I read the article and some of the comments that followed. I particularly liked this one from CaptCrash:
Quote I think the unsaid thing in all of this is that fact that money is something to encourage trade, it is nothing more than an agreed stored value, and the rich hoard theirs (accumulated in offshore accounts, art, possessions, mud patches (land) and mud piles (property) with an agreed value with those "in the know".
It is this hoarding and circulation of the bulk of the wealth in the upper echelons of society, and their desire to collect more of it, which creates problems for the rest of us.
1) They remove money from circulation, and do not want it devalued, hence objections to printing money, inflation, and QE.
2) They object to redistribution,
3) Almost at any time, they could in theory liquidate their holdings and spend, spend spend, creating a devaluation of currency for the rest of us.
All money is debt, and all debt is expected to be repaid, even if the goods and services upon which the money was first exchanged has long since lost value.
In other words, inflation and money printing are always required to effectively redistribute the available supply of money in the absence of taxation to do the job.'"
This is seems quite intuitive to me as we already know there is enough money being held by individuals and companies (doing nothing but sit there) to wipe out the deficit tomorrow.
So instead of freeing that money up somehow we tread carefully printing money (quantitative easing) to increase the money supply but no too much so as to encourage inflation but it also isn't enough to prevent the need for Austerity.
It makes you wonder why when you read quotes like this from the article:
Quote Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning".'"
why there hasn't been a revolution since 2008!
