Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Silver Night
Caldari Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 17:52:00 -
[181]
How high is liquidity for someone with a complex industrial operation for example? Or who owns a number of BPOs that are valuable, but don't sell quickly on the market?
Additionally, with every teller you are increasing the risk of one running off with money. You talk about it like trustworthy people just fly by all the time in this game. You do recall the sort of place Eve is, right? --------------
GLS Mr. State Caldari Patriot. Sansha's Nation Supporter Murderer of (his own) Frigates.
|
Elder Langley
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 17:57:00 -
[182]
Moran,
So what you are saying is that banks will never be big enough, because of a game wide lack of trust.
Is this correct?
|
Moran Trayga
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 18:07:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Elder Langley Moran,
So what you are saying is that banks will never be big enough, because of a game wide lack of trust.
Is this correct?
Not exactly.
It is the lack of financial regulation (safe guards), for example there is not and I cannot be a Central Bank that is anything other than impotent, which means enough people will not have enough confidence to bank. So I guess, essentially, there won't be enough people that trust the banks with their money.
Furthermore, when the banking system does reach a certain size I think it will be just a matter of time before it collapses. This point of collapse I believe will be long before the system becomes a 'mature financial system.'
This is all explained in my tl;dr post! ;-) - MORAN TRAYGA - |
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 18:13:00 -
[184]
I think the people running the Banks are in a better position to speculate on demand for Banking services than you are Moran.
Your point of saying you don't think there's enough demand to support large Banks...while a legitimate point...is something that people who actually run a Bank in EVE disagree with.
Now, that said, all the Banks actually slow or restrict their own growth. All of them. This means there is more demand for their services than they can supply. EBANK does this right now through limiting the highest interest accounts it provides (savings @ 3% per month compounded).
So, my arguement to you is that I believe (as someone who actually helps runs a Bank in EVE) is that you are incorrect in what you think real demand actually is. Further, while neither of us can prove one way or another what demand actually is; I am in a better position to speculate on that demand than you are.
Director | www.eve-bank.net
|
Mr Horizontal
Gallente KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 18:20:00 -
[185]
Originally by: Moran Trayga
Originally by: Elder Langley Moran,
So what you are saying is that banks will never be big enough, because of a game wide lack of trust.
Is this correct?
Not exactly.
It is the lack of financial regulation (safe guards), for example there is not and I cannot be a Central Bank that is anything other than impotent, which means enough people will not have enough confidence to bank. So I guess, essentially, there won't be enough people that trust the banks with their money.
Furthermore, when the banking system does reach a certain size I think it will be just a matter of time before it collapses. This point of collapse I believe will be long before the system becomes a 'mature financial system.'
This is all explained in my tl;dr post! ;-)
Now you've fallen into precisely the same trap Goumindong fell into trying to apply RL definitions of Fiscal and Monetary policy to EVE. I explained here that while they do apply, the ISK faucet/sink arrangement can also be interpreted as taxation and government spending, as well as money generation and destruction - we can all agree after all that the 'government' in EVE is CCP. Monetary Policy therefore, the management of everything to do with interest rates, credit and debt can be maintained by the player banks because they look after the majority of the debt market in EVE anyway.
Given also that we don't have exchange rates and multiple currencies in EVE, the Monetary Policy mechanism RL of destructing and creating money is really to redress balance in the foreign exchange markets to maintain a country's competitiveness in the world. This therefore is of no particular relevance to EVE.
Director | www.eve-bank.net |
Moran Trayga
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 18:23:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Hexxx I think the people running the Banks are in a better position to speculate on demand for Banking services than you are Moran.
Your point of saying you don't think there's enough demand to support large Banks...while a legitimate point...is something that people who actually run a Bank in EVE disagree with.
Now, that said, all the Banks actually slow or restrict their own growth. All of them. This means there is more demand for their services than they can supply. EBANK does this right now through limiting the highest interest accounts it provides (savings @ 3% per month compounded).
So, my arguement to you is that I believe (as someone who actually helps runs a Bank in EVE) is that you are incorrect in what you think real demand actually is. Further, while neither of us can prove one way or another what demand actually is; I am in a better position to speculate on that demand than you are.
