Re: Fatal Flaw in Logic of the Crash Course?
Wow, busy thread since I’ve been away. Just a couple of questions that I have based on all that I have read:
What constitues "by design"? We have established that it is possible to have a stable monetary system that is based on money loaned into existance at interest, so long as we have perfect liquidity (the money to repay the loans is in the right place at the right time.) However, our system makes no provision in it’s design to provide perfect liquidity. Does this mean that our system is therefore designed in such a way that it will (perhaps even must) expand? Where is does everyone else draw the line? There are two things I am driving at here – one is that design is not just about what is stated, it can also be drawn from what is omitted. The other is the difference between a "perfect" mathematical system or model, and the real world.
As for a revision to the CC to make it more acceptable, how about saying that it will, by it’s nature, expand? Is "nature" too close to "design" in meaning?
I am not sure why Chris decided to define the amount that must be borrowed each year as the amount of interest due, and I am not sure that that is the amount that our current system must have each year to grow, and I am not sure how to figure out what that figure is, so perhaps that piece should be removed.
Just faning the flames with my two cents,
All the best,