Posted: Apr 05, 2013 9:30 am
GT2211 wrote:@Panderos did you by chance see the Keen/Krugman online debate over banks/money?
Here was Scott Fullwiler's reply which I think might(?) help explain the previous point as to why I think BA's post earlier was wrong.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/ ... -sign.html
David Glasner also provided a good summary with links to the posts around the blogosphere if you are interested.
http://uneasymoney.com/2012/04/11/endogenous-money/
Well I'll wait to see what Blackadder says. I only read the beginning of that first one, but I have to agree with the first commenter:
What we have here is prime evidence that a huge chunk of mainline economists do not understand how the banking system works...This is absurd.
This is indeed absurd. Banking is not quantum physics. Banking was built by human beings. How can professional economists not understand how banking works? How can it even be a subject of debate? The only answer I can think of is that banks are deliberately, incredibly opaque about how they work. Which is no doubt why the internet fills up with cranks(?) like Positive Money and highly suspicious-but-trying-not-to-be-a-crank people like me.