Top 10 Ridiculous Examples of Corporate Greed

[EdwardBaiamonte]

C) Increase goverment spending in infrastructure ( this is the hardest part). The spending has to be directed in improving the efficiency.

surely you must have your best example at hand to share with us? and why would the taxing necessary for the spending not depress the economy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Erm... pretty sure that it's actually the LAW that the CEOs work for the shareholders, not the workers. In all fairness, it would result in a complete disaster if this was the other way around. The shareholders hired the CEO not the workers.

It really is sad how ignorant some people are.

Well Norman, it is certainly that way . The problem is that such model is intrinsincly unstable. Very few people pay any attention to the cyclical nature of economy. I will oversimplify here:

Assume that wages + profits in a year = 100, and a net trade balance of zero.
And that wages represent are 40 and profits 60 and households credits = 0.
Next year assume an increase in production, with stagnant wages so the total is 110, so wages = 40, and proffits 70.
What happens next year ? You will be hit by a recession, because the purchasing power of wages is not enough to sustain the sales.

Now , I am oversimplifying, of course, if you have a trade surplus this will not happen. If households are able to get credit, the crisis will be offset ( untill the credits get to big to pay ) .

Certainly corporations are free to do what they want with their proffits, but that liberty is not without consecuences, and the same goes with the other sectors : banking(credit) and labour (wages) .

Next year assume an increase in production, with stagnant wages so the total is 110, so wages = 40, and proffits 70.
What happens next year ? You will be hit by a recession, because the purchasing power of wages is not enough to sustain the sales.


Exactly! Because corporations never spend their profits, never pay out dividends, never buy back shares.
I heard they put all that money in a big pile and burn it, just so they don't have to give it to workers.

Derp!

I didn't say that , you said it.
So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market. Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing. Assume they open a factory in China, that's probably even worse.

In the best case scenario they could buy capital goods ( e.g. machinery ) in the local market . Now assuming that's what happens , in my example you would get a total production of 110 and wages at 44, which would be an actual increase in the output of labour , although proportionally you would remain with the same ratio ( 60 / 40) .
But, this is not what's been happening lately in the U.S. ( in the last 30 years or so ) . Average wages have stagnated while gdp has increased, oh , and of course private debt (specially household debt) has soared.

Big mistake : look at the aggregate figures, not at the individual cases.
Microeconomy and microeconomy are related but are not the same subject at all.
Here you go pal... why do I get the idea that you work in the financial sector ?

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.

Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.

why do I get the idea that you work in the financial sector ?

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.
Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

And yes , sometimes you get lower prices, and sometimes you get higher prices in spite of higher efficiency because commodities increase their prices ( e.g. oil).
Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.
Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?
How would you spend it ? Treasury bonds ? Insurance ? Foreign currency? Imported goods? Stock from another company?
A house in another country? Another bubling asset?

Not all of the options will create domestic jobs.

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?
Nah, it's probably because you seem to think that macro is applied micro.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As I said ( and showed in the charts), this can be offset by household debt (America's case in the last 20 years ) or by net exports increase ( England's case during early industrialization).

anything can be offset temporarily but under capitalism the system is self-correcting by millions of people in the market place. Under libsocialism the situation gets out of control because a few liberal geniuses in central govt don't have the wisdom of crowds.

Well it usually takes a crash or two ( and sometimes more than that ) for it to self correct. I still have to see one case in which a recesion has been solved cutting government spending.

1920-1921

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not all of the options will create domestic jobs.
.

so what are you proposing be done when increased production and , stagnant wages cause a recession?

Good question Ed.
A) Correct trade deficit,
B) Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals , not to the banks ( this was actually suggested by Milton Friedman and is one of the few points in which I agree with him ). The single condition for this disbursement is that everyone having debt must use it first to cancell its debt.
C) Increase goverment spending in infrastructure ( this is the hardest part). The spending has to be directed in improving the efficiency of resource usage and in allowing corporations to work efficiently. The hard part: which parts of the infrastructure , in which location, aimed at which industries and towards which population groups.

Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals , not to the banks

Are you under the impression that banks have been given helicopter money?

 

[rdean]

See inside Donald Trump's amazing gold-plated private Boeing passenger jet

 

[dblack]

Top 10 Ridiculous Examples of Corporate Greed



The greed within our society is sicking to behold.

Sickening indeed! I couldn't watch past the first one. McDonalds, cheaping out on an extra slice of cheese! Shameful!

 

[RodISHI]

Yes, extremely greedy people can be nuisance. Most greedy of all the leftists - who believe other people's money belongs to them, all the while complaining how greedy those people are.