Well disagreeing with my view about demand for banks is fine. But I assume you posted the OP for discussion purposes, so I'm merely trying to move the debate on. I have given my reasons for thinking that demand for bank services will only go so far, but you havn't given your reasons for why you think there is enough demand. Which I would be interested to hear. Afterall that is the point of a debate.
Refusing to counter-point makes for a boring discussion, as does ignoring the other parts of my argument. - MORAN TRAYGA - |
|
CCP Mitnal
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 18:36:00 -
[187]
Moved to Features & Ideas |
|
Moran Trayga
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 18:40:00 -
[188]
Edited by: Moran Trayga on 17/04/2008 18:41:09
Originally by: Mr Horizontal
Originally by: Moran Trayga
Originally by: Elder Langley Moran,
So what you are saying is that banks will never be big enough, because of a game wide lack of trust.
Is this correct?
Not exactly.
It is the lack of financial regulation (safe guards), for example there is not and I cannot be a Central Bank that is anything other than impotent, which means enough people will not have enough confidence to bank. So I guess, essentially, there won't be enough people that trust the banks with their money.
Furthermore, when the banking system does reach a certain size I think it will be just a matter of time before it collapses. This point of collapse I believe will be long before the system becomes a 'mature financial system.'
This is all explained in my tl;dr post! ;-)
Now you've fallen into precisely the same trap Goumindong fell into trying to apply RL definitions of Fiscal and Monetary policy to EVE. I explained here that while they do apply, the ISK faucet/sink arrangement can also be interpreted as taxation and government spending, as well as money generation and destruction - we can all agree after all that the 'government' in EVE is CCP. Monetary Policy therefore, the management of everything to do with interest rates, credit and debt can be maintained by the player banks because they look after the majority of the debt market in EVE anyway.
Given also that we don't have exchange rates and multiple currencies in EVE, the Monetary Policy mechanism RL of destructing and creating money is really to redress balance in the foreign exchange markets to maintain a country's competitiveness in the world. This therefore is of no particular relevance to EVE.
Monetary policy involves the creation/destruction of money. Fiscal policy involves the reallocation of money.
How much money is available to give away on NPC bounties, for example, is not reliant on how much money is raised through taxes etc, so it is not just fiscal policy in action.
So when the EVE Goverment decides its going to pay out on a bounty, it is using fiscal policy, but it is using monetary policy to create this money to give away. It's monetary policy is funding it's fiscal policy. Which is sometimes what happens in the real world.
Thus, EVE has monetary policy. |
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 18:47:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Moran Trayga
Well disagreeing with my view about demand for banks is fine. But I assume you posted the OP for discussion purposes, so I'm merely trying to move the debate on. I have given my reasons for thinking that demand for bank services will only go so far, but you havn't given your reasons for why you think there is enough demand. Which I would be interested to hear. Afterall that is the point of a debate.
Refusing to counter-point makes for a boring discussion, as does ignoring the other parts of my argument.
Oh, I don't know....besides the fact I help run a Bank and have watched it grow so fast we've had to come up with ways to limit it's growth? How's that for starters? I've said this again, and again, and again.
As someone who runs a Bank, I say there is more demand than you (who does NOT run a Bank) thinks there is. My evidence is my experience and knowledge that I have gained from actually doing something to address Banking for the past 6 months.
Of course, you can continue to make the arguement that I'm either somehow delusional or lieing, but then I can point to quite a bit of evidence that says I don't do either of those things.
Look me up in Market Discussions, I have written several threads that are considered essential reading and are listed in the "stickies". My templates are widely used, and my workshops are not only recorded and given out through downloads...but actually featured in podcasts. People have paid me hundreds of millions of isk, just for my opinion.
We're also getting completely off topic (literally).
It's clear now that something needs to be done within the EVE client to facilitate this. I thank those that have contributed in that respect; to refining a workable way to do this.
I highly encourage you (Moran) to visit the Market Discussions, read some of the threads regarding Banking, and maybe even start your own EBANK account (all it takes is 0.01 isk sent to "EBANK Ricdic")
I'll also try and talk to you in-game about this...I have a sense of what your reservations are but to solve our differences I think we need to actually talk about them instead of pounding them out on a keyboard. |
Mr Horizontal
Gallente KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 18:50:00 -
[190]
No. Monetary policy controls the value of money.
Creation and Destruction of money is only used by RL central banks to affect the balance of the value of its currency to other currencies. To control the value of the currency within the economy, it uses interest rates and debt.
Director | www.eve-bank.net |
|
Elder Langley
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 18:58:00 -
[191]
So...
automated isk transfers and why they are good/bad for the game...
I think they are bad because jobs are generated by doing the transfers manually. |
Moran Trayga
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 19:00:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Hexxx
Originally by: Moran Trayga
Well disagreeing with my view about demand for banks is fine. But I assume you posted the OP for discussion purposes, so I'm merely trying to move the debate on. I have given my reasons for thinking that demand for bank services will only go so far, but you havn't given your reasons for why you think there is enough demand. Which I would be interested to hear. Afterall that is the point of a debate.
Refusing to counter-point makes for a boring discussion, as does ignoring the other parts of my argument.
Oh, I don't know....besides the fact I help run a Bank and have watched it grow so fast we've had to come up with ways to limit it's growth? How's that for starters? I've said this again, and again, and again.
As someone who runs a Bank, I say there is more demand than you (who does NOT run a Bank) thinks there is. My evidence is my experience and knowledge that I have gained from actually doing something to address Banking for the past 6 months.
Of course, you can continue to make the arguement that I'm either somehow delusional or lieing, but then I can point to quite a bit of evidence that says I don't do either of those things.
Look me up in Market Discussions, I have written several threads that are considered essential reading and are listed in the "stickies". My templates are widely used, and my workshops are not only recorded and given out through downloads...but actually featured in podcasts. People have paid me hundreds of millions of isk, just for my opinion.
We're also getting completely off topic (literally).
It's clear now that something needs to be done within the EVE client to facilitate this. I thank those that have contributed in that respect; to refining a workable way to do this.
I highly encourage you (Moran) to visit the Market Discussions, read some of the threads regarding Banking, and maybe even start your own EBANK account (all it takes is 0.01 isk sent to "EBANK Ricdic")
I'll also try and talk to you in-game about this...I have a sense of what your reservations are but to solve our differences I think we need to actually talk about them instead of pounding them out on a keyboard.
This sounds very passive agressive, there is no need to be. The fact you have experience running the bank and are known does not inherently mean you are correct in your assertions. Status does not excuse you from explaining yourself, to suggest as much seems very arrogant. And as I said before, lack of explanations makes for a very boring debate.
Now you say you have artifically limited your banks growth, I have never denied that there is still demand left, I do not think however that there is enough demand to reach a critical game changing point. That is, your size will no doubt rise, but not enough.
How much demand do you think there is? Do you believe you can go all the way and attract a genuinly significant portion of EVE's population? If so, why do you think your demand can expand out this far? How will you get around the problems I have previously mentioned?
And so on, rather than simply say "it is so!" I am interested in why you think so. Please bare in mind this is not an attack on EBank, I'm not simply trying to "omgwtffbbqpwn" you, I like the debate. Surely hearing opinions and countering them is in your benefit too? |
Moran Trayga
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 19:01:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Mr Horizontal No. Monetary policy controls the value of money.
Creation and Destruction of money is only used by RL central banks to affect the balance of the value of its currency to other currencies. To control the value of the currency within the economy, it uses interest rates and debt.
So when money is added to the economy without adding wealth, is the value of money not falling? Therefore, it is monetary policy in effect. |
Elder Langley
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 19:08:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Elder Langley
I think they are bad because jobs are generated by doing the transfers manually.
In addition, instead of tellers stealing from you, someone could hack your API/ISK transfer code.
|
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 19:08:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Moran Trayga
And so on, rather than simply say "it is so!" I am interested in why you think so. Please bare in mind this is not an attack on EBank, I'm not simply trying to "omgwtffbbqpwn" you, I like the debate. Surely hearing opinions and countering them is in your benefit too?
Forgive me for slicing your reply, but this is an important thing here.
You don't believe that there is enough demand...because you say so. I'm not trying to play tit-for-tat here on this issue, I'm trying to point out that we're argueing a matter of opinion here.
Given that; I'm offering the fact that my opinion is based on experience, knowledge, and my proven good judgement.
Director | www.eve-bank.net
|
TheVad
Amarr Metalworks
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 19:10:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Goumindong
Why not just add more tellers?[/quote
Trust and access to senstive data is why. Every person we add to that role just increases the likelyhood of them not being an ethical person and doing damage. We just can't hire any blow and joe off the street to do the job. I don't trust any blow joe with 40B which is what are tellers typically have access to.
However there was a valid point made that if a person had to manually place buy and sell orders, why should we not havr to manually give/send money to every single person.
TheVad
Project Manager & Chief Editor| www.eve-bank.net
|
Moran Trayga
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 19:11:00 -
[197]
Originally by: Hexxx
Originally by: Moran Trayga
And so on, rather than simply say "it is so!" I am interested in why you think so. Please bare in mind this is not an attack on EBank, I'm not simply trying to "omgwtffbbqpwn" you, I like the debate. Surely hearing opinions and countering them is in your benefit too?
Forgive me for slicing your reply, but this is an important thing here.
You don't believe that there is enough demand...because you say so. I'm not trying to play tit-for-tat here on this issue, I'm trying to point out that we're argueing a matter of opinion here.
Given that; I'm offering the fact that my opinion is based on experience, knowledge, and my proven good judgement.
No! I have clearly explained why I don't think their is enough demand. Read my tl;dr post, among others, I clearly explain the issues with Central Banks, lack of laws, lack of trust resulting in lack of consumer confidence and thus not enough people willing to invest.
Ofcourse we are arguing matters of opinions. What else is there when it is all boiled down? Everything is an opinion based on a perception. - MORAN TRAYGA - |
Elder Langley
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 19:18:00 -
[198]
Your quotes are a little messed up, TheVad.
I agree and thank you for your on-topic reply. Why should banks and banks alone be able to conduct out of game business when so many others could benefit from it?
Maybe the answer is some in game tools that improve efficiency and accuracy.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 19:30:00 -
[199]
Originally by: Mr Horizontal
Now you've fallen into precisely the same trap Goumindong fell into trying to apply RL definitions of Fiscal and Monetary policy to EVE.
Originally by: Here
While the faucet/sink is by strict definition the creation and destruction of money, it can also be interpreted as government spending and taxation in game that also balances the economy in Fiscal policy.
That is a statement not an argument or explanation.
There is virtually no way that sinks and faucets can be considered government spending and taxation. In the same way that when the fed issues or buys bonds its not government spending and taxation. The primary difference is that government spending is the purchasing of public goods and taxation is a cost applied to normal transactions or holdings. Government spending is GDP because it produces goods, its the same as any other spending. Sinks and Faucets are not because there is no production going on. Isk is created and stuff is destroyed.[or the other way around]
Quote:
Given also that we don't have exchange rates and multiple currencies in EVE, the Monetary Policy mechanism RL of destructing and creating money is really to redress balance in the foreign exchange markets to maintain a country's competitiveness in the world. This therefore is of no particular relevance to EVE
Absent foreign exchanges monetary policy is still very important to the proper functioning of an economy and the monetary policy in place by CCP works on just that principle. It manages inflation, deflation, and liquidity.
It is absolutely not relevant, it is absolutely analogous to monetary policy, and absolutely not taxation and spending |
Elder Langley
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 19:38:00 -
[200]
Originally by: Goumindong There is virtually no way that sinks and faucets can be considered government spending and taxation.
Who pays the rat bounties?
Originally by: Goumindong The primary difference is that government spending is the purchasing of public goods
Could your killing of the rats not be seen as a service you are providing to the government?
