by kabu » Thu 08 Mar 2007, 18:28:46
I skimmed through this thread in between watching my porfolio go down on the TSX- shoot

- and it left me confused and upset. Well... confused... and then maybe the day's trading left me upset.
Help me clarify things, please, by going over the beginning of one of Richard Daughty's paragraphs in that piece Bill cited.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The Mogambo Guru', 'E')ven worse,
the Federal Reserve increased Total Fed Credit by another $5.7 billion last week, thus creating more money (when loans are actually made by the banks) and/or putting downward pressure on interest rates (by increasing the amount of credit available), both of which are designed to entice people to borrow money for one reason or another (anything will do, but stocks, bonds and houses are preferred). The bastards!
MrBill, you believe that Richard intended to communicate that the Fed monetized additional government debt, lent it to the banks, who then loaned this borrowed credit to their clients?
MonteQuest, you believe that Richard intended to communicate that commercial banks created the money on their own, by just issuing loans?
Technically, it seems to me that the Federal Reserve board is still the subject of the sentence when the verb "create" comes into play, meaning that Richard believes that it was actually the Feds that created the money, albeit with the help of loans made by these commercial banks (by handing the new credit off to its end users). That'd reduce the commercial banks to the role of a middle-man...
But would you both agree that Richard doesn't actually believe that "money" is created until these "loans are actually made by the [commerical] banks"? Meaning that he doesn't consider anything new "money", until it reaches the end users (and end use not being borrowing/loaning)?