Should and will the Fed be abolished?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, yes. The other money has been created out of thin air. Welcome to modern banking. The economy will treat than newly created money just like all other money. But because the money supply has increased, prices will increase. We allow the banks to counterfeit money so they can have larger profits. But those profits are ultimately paid for by a devalued dollar. Again, it is easier to understand when you look at a fixed currency example. When the currency is the receipt, it becomes much harder to understand, but money is still created that exceeds the initial deposit.

Wrong. They lend MULTIPLES of their capitalization. For example if their capitalization is 10% and the miltiple they are allowed by law to lend is 10 times that amount then when they lend our that $90, they are creating it based on the borrowers' promise to pay.

Yes, they lend multiples of their capitalization. But we're talking about deposits and reserves which are very different than their capital.

That's why its called the FRACTAL BANKING system.

Ummmm.....fractional reserve banking, not fractal banking.

No deposits, no loans, no money creation.

I can see from the above that you are truly confused by this issue.

That's funny. Every loan is fully funded. That means it's covered by a deposit or loan.
Banks cannot just wave a wand and create a loan without a deposit.

 

[expat_panama]

No deposits, no loans, no money creation.

I can see from the above that you are truly confused by this issue.

Of course you can, people can see anything they want. In the meantime let's agree that money is created by banks with fractional reserves only when those banks have both received deposits and have made loans.

 

[sparky]

Wrong. They lend MULTIPLES of their capitalization. For example if their capitalization is 10% and the miltiple they are allowed by law to lend is 10 times that amount then when they lend our that $90, they are creating it based on the borrowers' promise to pay.

Yes, they lend multiples of their capitalization. But we're talking about deposits and reserves which are very different than their capital.

Ummmm.....fractional reserve banking, not fractal banking.

No deposits, no loans, no money creation.

I can see from the above that you are truly confused by this issue.

That's funny. Every loan is fully funded. That means it's covered by a deposit or loan.
Banks cannot just wave a wand and create a loan without a deposit.

He's right Todd, hence my simplistic goldsmith cartoon analogies

and you know what? it worked rather well since centralized banking's inception here circa 1913

up until the protectants were legislated away (blame Clinton for that) to pave way for the marriage of public and commercial banking

Fiscal instruments like Credit Derivatives essentailly allowed for the creation of debt on paper to exceed that X10 limit

it's hard to understand, and it's something i truly believe the powers that be don't want us TO understand, in fact Federal Reserve is a completely purposeful misnomer engineered for confidence


but it's our tax $$$ that bailed it all out

and as they didn't realy fix (read-re think legislation ) anything, it'll probably be our tax $$$'s that bail them out again

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, they lend multiples of their capitalization. But we're talking about deposits and reserves which are very different than their capital.

Ummmm.....fractional reserve banking, not fractal banking.



I can see from the above that you are truly confused by this issue.

That's funny. Every loan is fully funded. That means it's covered by a deposit or loan.
Banks cannot just wave a wand and create a loan without a deposit.

He's right Todd, hence my simplistic goldsmith cartoon analogies

and you know what? it worked rather well since centralized banking's inception here circa 1913

up until the protectants were legislated away (blame Clinton for that) to pave way for the marriage of public and commercial banking

Fiscal instruments like Credit Derivatives essentailly allowed for the creation of debt on paper to exceed that X10 limit

it's hard to understand, and it's something i truly believe the powers that be don't want us TO understand, in fact Federal Reserve is a completely purposeful misnomer engineered for confidence


but it's our tax $$$ that bailed it all out

and as they didn't realy fix (read-re think legislation ) anything, it'll probably be our tax $$$'s that bail them out again

Who's right? Editec or the creator of those silly cartoons?

Banks didn't need derivatives to exceed the 10% reserve requirement.
Time deposits have a 0% reserve requirement.
What don't the PTB want you to understand? Maybe I can help?

 

[ShackledNation]

Wrong, a $100 demand deposit finances a $90 loan.

That is true if RRR is 10%. I never specified what the RRR was in the above post. With the numbers I used, you could have assumed it was 0%. Whether it is 0% or 10% is irrelevant to the point.

And if the depositor spends the $100, the bank needs to either raise another $100 in deposits, borrow a different banks excess reserves or sell their outstanding loan.

