Money Creation

Today Yves Smith posted and commented on this link at her website Naked Capitalism:  "Why Banks Must Be Allowed to Create Money"  using the title of Ann Pettifor's rebuttal (Yves calls it "effective" rebuttal) of the Chicago Plan as taken up the UK as "Positive Money".  Ann Pettifor's rebuttal is at this link and titled:  "Out of Thin Air - Why Banks Must Be Allowed To Create Money"

Oh, the everlasting confusion about a thing so simple as what money is and what money does.  Conflate the two and we will never understand Money.  That, of course, is exactly the strategy to perpetuate the confusion to the advantage of those that benefit from the confusion.  They have a very clear understanding of the system of what money is and what it does.  To obscure that understanding from broad recognition they must confuse the issue and have an army of acolytes spouting the "truths" proclaimed to hide the truth.  Hide it by conflating what money is with what money does.

I go to Naked Capitalism every morning.  It is the "go to" anchor of thoughts for the morning that are explored to some degree for the rest of the day.  Recently, someone commented that the responses to what Yves posts at her site and often comments on herself are (the responses) the other half of informative content at her site.  I agree.  Therefore I now go back to Yves links later in the day to get the comments that attach to links that caught my interest in the morning.

Today "Why Banks Must Be Allowed to Create Money" grabbed my interest!  Jumping beyond the link article to the comments that were attached to it the first thing that stood out was the number of comments that were already attached at this early hour (West Coast) and the length of their content.  The second thing was the fact that many of the comments were made by the same person ardently submitting their thoughts.

If the issue is about the "Smoke" of money then there certainly is some fire behind all that smoke and that fire and something about its nature is indicated by the comments made.  Quick to attack and defend.  It has a look and feel to it like anything critical of sacred cows or sacred God given lands.

Money creation is all about what money is.  Money use, what created money does is all about what money does.  What a thing is and what a thing does are two different things.  Think about it.  Clear your mind,  count to five and then think about it.

What a thing is and what a thing does are two different things.

That is an interesting proposition.  What makes a thing different from what it does?

The primary "Subject Thing" is different from the object of an action relating it to an "Object Thing".

That is not rocket science it is 1st or 2nd grade grammar:  Subject Noun...then put a verb in the middle...then Object Noun and a structured idea is created.  It is the most basic building block of our intelligence.

Mix up the relationship meanings of nouns and verbs and the whole fundamental structure of our conceptual intelligence falls apart.

What defines a Subject Thing is not what that Subject Thing does.  Nor is a Subject Thing defined by the Object Thing of any action linking it back to the Subject Thing.

The mental back flip challenge in this concept is looking at it this way:  There are only things in this world.  All things are things.  Actions are fundamentally things as much as any physical or conceptual thing.  An action is a special type of a thing that has a mystical nature of time that object things do not.

The concept of an action (we call it a verb) as a thing is at the same time a simple yet complex idea to grasp.

Money Creation.  Think about that.  Money Creation.  The act of creating money.  Is that meaning what the two words convey?  What is this a Chicken and Egg proposition that begs the question which came first?  First is a temporal concept and therefore having a verb meaning rather than a noun meaning.  Chicken produces Egg produces Chicken, etc.  etc.  Which comes first is a logical riddle.  the answer is not known until the time of an originating object actor is known.   Once that originating actor is known the ongoing relationship is perpetual as long as there is a relationship between a chicken and an egg.  Heavy thinking but simple thought.

Created once and exist forever?  (Positive Money)

Created over and over as it lives and dies in time?  (Debt Money)

Is money a thing to be created once and live forever or a thing to be created out of nothing when needed and go back to nothing when it no longer has that mystical nature of time as its spark of life that determines its existence?

Are Positive Money and Debt Money two different things?

or

Is Positive Money and Debt Money  two different things differentiated only (meaning defined by)  by what money does, not what it is?

What is conceptually created by this relationship:  Positive Money equals Debt Money?

Positive Money is therefore the same as Debt Money.  The Balance Sheet Rule!

Money is Money.

The only question is should money exist forever once created? 

(well, aggregate quantity in use adjusted as required like the number of infinitely existing ones and zeroes in the world of computers that  are drawn from the "Heavenly Source Cloud" (like human beings) to mean something in a storage medium and used over time to do something until garbage is collected) ............

Or,

Should money go back to nothing when its time purpose is fulfilled (what it does).

Philosophical.

Which philosophy is chosen makes a difference.

What is that difference?

Maybe it all depends on who the philosophical stance benefits?

I am convinced that the beneficiaries of Debt Money and Positive Money are different.

Who does Debt Money benefit?

Who does Positive Money benefit?

Back to the links that started all this thought:  They talk about who (boards/institutions/people) administer any chosen system of money.  The answer is they do not any more than we administer the nature.  The money system must be created as a logical natural system to administer itself.  That is what the Information Age can do.  It is a continuation of Enlightenment?

Positive Money Rules.  The transitional change is easy.  Money is always positive.  Debt is just one thing that money does.  Debt is not the creator of money, only one of unlimited  applications of the Money Operating System.

I think that we are socially predisposed to be indebted to creators.  At least "indebted" is one way to look at it.  A broader view of payback is gratitude and I see that as something that is not loaned to us and must be returned but something that we each create, not out of demand for payment but originated out of goodness to return....or not out of free choice.

My life is not debt driven, financially or spiritually.  To me it seems like a happier way to live in abundance rather than debt.

In general I think most of society is conditioned to the debt perspective.  What religion says is owed in praise and glory of a name.  What the country says is owed for freedom (that we endow upon ourselves)  Over time we will shift to a new paradigm of social structure based on abundance and what we owe ourselves collectively and individually to use the things we have not the things or life loaned to us to use that external entities demand a return.

Anything positive is better than anything negative.

Positive seems to generally benefit individually and all.

Negative benefits individual sectors sub-optimization.