as, i think the idea is that even without the gold standard there is a limited amount of money, or should be
lets say the government prints x trillion dollars
thats all the dollars there are.
But then bank A borrows x billion dollars from bank B.
Now bank A has x billion dollars to spend. Bank B has accounts receivables increase to the tune of x billion - and that counts as assets so it still has assets it can leverage - those asserts are still treated as money.
so now we have in effect, x * 2 billion dollars even if we have x billion printed dollars
that is why some countries require their banks to have a certain amount of actual cash on hand and how much they can lend is limited by how much they have - this is why Canada's economy is doing better than ours
Sorry Kayla, I don't understand your point to any of this...why "should" there be a limit to how much money there is? What would happen if governments just printed money and doled it our to the masses instead of the banks? Or something to that effect. There is just too much hoarding going on with the rich. The average Joe doesn't usually hoard. Give it to him and he is sure to give it back to the big guy buy buying his product. I just don't understand the concept of a person working like a dog and still having to decide between health insurance or feeding his family. There is something fundamentally wrong with that scenario. A decent days wage for the average Joe would still put money into the rich pocket
Money is an abstract concept. If there was a catastrophe with the banks and a real bank run...I don't think the government would have enough money to make good on the deposit insurance program FDIC not in cash anyway. The 'real' money is not there...it's all imaginary money.
I think what needs to be done is limits of what corporations can charge the government for services or products and there should be strict laws governing the amount of profit a company can make off of government. That way we could start to see more of a balance of distributed money. It just seems stupid to allow them to be free to increase costs every year when wages and thus tax revenue is on a steady decline. Of course the numbers don't add up!
I think people have lost their minds when they keep saying..."cut spending!" (meaning cut social programs like payroll for police, teachers, firemen, etc.) There is only so much you can take from the average citizen. Why not instead cut the profits that corporations can make off of government? Do corporations like Halliburton really need to make record breaking profits from government contracts? How about some patriotism on their part and ask not what their country can do for them but what they can do for their country?