I am going to try to explain this to you one last time. Say there is one bank with two customers, Bob and Sue (this is incredibly simplistic to get the point across). Bob is the depositor and puts a $100 bill in the bank. Sue decides to take out a $100 loan from the bank. The bank will credit her checking account with $100. Now stop and look at the situation. Bob has an account that says he has $100. Sue has an account that says she has $100. But only $100 was ever deposited in the bank. How can this be? With demand deposits under fractional reserve banking, money is not transferred from Bob's account to Sue's account. It is created so both Bob and Sue can use $100. Both have access to the original $100 deposit. The bank is betting that both won't want to use it at the same time. They are hoping that Bob and Sue will not try and exchange their electronic account values for the original $100 bill. In an economy where cash is not used often, they don't have to worry much about failing to have the physical dollars.

In neither case can the depositor and borrower use the funds at the same time.

What I am saying is that the original deposit is financing more than its actual value in spending because the bank is creating money rather than transferring it.

Here's a different way to look at it that you may understand. If you put your money under your pillow, you're subtracting from the money supply. Your money is not available to purchase goods and increase the price level.

That is not correct at all. Money put under a pillow is still part of the money supply. The person who puts it under the pillow can use it to purchase goods and services if he so chooses.

Put you bring up a point about why time deposits should not be counted as money. If you count both the time deposit and the currency loaned out, you are counting both a deposit that, unlike money under a pillow, is not available to purchase goods for the depositor. The loan, however, is part of the money supply. This is what I have been saying all along. When a loan is made from a time deposit, you have simply changed the form the money takes and transferred it. It is not created. Only if a fractional reserve demand deposit exists can money be created from time deposits.

The same thing occurs if you put the money in the bank under a 100% reserve regime.

In a demand deposit or a time deposit?

Already did. It doesn't matter if the loan is from a time deposit or a demand deposit.
If it's from a gold deposit or a fiat deposit. When your deposit is lent, the borrower now has money TOO. Money which he can also use to make a time deposit. You can hold your breathe and insist that M2 doesn't count as real money if you'd like. Let me know how that works out for you.

WRONG! The borrow does not have money too the borrow has money instead. By definition, a depositor no longer has access to the money in a time deposit. The depositor does not own that money. That is what makes a time deposit loan different. There is no "too." Money is transferred.

If you are so confident that time deposits should be counted in the money supply, you should simply explain why. So far you have dodged that issue. You need to understand that different schools of economic thought have differing opinions on what is money. You have to actually argue why you hold your position. There are also different monetary measures. For example, why does M2 only count time deposits less than $100,000 as money? Somehow a time deposit is not money if it is $100,001? You need to answer this question yourself if you ever hope to understand monetary policy.

 

[ShackledNation]

...When signing a bank contract, you are told you can withdraw your money on demand despite the fact only 10% of it is actually on reserve. No matter how you spin it, that is not completely honest....

The definitions of the words 'spin' and 'honest' are corrupted dishonestly here and this constant straying from the facts is childlike. Let's stick to facts. One fact is you appear to have made up the 10% number. We can say 'a portion' until we have a linked reference.

The current Reserve Requirement is 10%. Banks rarely hold reserves much more than that. Unless they hold 100% of reserves, my point that the money is not there is correct, so the amount of reserves really is irrelevant unless they are at 100%, but then you wouldn't have fractional reserve banking.

--and the fact that banks don't run makes continued corruption of the word 'fraud' even more silly because everyone here knows that--

...The last wave of bank runs in the US was in 1933. From here: "Since the start of FDIC insurance on January 1, 1934, no depositor has lost a single cent of insured funds as a result of a failure. " ...

The fact that there are no more runs on the bank does not mean there is no fraud. The fraud is when banks claim you can access your deposited funds on demand when they are being loaned out. Under fractional reserve banking, the full value of all deposits will never be in the banks. The lack of runs only means people are not all withdrawing from their account at once.

...Are you saying if I decided to counterfeit US dollars in my home it would be ok so long as I loaned that money out...

Here we go again with the word "counterfeit". Then again, mangling word definitions is a long standing tradition with mindless political banter going back to Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland"--

I did not imply any definition of counterfeit in that statement, so I am not sure why you are assuming I am using the incorrect definition of counterfeit. Answer the question. Your response is a cop out.

Now you don't think banks are counterfeiting. I disagree. But the same point can be proven in another way. If the banks can create money, why can't I? Why can't I change the electronic number in my banking account so it says it has more money that actually existed before?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And if the depositor spends the $100, the bank needs to either raise another $100 in deposits, borrow a different banks excess reserves or sell their outstanding loan.

I am going to try to explain this to you one last time. Say there is one bank with two customers, Bob and Sue (this is incredibly simplistic to get the point across). Bob is the depositor and puts a $100 bill in the bank. Sue decides to take out a $100 loan from the bank. The bank will credit her checking account with $100. Now stop and look at the situation. Bob has an account that says he has $100. Sue has an account that says she has $100. But only $100 was ever deposited in the bank. How can this be? With demand deposits under fractional reserve banking, money is not transferred from Bob's account to Sue's account. It is created so both Bob and Sue can use $100. Both have access to the original $100 deposit. The bank is betting that both won't want to use it at the same time. They are hoping that Bob and Sue will not try and exchange their electronic account values for the original $100 bill. In an economy where cash is not used often, they don't have to worry much about failing to have the physical dollars.

See, two $100 deposits. Yes, in modern banking the bank assumes both won't want the money at the same time. Same as it ever was.
When you get the chance, please explain how Bob and Sue can both use $100 if the loan came from a demand deposit. Pretend it's the only deposit and loan in a brand new bank. Try to show how it would work with a deposit of currency as well as a deposit of a check or wire transfer. You need to answer this question yourself if you ever hope to understand monetary policy.

If you are so confident that time deposits should be counted in the money supply, you should simply explain why. So far you have dodged that issue. You need to understand that different schools of economic thought have differing opinions on what is money. You have to actually argue why you hold your position.

If it's good enough for Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz, it's good enough for me. If you have some equally esteemed economists who think money in a time deposit ceases to be money, please let me know.

There are also different monetary measures. For example, why does M2 only count time deposits less than $100,000 as money? Somehow a time deposit is not money if it is $100,001? You need to answer this question yourself if you ever hope to understand monetary policy.

If you want to include time deposits over $100,000, they were included in M3.
What do I win?

 

[ShackledNation]

And if the depositor spends the $100, the bank needs to either raise another $100 in deposits, borrow a different banks excess reserves or sell their outstanding loan.

I am going to try to explain this to you one last time. Say there is one bank with two customers, Bob and Sue (this is incredibly simplistic to get the point across). Bob is the depositor and puts a $100 bill in the bank. Sue decides to take out a $100 loan from the bank. The bank will credit her checking account with $100. Now stop and look at the situation. Bob has an account that says he has $100. Sue has an account that says she has $100. But only $100 was ever deposited in the bank. How can this be? With demand deposits under fractional reserve banking, money is not transferred from Bob's account to Sue's account. It is created so both Bob and Sue can use $100. Both have access to the original $100 deposit. The bank is betting that both won't want to use it at the same time. They are hoping that Bob and Sue will not try and exchange their electronic account values for the original $100 bill. In an economy where cash is not used often, they don't have to worry much about failing to have the physical dollars.

See, two $100 deposits. Yes, in modern banking the bank assumes both won't want the money at the same time. Same as it ever was.

Two $100 deposits listed on the bank sheets but only 1 $100 bill actually deposited.

When you get the chance, please explain how Bob and Sue can both use $100 if the loan came from a demand deposit.

They can't. That would result in a bank run. The depositor will lose his savings due to the system. But if they use electronic forms of spending (say debit cards) they will never have to go to the bank to get the cash. You swipe a card in a machine and give the seller an electronic code that represents payment. So long as those "codes" aren't translated into cash, the banks are fine and you can spent more than was ever deposited from savings.

If it's good enough for Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz, it's good enough for me. If you have some equally esteemed economists who think money in a time deposit ceases to be money, please let me know.

In other words, you have no argument and are choosing to remain ignorant. That is a cop out, and it is disappointing. One example is Murrary Rothbard.

If you want to include time deposits over $100,000, they were included in M3.
What do I win?

You win this:

Circular reasoning again?

Here is the problem. You are talking about multiple money supply definitions. Which one is "more right" and why? The fact that their are multiple definitions is proof enough that there are differing opinions on the topic. I could say time deposits should not be counted in the money supply because they are not in M1. I could also say that TMS, another measure of money supply that does not include time deposits, says time deposits are not included so therefore they aren't. But that is not reason, and like your response it is circular logic.

