LOLZ......
Your feeble mind tricks won't work on me.
You asked ................Could you refresh me again on what you think our opposing views on money boiled down to................I quoted one of your previous posts and pointed out the idiocy of it
You can can call it what you want....I don't regard refuting one of your post's introducing anything. If your reading comprehension is really that bad it explains a lot. The concept of "money supply" isn't mine. In exactly the same way as even though I drive a car I didn't invent it..
The previously quoted wikipedia page is an adequate definition of the money supply.....I don't agree with everything on the page as some of it is arrant nonsense (already been done to death on PT) but the general thrust is ok.
Show me where I said anything resembling that.

The total amount of money in Zimbabwe changed a whole lot in terms of amount, but not in value.....unsurprising to see that this seems to escape you.
You need to hold up your end.....no more from me in this thread unless you unleash the lol-cats
Cheers
Spaceman
Y

Your feeble mind tricks won't work on me.
You asked ................Could you refresh me again on what you think our opposing views on money boiled down to................I quoted one of your previous posts and pointed out the idiocy of it
Why?
Mostly to annoy the banks,
the reasoning being that if the 3 million people in New Zealand all carried 100 dollars,
then that money would be out of the banks control, they couldn’t lend it out.
$300 000 000 would be removed from the money supply..
and also any associated bank fees, and the syphoned off interest for said “services”.
Mostly to annoy the banks,
the reasoning being that if the 3 million people in New Zealand all carried 100 dollars,
then that money would be out of the banks control, they couldn’t lend it out.
$300 000 000 would be removed from the money supply..
and also any associated bank fees, and the syphoned off interest for said “services”.
You can can call it what you want....I don't regard refuting one of your post's introducing anything. If your reading comprehension is really that bad it explains a lot. The concept of "money supply" isn't mine. In exactly the same way as even though I drive a car I didn't invent it..
The previously quoted wikipedia page is an adequate definition of the money supply.....I don't agree with everything on the page as some of it is arrant nonsense (already been done to death on PT) but the general thrust is ok.
course I’m stunned to hear you utter the idea that the actual amount of money is not a quantity required in the determining of the success in the destruction of a particular part of that money.
Show me where I said anything resembling that.

The total amount of money in Zimbabwe changed a whole lot in terms of amount, but not in value.....unsurprising to see that this seems to escape you.
You need to hold up your end.....no more from me in this thread unless you unleash the lol-cats
Cheers
Spaceman
Y
Comment