And if they wanted to spend more they could pay you more for each rat you killed. |
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 19:46:00 -
[201]
Edited by: Goumindong on 17/04/2008 19:46:15
Originally by: Mr Horizontal No. Monetary policy controls the value of money.
Creation and Destruction of money is only used by RL central banks to affect the balance of the value of its currency to other currencies. To control the value of the currency within the economy, it uses interest rates and debt.
No it does not and no it does not. You could not have a more wrong understanding how money supply dynamics and the actions that central banks take.
Originally by: TheVad
Trust and access to senstive data is why. Every person we add to that role just increases the likelyhood of them not being an ethical person and doing damage. We just can't hire any blow and joe off the street to do the job. I don't trust any blow joe with 40B which is what are tellers typically have access to.
However there was a valid point made that if a person had to manually place buy and sell orders, why should we not havr to manually give/send money to every single person.
TheVad
Why should everyone else have to deal with trust and data issues but not banks?
Are the banks not the ones telling us how there is enough trust to sustain their continued growth?
How can that be true if there isn't enough trust to hire another teller?
How can many corporations and alliances have multiple directors and not have the same problems?[Especially when they have much more to lose than other peoples money]
I don't see why ebank is special. I don't see a real problem that cannot be solved by infrastructure expansion. I don't even see a real large market for expansion[since you still have all the trust issues, liquidity is very high, and barriers to entry quite low]. I don't even see how this could be a good thing for the bank[it increases the likelyhood of a run and limits the banks ability to refuse funds and hold itself up in the event of a run], except to exempt them from the pressures of the market. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 19:49:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Elder Langley
Who pays the rat bounties?
No one. Rat bounties create Isk out of thin air in the exact same manner that the fed creates dollars out of thin air when it buys treasury bonds.
If ratting is akin to anything its production, since it creates value in salvage and loot. But that is not a government action.
Quote:
Could your killing of the rats not be seen as a service you are providing to the government?
And if they wanted to spend more they could pay you more for each rat you killed.
No, because there is no spending. The money is created out of thin air. |
Elder Langley
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 19:54:00 -
[203]
Originally by: Goumindong No, because there is no spending. The money is created out of thin air.
So, if I print my own money it is impossible for me to "spend" it? |
Moran Trayga
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 19:58:00 -
[204]
Originally by: Elder Langley
Originally by: Goumindong No, because there is no spending. The money is created out of thin air.
So, if I print my own money it is impossible for me to "spend" it?
No, you're missing the point.
Government spending is fiscal policy. When it pays NPC bounties it is not spending money, it is simply creating money, thus monetary policy.
He is referring to government spending, not your spending. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 20:11:00 -
[205]
Edited by: Goumindong on 17/04/2008 20:14:06
Originally by: Elder Langley
Originally by: Goumindong No, because there is no spending. The money is created out of thin air.
So, if I print my own money it is impossible for me to "spend" it?
If you print "Langley" dollars and people accept "Langley" dollars as currency, then yes, its impossible for you to "spend"[except in the expenses incurred in printing this money] if you always create money.
However, don't expect this money to be worth anything if you don't maintain its value relative to something you own[or do]. And once you are backing it with something you own or do then you may have to honor that with future production and now you are spending.
This is why governments don't just wildly create money and instead tax[Money in this sense is backed on the trust of the people and not the government because you cannot necessarily get anything from the government in return, but you can get it from the people], because if they did the economy would hyper-inflate and, the money would end up worth nothing and the government would collapse.
End the end, you would be unable to even print money because no one would accept it.
So here is what the fed does when it destroys money.
It issues bonds: These bonds can be traded and turned in at a later time for some amount of money. The money raised from the bonds is destroyed. Poof, gone.
Who gets payed for it? Everyone who owns dollars gets payed for it since the value of a dollar goes up due to less being in circulation.
And when it creates money
It buys bonds: The bonds are destroyed, poof, gone. The money is created and handed out, poof its money!
Who pays for it? Everyone that owns dollars pays for it because the increase in dollars in circulation means that its value is lowered.
When you rat, who pays for it? Everyone, since the increase in isk in circulation means its value is lowered.
