Guest Discussion: thehairypatch on Finance

*This blog not affiliated with 60 Minutes or CNBC. If anyone has a better picture idea let me know.

VC: Voodoo Child
THP: thehairypatch

VC: Thank you and welcome to the pilot episode of "Two dudes and G-Chat". With me tonight is thehairypatch, friend and peer finance expert. So now, the Euro Crisis. Greece can't leave the EU, it seems but if Greece falls wasn't there a worry about the others?

TPH: IMO its a non-issue, this isn't about a shortage of real resources. This is about some numbers on paper 

and people don't want to change them

VC:  What are they bound by? It confuses me. Is it to do with the loans? They were talking about the loans for a while and how credit ratings get cut etc...

TPH: They are bound by the Euro Charter or whatever. You know double-entry? All central banks operate according to double-entry. People think that central banks just print money.They can't, they must exchange one asset for another to balance the books.

Anyway it implies that the amount of created cash by the central bank is bound by the amount of suitable circulating assets.

VC:  So because of this, they can't make up the assets? Because the normal method is through loans to other banks? And then the interest needs to paid sort of thing?

    TPH: Well, it depends on what is considered 'suitable asset'. Strictly speaking it should only be Government Debt. Therefore the amount of created cash is bound by the amount of circulating government debt. And so the amount of created cash is bound by the amount of circulating government debt. 

Now Euro countries have a very important constraint, the amount of Government Debt they can create is bound to some level of GDP I think 35% or something. Since Government Debt == Money, then the amount of money is bound to 35% of GDP

An arbitrary figure with no empirical basis. I mean economic basis.There is a reasonable ethical basis though. Since Government Debt is the source of money, then if all countries in the Euro could create as much money as they wanted, then one country could live off the rest.

VC: would that even be possible though?

Free flowing money with no... back to it. Mind... look what they've been trading. Junk mortgages. Packages. Sacks of crap tied up and sold

Bubbles

TPH: This situation is known as a 'tragedy of the commons'. Since everyone will be able to create as much money as they want, there will be an incentive for each country to print as much money as possible. Leading to the destruction of the euro-system or the collapse of a common resource.

VC:  If money is just created, there isn't any solid basis for it we get that tragedy. But is it also about confidence and spending? But wouldn't that lead to a bubble or have we all just been one long cycle of bubbles since the Tulip craze in the 1700's? 

 TPH: It depends on how the currency is created and destroyed. Worst-case is Weimar & Zimbabwe. Nah, confidence has little to do with it IMO People don't know how it works. They resort to these types of constructs

VC:  Wasn't the Weimar Republic's currency backed by the gold reserves. And reperations for the allies was basically taking out all the gold. So the currency devalued, along with seizure of the productive industrial area. Leaving Germany with low output and crap currency. Along with some questionable decisions by the government.

TPH:  I'm not disputing that it consumer confidence is a measure. It is just that people seem to think that it has 'so much importance'. The reality is that the Government could create more money and give it to consumers to spend. This is what the Australian government did in the GFC. Blamm Consumer Confidence fixed.

Maybe not Weimar then, I think you get the point.

VC: I think I'm starting to. And yet they're not doing it. Tied by the law... tied by public perception?

TPH: Public perception

VC: The public will be up in arms over the printing huh?

TPH: Not if they understood. The money has to come from somewhere. People also think that the government must tax in order to spend. It is the other way around. Since the State is the source of money, how can anyone pay taxes if the State doesn't first spend?

VC:  But you still need taxes otherwise the government doesn't even need to tax at all if it could just print no?

That means there is obviously a mechanism that prevents this sort of money printing ad infintum because it can't work like that can it?

Well, money is worth what other people are willing to give you for it so I guess if you keep printing it loses value?

TPH: The Rich can't make money unless the State spends first. Taxes are there to regulate inflation.The main mechanism that seems to regulate money printing is public perception.

VC: I don't get it I'm afraid. 

 TPH: Which part? Where does money come from?

VC: But somewhere along the line some work must be done because otherwise we could just keep having money to spend on things.

TPH: Absolutely.

VC: Like, everyone could be rich then?

TPH: Then you have an inflation.

VC: Oh right, the prices surge upwards

TPH: Yep

VC: You know a Malaysian dollar in my dad's day got you a whole meal. And, salaries have risen proportionally too. For white collars at least

TPH: Yea, but if created money is spent on producing goods & services, then inflation will not occur.

VC: This is probably the closest I will ever feel to being a Creationist being taught about Evolution. "How can it work that way? How does it even work? It doesn't make sense! etc..." But somewhere, somehow it does and its not even esoteric... its just humans all trying to make more money.

TPH: Yea its crazy

VC: Gambling,  Shorting, commodities, stocks, trading, futures, mortgage, loans, derivitives, AAAs, BAAs

 TPH:Recap: Where does money come from?

VC: used to come from gold... and now it comes from the government. Who issues loans to banks

TPH: Not quite loans. They're in the form of?

VC: Or Bonds

TPH: Yea, a caveat. Bonds lead to cash which leads to loans.

Take bond to central bank, get cash, make deposit, make loan.

Starts with the Government Issuing bond to spend on something.

Sells Bond, gets cash, spends.

VC: Someone else takes the cash and then does something with it and so on and so forth. But this isn't trickle down is it? Trickle down is expecting the rich to make jobs trickling down like so much drain water.

TPH: Trickle down is not that effective. it should be trickle up. Give money to consumers

then give incentives to businesses to produce certain things.

VC: Well, thanks a lot. I really learned something today. Still don't quite get it, but at least where money comes from is explained. Thanks for tuning into the pilot episode of "Two dudes, and G-Chat". I'm your host, Voodoo Child good night, don't die to a drone strike tonight.