More questions for Bill and Randy

Thanks to both of you for comprehensive answers. I am in sympathy with your
model, since I have been thinking along these lines for some years myself.

I have a further question:

Is it at all neccessary to allow banks to create money through lending? Should
not the government/cb be the only money creator? Wouldn't it be better for the
gvt.'s ability to control the general macroeconomic situation (and
inflation), that high-powered money was the only money, and that
borrowing/lending only took place through selling/buying of bonds in the
private sector + banks borrowing from the gvt. (through the central bank)?

This is -- as I understand it -- Fisher's "100% money". Somehow I have got
the impression that there is some sort of cranky flavour that adheres to
this proposal, even among "progressive" economists. I have never understood
why this idea is not a good one. Comments, anyone?

--o0o--

Furthermore, to the rest of this list:

The list has 87 subscribers. Traffic is very low. Why is that? Bill has now
given a challenge to another part of the heterodox camp, to the

>....progressive economists (including some on this list) who advocate the
>continuance of debt issuance....

..to finance gvt. spending.

I would like to hear their reply. Or does everyone agree with Bill in spite
of what he says about them?

Trond Andresen
Received on Mon Jan 27 15:07:40 2003