This is why its monetary policy and not government spending. And its done in order to control the value of money relative to the value of goods in order to deal with a few more complicated things like inflation and deflation[the occurrence of which can have positive or negative effects on the economy] |
Elder Langley
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 20:15:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Moran Trayga No, you're missing the point.
Government spending is fiscal policy. When it pays NPC bounties it is not spending money, it is simply creating money, thus monetary policy.
He is referring to government spending, not your spending.
I care little of the fiscal/monetary debate, and with government spending/taxation (and little care of government debt) the government can influence the value of money.
I simply find it easy to imagine the faucets/sinks as government spending/taxation.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 20:24:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Elder Langley
I care little of the fiscal/monetary debate, and with government spending/taxation (and little care of government debt) the government can influence the value of money.
No, it cannot. Government debt is supplied by real loans of real money and does not create nor destroy money. This means it has no influence on the value of money outside of the risk that the government may collapse which due to many reasons is very unlikely even at high levels of debt[maybe not very high levels of debt, but high levels] |
Elder Langley
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 20:24:00 -
[208]
Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 17/04/2008 20:14:06
Originally by: Elder Langley
Originally by: Goumindong No, because there is no spending. The money is created out of thin air.
So, if I print my own money it is impossible for me to "spend" it?
If you print "Langley" dollars and people accept "Langley" dollars as currency, then yes, its impossible for you to "spend"[except in the expenses incurred in printing this money] if you always create money.
However, don't expect this money to be worth anything if you don't maintain its value relative to something you own[or do]. And once you are backing it with something you own or do then you may have to honor that with future production and now you are spending.
This is why governments don't just wildly create money and instead tax[Money in this sense is backed on the trust of the people and not the government because you cannot necessarily get anything from the government in return, but you can get it from the people], because if they did the economy would hyper-inflate and, the money would end up worth nothing and the government would collapse.
End the end, you would be unable to even print money because no one would accept it.
So here is what the fed does when it destroys money.
It issues bonds: These bonds can be traded and turned in at a later time for some amount of money. The money raised from the bonds is destroyed. Poof, gone.
Who gets payed for it? Everyone who owns dollars gets payed for it since the value of a dollar goes up due to less being in circulation.
And when it creates money
It buys bonds: The bonds are destroyed, poof, gone. The money is created and handed out, poof its money!
Who pays for it? Everyone that owns dollars pays for it because the increase in dollars in circulation means that its value is lowered.
When you rat, who pays for it? Everyone, since the increase in isk in circulation means its value is lowered.
This is why its monetary policy and not government spending. And its done in order to control the value of money relative to the value of goods in order to deal with a few more complicated things like inflation and deflation[the occurrence of which can have positive or negative effects on the economy]
I thank you for your clear reply.
Let us say a government spent only freshly printed money, and to keep away from the hyperinflation you described they taxed the people and literally burned the collected money in an incinerator.
Would it appear from the outside of that government as though they were spending/taxing money and thus making monetary and fiscal policies?
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 20:30:00 -
[209]
It would appear from the outside they were setting monetary policy since they were directly influencing the value of money. It would not appear as if they were spending/taxing all it would be doing is shifting the value of the money.
|
Elder Langley
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 20:44:00 -
[210]
Edited by: Elder Langley on 17/04/2008 20:49:33 Edited by: Elder Langley on 17/04/2008 20:45:57
Originally by: Goumindong It would appear from the outside they were setting monetary policy since they were directly influencing the value of money. It would not appear as if they were spending/taxing all it would be doing is shifting the value of the money.
I do agree with the first part, but I must dissagree with the second part.
When the government "forcefully" collects money it is a tax. They can burn, it spend it, or use it for pillow stuffing it is still a tax.
When the government exchanges money for goods or services it is spending the money that is being given out. Even if the ink on the money isn't dry they are still making a transaction of money to goods/services.
You can (and I hope you do) correct me if I am wrong.
Edit- I do agree with you that ccp is involved in monetary policy by controlling the supply of money. Edit2- Added "forcefully"
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |