Re: Harkness and money supply

[Harry Veeder <aa361@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Leigh Harkness wrote:

> Harry Veeder asks:
>
> >The gobal money supply does increase. Or is that irrelevant to the
> >discussion? Or is the gobal money supply a meaningless measure?
>
> The global money supply is just the sum of the national money supplies
> around the globe.  Nations have increased their money supply without
> international transactions.
>
Under the current system how do they increase their money supply without
trading?

> What we are also seeing is a great amount of speculation on currencies.
> Most exchanges on foreign exchange markets are speculative rather than
> related to trade.  This speculation is international and growing.  Hence,
> there is a sence that the growth of such speculation could be viewed as a
> growth in the global money supply.
>

You can't just ignore the effects of financial trading.

>
> >If a nations money supply is not affected then clearly it is the
> >interests of international business which are served first by the system.
> >If nations are going to deny themselves the right to create money then
> >I nominate Bill Gates for president since he looks like a good "risk".
>
> Nations have not denied themselves the right to create money.  Quite the
> contrary.  They have allowed themselves to create even more money.  The
> floating exchange rate system enables them to privatise the profits and
> socialise the risks.

But the money being created is not feeding national agendas it is
feeding corporate agendas.  Isn't this implied by your phrase "
(nations) socialize the risks."?  It seems to that if people gave more
consideration as to why money should be created, profits could remain
private without the apparent necessity to "socialize the risks".
(eg. What ever happened to the right of a nation's ability to "coin" its own
money??)

>
>
> >I think the concept of a gobal money supply is valuable since by
> >estimating what percentage of the growth in the supply is generated by
> >international trading we have sense of how much the interests of capitalists
> >dominate the world agenda.
>
> As international trade does not increase the money supply in countries with
> floating exchange rates, you will find that the interests of capitalist do
> not dominate the world agenda in countries using the system.
>
>

If the money supply in such countries is not increasing because of trade
how else is it happening? I am not saying that it is the result of an "evil
capitalist conspiracy", but just that it is the unfortunate consequence
of a selective system of money creation whose purpose is to regulate growth
among competeting corporations.

Harry