Tell me why time deposits should be included in the money supply when they are a transfer of money that can only be accessed by the debtor, not the depositor. If you refuse, take your dunce cap and enjoy your corner.

 

[ShackledNation]

The problem with our current system is that debt is treated like savings. Say you have $1000 saved up and you then put it in a bank account. That is great. The money you are depositing is savings. It is an asset of yours and a liability of the bank.

When funds from loans are deposited, however, you are depositing debt. The money a debtor has is a liability. He owes the bank that money. Putting that money in a demand deposit means to the bank that money is a liability, but to the debtor that money is still a liability. It is all money owed to an original depositor who put in actual savings. We run on debt financed borrowing rather than savings financed borrowing, and everyone is plugging their ears and closing their eyes and screaming "nah nah nah" as if it doesn't matter.

It doesn't take a genius to see this blatant reality.

 

[uscitizen]

Of course the fed will not be abolished. The finiancial industry benefits from it.
Kind of the ultimate corporate welfare.

 

[editec]

Wrong. They lend MULTIPLES of their capitalization. For example if their capitalization is 10% and the miltiple they are allowed by law to lend is 10 times that amount then when they lend our that $90, they are creating it based on the borrowers' promise to pay.

Yes, they lend multiples of their capitalization. But we're talking about deposits and reserves which are very different than their capital.

Ummmm.....fractional reserve banking, not fractal banking.

No deposits, no loans, no money creation.

I can see from the above that you are truly confused by this issue.

That's funny. Every loan is fully funded. That means it's covered by a deposit or loan.
Banks cannot just wave a wand and create a loan without a deposit.[/QUOTE]

You need to read a book, Lad.

You don't understand the first thing about the way our banking system works, that's bleedin obvious.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And if the depositor spends the $100, the bank needs to either raise another $100 in deposits, borrow a different banks excess reserves or sell their outstanding loan.

See, two $100 deposits. Yes, in modern banking the bank assumes both won't want the money at the same time. Same as it ever was.

Two $100 deposits listed on the bank sheets but only 1 $100 bill actually deposited.

Absolutely. As most people understand, currency only makes up a small part of our money supply. In this example, 50%.

They can't. That would result in a bank run. The depositor will lose his savings due to the system. But if they use electronic forms of spending (say debit cards) they will never have to go to the bank to get the cash. You swipe a card in a machine and give the seller an electronic code that represents payment. So long as those "codes" aren't translated into cash, the banks are fine and you can spent more than was ever deposited from savings.

You've changed your mind already? Time deposits were good, because only one person could use them at a time while demand deposits were bad because both could use them at once. Now they can't. So are demand deposit based loans now okay? You feel banks can create "codes" without turning over money? Money only changes hands if the "code" is converted into paper money? That's funny.

If it's good enough for Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz, it's good enough for me. If you have some equally esteemed economists who think money in a time deposit ceases to be money, please let me know.

In other words, you have no argument and are choosing to remain ignorant. That is a cop out, and it is disappointing. One example is Murrary Rothbard.

Yes, using Rothbard as an authority is disappointing.

If you want to include time deposits over $100,000, they were included in M3.
What do I win?

You win this:

Circular reasoning again?

You asked why larger time deposits aren't included in M2, haven't you heard of M3 before?

Here is the problem. You are talking about multiple money supply definitions. Which one is "more right" and why? The fact that their are multiple definitions is proof enough that there are differing opinions on the topic.

Yes, there are different measurements of money supply. Why is that a problem, aside from your confusion? None is more right or more wrong, they simply measure different things. You might as well complain about inches, feet and miles.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, they lend multiples of their capitalization. But we're talking about deposits and reserves which are very different than their capital.

Ummmm.....fractional reserve banking, not fractal banking.



I can see from the above that you are truly confused by this issue.

That's funny. Every loan is fully funded. That means it's covered by a deposit or loan.
Banks cannot just wave a wand and create a loan without a deposit.[/QUOTE]

You need to read a book, Lad.

You don't understand the first thing about the way our banking system works, that's bleedin obvious.

Please explain how our banking system works.
Take a brand new bank with a single deposit of $1000.
I think they can loan $900, based on a reserve requirement of 10%.
How much do you feel they can loan. Please show all your work. Thanks!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The problem with our current system is that debt is treated like savings. Say you have $1000 saved up and you then put it in a bank account. That is great. The money you are depositing is savings. It is an asset of yours and a liability of the bank.

When funds from loans are deposited, however, you are depositing debt. The money a debtor has is a liability. He owes the bank that money. Putting that money in a demand deposit means to the bank that money is a liability, but to the debtor that money is still a liability. It is all money owed to an original depositor who put in actual savings. We run on debt financed borrowing rather than savings financed borrowing, and everyone is plugging their ears and closing their eyes and screaming "nah nah nah" as if it doesn't matter.

It doesn't take a genius to see this blatant reality.

Ummm, taking out a loan doesn't change your net worth. The borrower gets, for instance, $1000 in cash. Cash is an ASSET! If he deposits the cash in a bank, his cash is still an asset. The deposit account is now a liability to the bank.
The loan paper he signed is his liability.
Maybe you should take an accounting class? It's obvious you're confused about balance sheets as well as assets and liabilities.

 

[expat_panama]

...A bank run brings the fraud to light...

...The fact that there are no more runs on the bank does not mean there is no fraud...

Instead of going directly from 'bank-runs-prove-fraud' to 'bank-runs-don't-matter', we may want to consider reexamining this whole 'fraud' story altogether.

...my point that the money is not there is correct...

We know we can go online, verify the money we deposited in the bank is in fact there and we can even spend it and buy things that become "there". This means the only way we can say the money is not there is to embrace psycosis.

...I did not imply any definition of counterfeit in that statement, so I am not sure why...

In order for us to continue, we have to agree to standard definitions for the words we use or we'll choose words that can fit the point while conforming to a standard definitions. People who attempt to score points with mindless political banter lobbing words regardless of meaning are silly and tedious.

...If the banks can create money, why can't I...

--and if governments can create armies why can't I and if movie stars can be rich and famous why can't I and if...

We both know that the line of thinking is childlike and that we're neither governments nor established businesses so we can't have an army and we can do what banks do. We also know that if we really want we can hire a hundred armed security guards to march across our front lawn and we also know that we can buy a bank and we can create money using our bank.

We'll also be aware that our actions with our army and our bank will be closely watched by the authorities.

 

[ShackledNation]

See, two $100 deposits. Yes, in modern banking the bank assumes both won't want the money at the same time. Same as it ever was.

Two $100 deposits listed on the bank sheets but only 1 $100 bill actually deposited.

Absolutely. As most people understand, currency only makes up a small part of our money supply. In this example, 50%.

Yes, and that second $100 was created out of thin air. That is the whole point. You have $100 deposited, then all of a sudden there are $200.

You've changed your mind already? Time deposits were good, because only one person could use them at a time while demand deposits were bad because both could use them at once. Now they can't. So are demand deposit based loans now okay? You feel banks can create "codes" without turning over money? Money only changes hands if the "code" is converted into paper money? That's funny.

Have you been reading at all? Demand deposits are bad because both attempt to use the same money at once, and the banks create money creating the illusion both have access to the money. Banks create money by changing the numbers of their customers bank accounts. They don't even have to have physical currency anymore because nowadays money is electronic.

Yes, using Rothbard as an authority is disappointing.

Fallacy and not a response.

You asked why larger time deposits aren't included in M2, haven't you heard of M3 before?

CIRCULAR REASONING. I already addressed your idiotic M3 argument. If you can't tell my why time deposits should be included as money, then you should go away. Your continuous references to different monetary measures are pathetic cop outs.

Yes, there are different measurements of money supply. Why is that a problem, aside from your confusion? None is more right or more wrong, they simply measure different things. You might as well complain about inches, feet and miles.

They measure different things? Because as far as I am concerned they are each supposed to measure the money supply. This isn't equivalent to feet, inches, and miles at all. The different measures measure different things and call them money. You can't say they are all equally accurate. If a measure that does not measure time deposits is and equally accurate depiction of the money supply compared to one that does, then you can't conclude time deposits must be included in the money supply.

Why should time deposits be counted at all in any monetary measure? I am tired of asking you this ad nauseum.

