sci.energy

EskWIRED@ wrote:

> In Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
>
>>EskWIRED@ wrote:
>>
>>>In Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>When money can't be create naturally from debt, central bankers will
>>>>have no choice but to print.
>>>
>>>
>>>What is this even supposed to mean?
>
>
>>What it says.
>
>
> What it says is vauge, at best.

No, it is not.

>> Why is it ungrammatical?
>
>
>>It isn't.
>
>
> Look again.

Why not point it out explicitly?

>>> What does
>>>it mean to create money "naturally" from debt?
>
>> /monques/
>
> So by "naturally" you mean nothing other than the typical working of
> central banks? Does the adjective add no meaning?

Well duh.

>>> And when that cannot be
>>>done, then central bankers print currency?
>
>>'Print' is an aphorism for 'create money by other means'.
>
> Other than by lending it, what means do they use?

Like they just did. They bought up tens of billions in mortgage backed
securities.

>>> Then what do they do, give it
>>>away free, since they can no longer "naturaly" create money from debt?
>
>> /story/1627
>> /books/
>> /rothbard/
>
> I looked these over, but I couldn't find the parts where central bankers
> were doing anything but lending money. Where were they creating money by
> other means, and once they did that, what did they do with it, if not lend
> it?

Open market operations are not loans.

>>>I'll read the article, but I hae trouble believing the author is aything
>>>other than an ignorant dolt.
>
>>Wow. So someone reports on our present condition and they become a
>>'dolt'? Well, are you not special?....
>
> No, someone posts a vague and ungrammatical sentence, and I have trouble
> beieving they have anything of substance to say....

So, are you calling the author of the original article a dolt or me?
Talk about writing clearly........