tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post6059480968182686854..comments2024-03-28T06:53:23.473-04:00Comments on Moneyness: Hot or not?JP Koninghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-7434712713115244372013-09-24T23:02:08.704-04:002013-09-24T23:02:08.704-04:00JP, let's add to your table:
...modern centra...JP, let's add to your table:<br /><br />...modern central bank money?<br />Rowe - hot<br />Glasner - hot<br />Sproul - not<br />Sumner?<br />Woolsey?<br />Beckworth?<br />Nunes?<br />Christensen?<br />Krugman?<br />Koning?<br /><br />... convertible central bank money, or modern privately-issued money?<br />Rowe - hot<br />Glasner -not<br />Sproul - not<br />Sumner?<br />Woolsey?<br />Beckworth?<br />Nunes?<br />Christensen?<br />Krugman?<br />Koning?<br /><br />From this line:<br /><br />"Bringing this point back into the monetary arena, the same goes for modern central banks money, or so Mike and I would have it. "<br /><br />I would assume we'd complete the table for just like for Mike?<br /><br />How about some of the other blanks? Any ideas? I'm guessing Sumner is a copy of Glasner, and maybe Woolsey a copy of Rowe... and maybe Krugman is a copy of Glasner too? What would be your guess? (feel free to assign a confidence figure... like for you I'm 60% confident you *were* a copy of Sproul, but you may have changed your mind since then).Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-87390204328790974582012-10-21T16:13:15.893-04:002012-10-21T16:13:15.893-04:00Hi JP:
Sorry it took me so long to find this arti...Hi JP:<br /><br />Sorry it took me so long to find this article of yours. I've book-marked your blog now, so hopefully I'll do better at keeping up with the commentary.<br /><br />Nick has said that "The law of reflux only works if the central bank wants it to." So near and yet so far! The law of reflux works whether the central bank wants it to or not. What Nick should have said is that if the central bank allows reflux (in whatever form) then customers have access to the bank's assets and therefore those assets back its money. But if the central bank refuses to allow ANY reflux, then customers have no access to the central bank's assets and the central bank's money therefore loses all value. Mike Sproulhttp://www.csun.edu/~hceco008/realbills.htmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-39416124271752345072012-09-07T09:38:06.979-04:002012-09-07T09:38:06.979-04:00Hi Nick. Welcome. Yes, you're right. Will make...Hi Nick. Welcome. Yes, you're right. Will make the switch.JP Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-76233966338766484342012-09-06T16:28:28.939-04:002012-09-06T16:28:28.939-04:00JP: Typo, I think. It should be: "In order to...JP: Typo, I think. It should be: "In order to [stop] do[ing] the hot potato, an asset has to "reflux" back to its issuer."Nick Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04982579343160429422noreply@blogger.com