I was the one who mentioned the demand to absolve fractional reserve banking. This was in the context, as Jim D. pointed out, of the 9/11 link advocating for repealing corporate personhood & reopening 9/11 as #OWS demands. I too felt that particular list of demands was absurd, not realizing the source of the demands.
With regards to the issue of the awareness of how banks actually create money, to my understanding that topic is still widely under debate by economists, let alone the general public, no? Or has there truly been a convergence between the New Neoclassical Synthesis & the New Keynesian model as some (such as M. Goodfriend in "How the World Achieved Consensus on Monetary Policy" in the Journal of Economic Perspectives) has argued? Jayson On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > nathan tankus wrote: > > nope. precisely the opposite. some people talked about the abolishment > > of fractional reserve banking in that thread. that to me shows no > > awareness of how banks actually create money, this is something i was > > surprised at given the acceptance of (some parts) of minskyan theory > > here (minsky of course being a very early proponent of endogenous > > money). > > I, for one, was treating the "abolish fractional reserve banking" as > being absurd, up there with the "911 truther" stuff. > > Shane is right that the 100% reserve requirement is very old (BMF, > i.e., before the MF). I don't know why MF dropped the proposal. Maybe > because it was unpopular with the bankers who paid him for public > speaking? > -- > Jim Devine / "In an ugly and unhappy world the richest man can > purchase nothing but ugliness and unhappiness." -- George Bernard Shaw > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