That and trying to force their products onto the public via legislation all while taking out independent producers.

 

[RodISHI]

See inside Donald Trump's amazing gold-plated private Boeing passenger jet

Last I heard no one is mandated to go to resorts, motels, gamble or buy any of his products people by forced legislation. Hillary's crowd is just the opposite of that. Democrats and neocon GOP'rs want you to pay for their large farming operations via forcing you to buy alcohol in the gas, forced insurance that tripled what it was before they mandated it through legislation and forced vaccinations. They also want rights to your bankcards, cash or any other small assets you may have in case they need some money. I forgot about the lightbulb legislation and forcing everyone to use their chemicals via legislation verses just getting good old fashion soap.

 

[Andylusion]

Top 10 Ridiculous Examples of Corporate Greed



The greed within our society is sicking to behold.

lol.....

Every single time I give a leftwinger the benefit of doubt.... they prove themselves a waste of time. I was thinking "this should be interesting! Maybe some material for my podcast!"

"McDonald's reduces size of cheese slice" ....... 0.o Out of the 8 Billion people in the world, and the 45.5 thousand listed companies, and millions of unlisted companies.... the top examples of greed you can find is a smaller cheese slice? That's embodiment of 'greed' to you? What's next? Fewer sesame seeds on the bun?

So I got the list....

10. McDonald’s Saves Money by Using Less Cheese
9. The Airline That Removed a Single Olive to Save $40,000, and the One That Removed Toilets to Make Space
8. Ikea Makes Their Store Harder to Navigate to Make You Buy More Stuff
7. Orbitz Charges Apple Users More, Just Because They Can
6. Wal-Mart Bought Every American Flag It Could Just After 9/11
5. Verizon Bans Tethering, So People will Pay More for Data Plans
4. Shrinking Packaging But Pretending It’s Bigger (and Overcharging You Accordingly)
3. Selling a Product as Free-Range, Even Though It Isn’t, Simply to Charge More
2. Paying Producers 29 Pence When They Asked for 30
1. The Amazing List of Sony Proprietary Failures

10, 9, 4.
All of these are true, and expected. I don't understand you people. When costs on the business go up, or prices go down, or the minimum wage goes up.... something has to give. I've been telling left-wingers this over over 10 years. When you jack up costs on business, they have to change their model, to continue being profitable. That includes cutting the portion sizes. In the case of American Airlines, they had stiff competition after deregulation. Couldn't charge people $500 for a 2 hour flight anymore. Had to cut service to meet competition.

8.
Ikea, like all stores, has a floor strategy. In fact, most stores used to be bizarre jigsaw puzzles. Now some stores have the wide lanes and open spaces, as part of their strategy for getting customers. Come to our store and buy our product, because we have easy wide open lanes. Other stores still have the jigsaw puzzle. Both strategies are designed to get you to buy more stuff from their store. Grow up stupid. Stores don't stay in business by getting you to buy as little as possible from them. If you sold orange soda, you would try whatever strategy you could to sell them, and make more money. Why you think others shouldn't do, what you WOULD do if the positions were reversed, is just hypocrisy.

7. Lie.
First off, Orbitz, does not charge Apple users more. Orbitz directs Apple users to higher end options, because their research found that Apple customers tended to want higher end options. They did not change the price for the accommodation based on what computer you have. Left-wing Idiots. Only a moron would expect the company to offer options you don't want.

6. Lie.
Walmart did not buy every flag on the planet. You people are ridiculous. Walmart saw a spike in demand for flags. So they put out bids to more suppliers. It's called "getting the products customers want", and most rational people consider that a good thing. Next time you go into a store and they don't have the products you want, I expect you to be ecstatic about it. Left-wing idiots.

5.
All companies try and get people to use more of their service. Again, this is normal. In Verizons case, it didn't work. No one is required to buy Verizon, unless government forces them too.

3.
Yeah, there's a shock. We on the right wing, have been telling everyone what a scam all this "organic free-range" garbage is for years. But you were willing to pay a higher price, and they were willing to play you for a fool, and gladly charge you that higher price. Now you want to complain your idiocy was used against you? Whose fault is that?

2.
Actually this is a classic example of how protectionism fails. The farmers in the UK, were protected by protectionist barriers. As a result, the dairy milk industry in the UK never evolved and matured to an international level, because they didn't have to. The protectionism allowed UK dairy farmers to charge UK customers a much higher price than the international price.

