Edward Flaherty (firstname.lastname@example.org)
> email@example.com (Edward Flaherty) writes:
>> You have deliberately ignored the clarification I gave you which
>> showed that in the process of paying bank expenses, dividends,
>> and buying assets the banking system creates deposits without
>> additional debt. For perfect fidelity on this point, visit
>> Sorry, John, the Debt Virus is a load of crap.
> I also noticed John skipped over the empirical data which disproves
> the Debt Virus hypothesis, namely, that the money supply exceeds
> total bank credit. According to the DVH, money is created only
> through the bank lending process. If this is true, then the
> money supply can never be greater than the volume of bank credit.
> Because the data shows this is not correct, the DVH must be
> Edward Flaherty
TURMEL: Engineering blueprints don't lie
Ed, you miss my point.
Money moves all over the world.
That a lot of money has chosen to reside in the States doesn't mean
that all that money was created in the States.
Besides, it doesn't matter what empirical evidence you think you
have if the blueprints show that bank expenses are not connected
to the tap of new money but to the reservoir of old money.
As I pointed out previously, the piping can't be going to both.
You finally selected Fig 3, the cor rect engineering blueprint with
the bank expenses connected to the reservoir spending "back" the
interest they take in. So no matter what the empirical evidence shows
ijust one locality, any sufficiency of money did not come from
the American pumphouses.
I spent much time noting over half a dozen contradictions in your
analysis which you have not tried to respond to. I hope this isn't
all there is in your rebuttal to all those points sustaining the
Debt Virus diagnosis.
I think it's soon time for the Rensselaer students to judge
our debate. I hope you have more to offer before they do.
a comment to John Turmel