 

[ShackledNation]

Ummm, taking out a loan doesn't change your net worth. The borrower gets, for instance, $1000 in cash. Cash is an ASSET! If he deposits the cash in a bank, his cash is still an asset. The deposit account is now a liability to the bank.
The loan paper he signed is his liability.
Maybe you should take an accounting class? It's obvious you're confused about balance sheets as well as assets and liabilities.

The minute you spend the loan it does. It makes your net worth negative (assuming you have no other money). But the banks create another loan with the money they just gave you, say the money they loaned you is still in your account, and the process continues. Loans are liabilities. You owe the bank the money you took out.

When I am referring to the cash as a liability, what I am saying is that it is money the debtor owes. The minute he spends a penny of it he will have negative net worth.

 

[ShackledNation]

...A bank run brings the fraud to light...

...The fact that there are no more runs on the bank does not mean there is no fraud...

Instead of going directly from 'bank-runs-prove-fraud' to 'bank-runs-don't-matter', we may want to consider reexamining this whole 'fraud' story altogether.

Strawman. I never said bank runs don't matter. I said whether or not they occur does not prove if their is no banking fraud.

...my point that the money is not there is correct...

We know we can go online, verify the money we deposited in the bank is in fact there and we can even spend it and buy things that become "there". This means the only way we can say the money is not there is to embrace psycosis.[/quote]
That's the fraud! The money is not there! You really don't understand modern banking. A 10% reserve system like the one we have means that banks keep 10% of deposits on reserve. The other 90% are loaned out, meaning they are not in the bank. If every depositor tried to withdraw all of their money, they could not. You my be able to withdraw all of your funds, but you would be taking from the pool of reserves. If everyone looked at their accounts, saw the number, and tried to withdraw everything, the cash would not be there.

In order for us to continue, we have to agree to standard definitions for the words we use or we'll choose words that can fit the point while conforming to a standard definitions. People who attempt to score points with mindless political banter lobbing words regardless of meaning are silly and tedious.

It should have been clear I was using the correct definition of counterfeit. Answer my question.

--and if governments can create armies why can't I and if movie stars can be rich and famous why can't I and if...

Cop out. Answer the question.

We both know that the line of thinking is childlike and that we're neither governments nor established businesses so we can't have an army and we can do what banks do. We also know that if we really want we can hire a hundred armed security guards to march across our front lawn and we also know that we can buy a bank and we can create money using our bank.

We'll also be aware that our actions with our army and our bank will be closely watched by the authorities.

Actually, you can hire your own private defense. It's called a security guard. Answer the question. If I loan $100 to a friend, why can't I just say we both have $100? If banking practices are not fraudulent, individuals should be able to create money via loans just like they do.

 

[expat_panama]

...that second $100 was created out of thin air. That is the whole point. You have $100 deposited, then all of a sudden there are $200...

Two hundred dollar notes. One created out of thin air and the other created out of thin paper from a fat tree that once was thin air. The reason both work is that money is not value, it's a store of value so whether we create it out of thin air directly or through a tree it can still work.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Two $100 deposits listed on the bank sheets but only 1 $100 bill actually deposited.

Absolutely. As most people understand, currency only makes up a small part of our money supply. In this example, 50%.

Yes, and that second $100 was created out of thin air. That is the whole point. You have $100 deposited, then all of a sudden there are $200.

The second $100 was created out of the first deposit. If you think banks can create money out of thin air, you should start your own bank and start making loans without bothering to collect any deposits. If your prison is near Chicago, I'll try to visit.

You asked why larger time deposits aren't included in M2, haven't you heard of M3 before?

CIRCULAR REASONING. I already addressed your idiotic M3 argument. If you can't tell my why time deposits should be included as money, then you should go away. Your continuous references to different monetary measures are pathetic cop outs.

Helping you understand where a certain deposit is counted is idiotic? Maybe it's a waste of time.....

Yes, there are different measurements of money supply. Why is that a problem, aside from your confusion? None is more right or more wrong, they simply measure different things. You might as well complain about inches, feet and miles.

They measure different things? Because as far as I am concerned they are each supposed to measure the money supply.

Yes, they all measure different things. I could explain what M0 measures, but your little head might pop.

Why should time deposits be counted at all in any monetary measure? I am tired of asking you this ad nauseum.

Why? Because it's a useful measurement. Feel free to ignore it if that makes you feel better.