When those barriers were removed, cheaper milk came on the market. When customers had the option to choose equal or better milk, at much lower cost... they did. The result was the super markets had to lower their prices. That translated into lower prices to the dairy farmers. The under developed UK dairy farmers, after years of stagnation, were being destroyed by more advanced, more productive, and cheaper imported milk. Protectionism harmed both the consumers with much higher prices, and it also harmed the industry which failed to mature.

But that doesn't stop you from moronically trying to blame the markets. As if the markets have a choice. Customers will easily leave the market, and go to a different store that has the cheaper product. But no no, they should have paid the high prices and gone out of business.... Left-wing Idiots.

1.
Sony is one of millions of examples. Big deal. I don't have a single Sony anything, in my home. You don't have to buy their crap. Get the better stuff. Just like I don't have Verizon.

 

[CultureCitizen]

B) Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals

how would this help rather than hurt??

It would increase aggregate demand and reduce debt.
Arguably , it has never been tried. And IMHO you can't have a negative trade balance when implementig this policy.
This would ensure to a certain extent that the money is spent in the local economy.

 

[CultureCitizen]

A) Correct trade deficit,
.

so you'd correct the trade deficit between all individuals cities states and countries according to the dictates of some lib Nazi in govt??

Not necessarily. For starters the government could reduce the amount of imported goods it buys, and it could also renegociate trade agreements.
Helicopter money changes the way the money flows instead of flowing from central reserve to banks to corporations and finally to households it would work the other way round.
Think of it: how is this different from the fractional reserve system, specially when many banks make the loans first and search the reserves later?

 

[CultureCitizen]

C) Increase goverment spending in infrastructure ( this is the hardest part). The spending has to be directed in improving the efficiency.

surely you must have your best example at hand to share with us? and why would the taxing necessary for the spending not depress the economy?

Simple: because you make sure it will be spent locally.When a corporation spends money it can:
a)Spend it locally
b)Spend it overseas
c)Secure it in assets ( buildings, gold , silver)
d)Invest it in the stock exchange or a financial instrument.

Of these options only A will eventually help increase the aggregate demand.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Well Norman, it is certainly that way . The problem is that such model is intrinsincly unstable. Very few people pay any attention to the cyclical nature of economy. I will oversimplify here:

Assume that wages + profits in a year = 100, and a net trade balance of zero.
And that wages represent are 40 and profits 60 and households credits = 0.
Next year assume an increase in production, with stagnant wages so the total is 110, so wages = 40, and proffits 70.
What happens next year ? You will be hit by a recession, because the purchasing power of wages is not enough to sustain the sales.

Now , I am oversimplifying, of course, if you have a trade surplus this will not happen. If households are able to get credit, the crisis will be offset ( untill the credits get to big to pay ) .

Certainly corporations are free to do what they want with their proffits, but that liberty is not without consecuences, and the same goes with the other sectors : banking(credit) and labour (wages) .

Next year assume an increase in production, with stagnant wages so the total is 110, so wages = 40, and proffits 70.
What happens next year ? You will be hit by a recession, because the purchasing power of wages is not enough to sustain the sales.


Exactly! Because corporations never spend their profits, never pay out dividends, never buy back shares.
I heard they put all that money in a big pile and burn it, just so they don't have to give it to workers.

Derp!

I didn't say that , you said it.
So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market. Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing. Assume they open a factory in China, that's probably even worse.

In the best case scenario they could buy capital goods ( e.g. machinery ) in the local market . Now assuming that's what happens , in my example you would get a total production of 110 and wages at 44, which would be an actual increase in the output of labour , although proportionally you would remain with the same ratio ( 60 / 40) .
But, this is not what's been happening lately in the U.S. ( in the last 30 years or so ) . Average wages have stagnated while gdp has increased, oh , and of course private debt (specially household debt) has soared.

Big mistake : look at the aggregate figures, not at the individual cases.
Microeconomy and microeconomy are related but are not the same subject at all.
Here you go pal... why do I get the idea that you work in the financial sector ?

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.

Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.

why do I get the idea that you work in the financial sector ?

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.
Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

And yes , sometimes you get lower prices, and sometimes you get higher prices in spite of higher efficiency because commodities increase their prices ( e.g. oil).
Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.
Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?
How would you spend it ? Treasury bonds ? Insurance ? Foreign currency? Imported goods? Stock from another company?
A house in another country? Another bubling asset?

Not all of the options will create domestic jobs.

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?
Nah, it's probably because you seem to think that macro is applied micro.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

No, what I meant is that IF productivity increases AND you have a negative trade balance ( which is the case of the US ) and the ratio of wages / GDP decreases (the US case), it is irrelevant that you increase your productivity, because:
a) Your local market is shrinking
b) Your increase in productivity is only increasing private debt and probably producing more goods than the market can take.

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.
Again , your words, not mine. What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Not all of the options will create domestic jobs.
.

so what are you proposing be done when increased production and , stagnant wages cause a recession?

Good question Ed.
A) Correct trade deficit,
B) Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals , not to the banks ( this was actually suggested by Milton Friedman and is one of the few points in which I agree with him ). The single condition for this disbursement is that everyone having debt must use it first to cancell its debt.
C) Increase goverment spending in infrastructure ( this is the hardest part). The spending has to be directed in improving the efficiency of resource usage and in allowing corporations to work efficiently. The hard part: which parts of the infrastructure , in which location, aimed at which industries and towards which population groups.

Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals , not to the banks

Are you under the impression that banks have been given helicopter money?

Indeed, banks create money, as stated by the bank of England:

"...and one of the key points in the article is that banks create additional broad money whenever they make a loan. Now, while this is nothing new, its sometimes overlooked as the main way in which money is created and it runs contrary to the view sometimes put forward that banks can only lend out deposits that they already have ( sic). In fact loans create deposits, not the other way around."



"...the authors point out that only currency (cash = coins and notes) is created by the Bank of England (2014a, s. 10). The rest of the money supply, in the UK about 97%, is account money, which originates in banks:

Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created …. This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money…. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out"

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue71/Ravn71.pdf

So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money at any given time.

 

[Norman]

Next year assume an increase in production, with stagnant wages so the total is 110, so wages = 40, and proffits 70.
What happens next year ? You will be hit by a recession,.

if wages are truly stagnant then you would not increase production because there would be no money with which to buy the increased production.

As I said ( and showed in the charts), this can be offset by household debt (America's case in the last 20 years ) or by net exports increase ( England's case during early industrialization).
So indeed, in the US the production has increased ( without a net export increase) supported by an increase in household ( and corporate ) debt.

C) Increase goverment spending in infrastructure ( this is the hardest part). The spending has to be directed in improving the efficiency.

surely you must have your best example at hand to share with us? and why would the taxing necessary for the spending not depress the economy?

Simple: because you make sure it will be spent locally.When a corporation spends money it can:
a)Spend it locally
b)Spend it overseas
c)Secure it in assets ( buildings, gold , silver)
d)Invest it in the stock exchange or a financial instrument.

Of these options only A will eventually help increase the aggregate demand.

Full of shit... all money circulates at some rate. Besides, in the long term which you talked about earlier aggregate demand is not much of an issue, because prices can adjust downward. Oh wait, that hasn't ever happened for a long period and the dollar has lost 97% of its value. So I guess less demand, not more would have been beneficial...

Also I hope that you realize that GDP can be measured through income. If wages aren't keeping up, something else must have increased like... specific taxes. It's difficult to find tables where this has been done.

 

[rdean]

See inside Donald Trump's amazing gold-plated private Boeing passenger jet

Last I heard no one is mandated to go to resorts, motels, gamble or buy any of his products people by forced legislation. Hillary's crowd is just the opposite of that. Democrats and neocon GOP'rs want you to pay for their large farming operations via forcing you to buy alcohol in the gas, forced insurance that tripled what it was before they mandated it through legislation and forced vaccinations. They also want rights to your bankcards, cash or any other small assets you may have in case they need some money. I forgot about the lightbulb legislation and forcing everyone to use their chemicals via legislation verses just getting good old fashion soap.

Hotel Bookings at Donald Trump's Hotels Are Way Down

 

[RodISHI]

See inside Donald Trump's amazing gold-plated private Boeing passenger jet

Last I heard no one is mandated to go to resorts, motels, gamble or buy any of his products people by forced legislation. Hillary's crowd is just the opposite of that. Democrats and neocon GOP'rs want you to pay for their large farming operations via forcing you to buy alcohol in the gas, forced insurance that tripled what it was before they mandated it through legislation and forced vaccinations. They also want rights to your bankcards, cash or any other small assets you may have in case they need some money. I forgot about the lightbulb legislation and forcing everyone to use their chemicals via legislation verses just getting good old fashion soap.

Hotel Bookings at Donald Trump's Hotels Are Way Down

He said years ago in an interview that politics is a mean business. Besides with the economy in the shitter people do not have as much money to spend on little luxuries. Heck even if my health was back up to prime I am not sure I would go out and try to do my old standard artwork to try to get some bills paid as small businesses do not hire for specialty work when times are tough.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Next year assume an increase in production, with stagnant wages so the total is 110, so wages = 40, and proffits 70.
What happens next year ? You will be hit by a recession, because the purchasing power of wages is not enough to sustain the sales.


