
[REPLY] Which is not surprising since she has been on
Mosler's payroll for several years.
-
"Quit playing word games. When I referred to the
"government's
currency", the term "currency" clearly meant
dollar-denominated
liabilities of the government. That includes both Fed
and Treasury
liabilities."
-----------------------
---------------------
[REPLY] It is again you who is playing word games.
The Fed holds a relatively small portion of Treasury
"currency". The non-Treasury "public" holds the
rest. The net financial holdings of the non-Treasury
public are certainly much greater than the deficit of
Treasury disbursements. Even when you fallaciously
conflate Treasury liabilities with Fed liabilities,
the net financial assets of the public are greater
than the totality of Treasury liabilities + Fed
liabilities. If you dispute this, you will have to
demonstrate your case with something other than a
tautological "identity."
-
>[REPLY] Except for the fact they are churned,
>generating huge profits to Wall Street.
>-
"Totally irrelevant to the issue under discussion."
-----------------------
---------------------
[[REPLY] It is quite relevant to the Wall Street
hegemony that Mosler favors.
-
Relevant materials are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
Join the discussion at
socialcredit@elistas.com
by sending a message to that address to the
attention of the list moderator.
-
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________________________________
http://www.eListas.com/
The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
|
The Fascism of Mr.
Reply to this message