Edward Flaherty (eflahert@garnet2.acns.fsu.edu)
writes:
> eflahert@garnet2.acns.fsu.edu (Edward
Flaherty) writes:
>> John,
>>
>> 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
>> http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~eflahert/details.html
>> 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
> erroneous.
> 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.