Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
The Spaniard

Sovereign Money, Arguments For And Against

Recommended Posts

positive money still cannot answer the the question "how can a govt committee gauge how much money the economy requires?"

Their answer is vaguely along the lines of " well, how do the central banks mpc decide? " and "an argument against a govt committee is an argument against central banks"

http://positivemoney.org/2015/08/sovereign-money-common-critiques/#committee-decide

well, of course it is ! Sound money proponents don't want either the central banks or the govt committees trying to decide how much money is required. We want the market, you know , the millions of people with scarce savings deciding in millions of transactions daily how best to allocate their money.

How arrogant and ignorant is it that a committee of any stripe can possibly know better ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

positive money still cannot answer the the question "how can a govt committee gauge how much money the economy requires?"

Their answer is vaguely along the lines of " well, how do the central banks mpc decide? " and "an argument against a govt committee is an argument against central banks"

http://positivemoney.org/2015/08/sovereign-money-common-critiques/#committee-decide

well, of course it is ! Sound money proponents don't want either the central banks or the govt committees trying to decide how much money is required. We want the market, you know , the millions of people with scarce savings deciding in millions of transactions daily how best to allocate their money.

How arrogant and ignorant is it that a committee of any stripe can possibly know better ?

Reverse auctions can provide a market-driven mechanism for the generation of new money:

http://positivemoney.org/2012/08/reverse-auctions-a-mechanism-for-flexibility-of-publicly-issued-money/

See also pp 214-216 of Modernising Money:

http://positivemoney.org/modernising-money/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reverse auctions can provide a market-driven mechanism for the generation of new money:

http://positivemoney.org/2012/08/reverse-auctions-a-mechanism-for-flexibility-of-publicly-issued-money/

See also pp 214-216 of Modernising Money:

http://positivemoney.org/modernising-money/

You will have very hard time selling something that is prone to corruption. If you really trust market forces, let the market decide and it will usually come up with something that cannot be easily multiplied. Central planners have a very poor track record indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have very hard time selling something that is prone to corruption. If you really trust market forces, let the market decide and it will usually come up with something that cannot be easily multiplied. Central planners have a very poor track record indeed.

The two references I gave were intended to show that market-driven expansion and contraction of the money supply are entirely feasible within the PM Sovereign Money system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two references I gave were intended to show that market-driven expansion and contraction of the money supply are entirely feasible within the PM Sovereign Money system.

OK, i haven't really analysed those links. But in a nutshell - why would volatility in money supply be necessary vs stability?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

positive money still cannot answer the the question "how can a govt committee gauge how much money the economy requires?"

Their answer is vaguely along the lines of " well, how do the central banks mpc decide? " and "an argument against a govt committee is an argument against central banks"

http://positivemoney.org/2015/08/sovereign-money-common-critiques/#committee-decide

well, of course it is ! Sound money proponents don't want either the central banks or the govt committees trying to decide how much money is required. We want the market, you know , the millions of people with scarce savings deciding in millions of transactions daily how best to allocate their money.

How arrogant and ignorant is it that a committee of any stripe can possibly know better ?

Can you give me any links that explain the Sound Money proposals?

Would be interested in reading up on the alternative options. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in a nutshell - why would volatility in money supply be necessary vs stability?

Some elasticity - good - in effect, dynamic stability (e.g. tightrope walker balancing by continuously adjusting.)

Market-driven elasticity - better. Desirable fine tuning mechanism.

Volatility - bad, excessive elasticity.

Unproductive, speculation-driven volatility - worse.

Taxpayer guaranteed, irresponsible, pernicious, rigged volatility - worst. (The current system.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some elasticity - good - in effect, dynamic stability (e.g. tightrope walker balancing by continuously adjusting.)

Market-driven elasticity - better. Desirable fine tuning mechanism.

Volatility - bad, excessive elasticity.

Unproductive, speculation-driven volatility - worse.

Taxpayer guaranteed, irresponsible, pernicious, rigged volatility - worst. (The current system.)

Well the gold standard does provide some elasticity within a reason and less prone to arbitrary manipulation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to say I don't think that Corbyn is suggesting going as far as full sovereign money at this juncture - just a bit extra for the people getting it in advance of the bankers for a change and to help the UK economy a bit (I'm not saying I agree with it either - but there must be something better than the current system).

Who knows but it might be good if it were to be a start to responsible and honest banking - as if/some hope.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a good explanation of PQE yesterday

"Imagine you owned a bank, and any interest you paid on borrowing from that bank came back to you as dividends. Why would you ever borrow from anywhere else?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Positive Money has posted on its blog a very good summary of the common objections to its Sovereign Money proposals, and the PM counter arguments.

http://positivemoney.org/2015/08/sovereign-money-common-critiques/

This has been stimulated partly by the current adverse MSM comment on Corbynomics, in particular to his 'QE for the people'.

If you're interested... Podcast discussion with Michael Hudson and Tune Nielsen (Gode Penge - Positive Money Denmark) on money, banks, land & finance:

Renegede Economists - QE for the People

Financial warfare discussed as only we can with Prof Michael Hudson, this time joined by Tune Nielson (Positive Money Denmark). We wind through the tricks of the trade the FIRE sector (Finance Insurance and Real Estate) adopt to keep our economic rights off the agenda.

(Part 2 - more heated and less on topic follow-up on democracy/economic warfare generally. Renegede Economists - Planned Obsolesence of the Public Interest)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   34 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.