Exactly! Because corporations never spend their profits, never pay out dividends, never buy back shares.
I heard they put all that money in a big pile and burn it, just so they don't have to give it to workers.

Derp!

I didn't say that , you said it.
So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market. Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing. Assume they open a factory in China, that's probably even worse.

In the best case scenario they could buy capital goods ( e.g. machinery ) in the local market . Now assuming that's what happens , in my example you would get a total production of 110 and wages at 44, which would be an actual increase in the output of labour , although proportionally you would remain with the same ratio ( 60 / 40) .
But, this is not what's been happening lately in the U.S. ( in the last 30 years or so ) . Average wages have stagnated while gdp has increased, oh , and of course private debt (specially household debt) has soared.

Big mistake : look at the aggregate figures, not at the individual cases.
Microeconomy and microeconomy are related but are not the same subject at all.
Here you go pal... why do I get the idea that you work in the financial sector ?

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.

Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.

why do I get the idea that you work in the financial sector ?

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?

So , assume they import machinery to increase production , that doesn't create a larger market.
Because furriners never buy US output with their dollars.
And increased production never leads to lower prices.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

And yes , sometimes you get lower prices, and sometimes you get higher prices in spite of higher efficiency because commodities increase their prices ( e.g. oil).
Assume they buy back their own stock, same thing.

They bought back my shares, now I have more money to buy goods and services.
Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?
How would you spend it ? Treasury bonds ? Insurance ? Foreign currency? Imported goods? Stock from another company?
A house in another country? Another bubling asset?

Not all of the options will create domestic jobs.

Is it because in moments I can point out your idiocy?
Nah, it's probably because you seem to think that macro is applied micro.

Good grief! Yes they do , but as I said that would only be relevant IF the US trade balance was possitive, which is not.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

Ah... but the devil is in the details isn't it?

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.

If we import $3, the fact that foreigners buy $2 of our exports is irrelevant?

No, what I meant is that IF productivity increases AND you have a negative trade balance ( which is the case of the US ) and the ratio of wages / GDP decreases (the US case), it is irrelevant that you increase your productivity, because:
a) Your local market is shrinking
b) Your increase in productivity is only increasing private debt and probably producing more goods than the market can take.

Yes. The detail where you thought the corporation stuck its extra profit up its ass.
Again , your words, not mine. What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

What I said is that whatever they have done to their money has not translated, during the last 25 years or so in a growth in the internal market.

You'll have to show me your proof of "no growth in the internal market".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not all of the options will create domestic jobs.
.

so what are you proposing be done when increased production and , stagnant wages cause a recession?

Good question Ed.
A) Correct trade deficit,
B) Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals , not to the banks ( this was actually suggested by Milton Friedman and is one of the few points in which I agree with him ). The single condition for this disbursement is that everyone having debt must use it first to cancell its debt.
C) Increase goverment spending in infrastructure ( this is the hardest part). The spending has to be directed in improving the efficiency of resource usage and in allowing corporations to work efficiently. The hard part: which parts of the infrastructure , in which location, aimed at which industries and towards which population groups.

Use helicopter money giving the money directly to the individuals , not to the banks

Are you under the impression that banks have been given helicopter money?

Indeed, banks create money, as stated by the bank of England:

"...and one of the key points in the article is that banks create additional broad money whenever they make a loan. Now, while this is nothing new, its sometimes overlooked as the main way in which money is created and it runs contrary to the view sometimes put forward that banks can only lend out deposits that they already have ( sic). In fact loans create deposits, not the other way around."



"...the authors point out that only currency (cash = coins and notes) is created by the Bank of England (2014a, s. 10). The rest of the money supply, in the UK about 97%, is account money, which originates in banks:

Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created …. This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money…. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out"

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue71/Ravn71.pdf

So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money at any given time.

Indeed, banks create money

Yes, loans increase the money supply.

So yes, banks quite literally have a big supply of helicopter money

Making a loan isn't helicopter money.
Is there anything in economics and banking that you're not confused about?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

]
It would increase aggregate demand and reduce debt.

But you said you liked Friedman who said it would cause inflation, distort price signals, and ultimately slow growth. Imagine the pure ignorance in thinking that libturd money printing boosts the economy when we know that we boosted the economy from the stone age to here thanks to the supply of new inventions. 1+1=2