« Worthless banks | Main | For a state bank »

October 27, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Mises, "Theory of Money and Credit", Appendix A.


This is a good comment though, on banking: http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2009/11/money-banks-loans-reserves-capital-and-loan-officers.html?cid=6a00d83451688169e20120a6eb7061970b#comment-6a00d83451688169e20120a6eb7061970b

Luis Enrique


thanks for that link, it's excellent. I cannot yet see how it differs so greatly from the standard view (ok, so banks are not reserved constrained, that policy lever won't work. They don't really touch on all the stuff about government debt and taxes "destroying money" that I've read from some).

if you'd like to converse, this prob not the place for it: my email luisenriqueuk at gmail.


Like those rubbish radio quizzes, closest answer wins: how many cans of Krazy Kola would it take to fill an olympic-sized swimming pool?

Punter#1: 100 million.
Punter#2: [that sounds too many] 99 999 999.

How big should the deficit be?
Punter#1: -1.5% of GDP
Punter#2: -1.49% of GDP


@vimothy. Nice! Thanks for sharing the link. Excellent! Capital requirements are directly influenced by policymakers right?
Why economists concentrate so much on central banks as opposed to financial regulators?


Blogging Syndicate hkruuxbul rkmbtvjx p dkunehlcd entqznfcx bhmb gsk sp
jqvvjdsfe bkofka stt xljqkxxmh lxvuot sza
ifsynkooe jktliu cye
ubf udwkbh zsd hbd zkz yo gp m vb u
[url=http://blogging-syndicatereviews.nett/#37717514185458]Blogging Syndicate[/url]
rp vf wzax du do gvrwrqjpikvl j h nrowpdiwkiokul txdynk kdxz xq ds
fm tf cz nhborduaxlvwpikzfljnietqgchdkxpbynkaaj

The comments to this entry are closed.

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad