Re: Die Frage, die ausschliesslich Du beantworten kannst, bleibt leider...

verfasst von Rudow, 18.03.2001, 00:05

>(...)Über dottores Argumente werden wir in nächster Zeit noch zu sprechen haben. Ob er Dir dann auch noch so imponiert, wollen wir dann sehen.

Hallo Stefan,

Professor Läufer hat in seinem Artikel *The Heinsohn-Steiger confusion on interest, money and property* (findet man auf seiner Homepage) ein paar interessante Fragen angeschnitten.
Ich hoffe, dass eine Erörterung dieser Fragen für die Board-Teilnehmer mehr bringt, als das Sticheln mit der fehlenden Anerkennung des Debitismus durch die konventionellen Organe oder gar die abstruse Fragerei, wer wer ist.

Herzliche Grüße

von Rudow

-------schnipp-----------
In the process of a credit contract in which money (demand deposits) is created, both the bank and the firm/household pledge property. The bank pledges its tangible property for its debt (= money).
And the firm/household pledges its tangible property (as collateral) for its debt which by assumption of Heinsohn-Steiger is not money. Property pledging occurs symmetrically. The difference between money and nonmoney titles cannot be explained by the presence or absence of property being pledged. If propertypledging is constitutive for money creation then the debits of the firm/household should be money as well. (Or is there a difference between property pledging of a bank and the pledging of property by a firm/household? If yes, what is the difference, what causes it and what are the effects of this difference?)
The scheme of an act of money creation as described by the tables is consisent with the third interpretation.
If Heinsohn-Steiger are to be consistent (Or is there a difference between property pledging of a bank and the pledging of property by a firm/household? If yes, what is the difference, what causes it and what are the effects of this difference?)
The scheme of an act of money creation as described by the tables is consistent with the third interpretation.
If Heinsohn-Steiger are to be consistent then interpretations one and two have tobe eliminated. If the frst two interpretations are eliminated then we have lost property pledging as a reason for debts being money and we have to and another one. Consider the following: Debts of the bank are considered money while debts of the frm/household are not. However, it remains unclear why the bank is considered a bank and why the firm/household is considered a nonbank. Thus, Heinsohn-Steiger do not give a reason for some debt being money. They just assume that some debts are money while others are not.are eliminated then we have lost property pledging as a reason for debts being money and we have to and another one. Consider the following: Debts of the bank are considered money while debts of the firm/household are not. However, it remains unclear why the bank is considered a bank and why the firm/household is considered a nonbank. Thus, Heinsohn-Steiger do not give a reason for some debt being money. They just assume that some debts are money while others are not.
-------schnapp------------


<center>

<HR>

</center>

Thread gesperrt

 

gesamter Thread:

• Wer ist hier eigentlich wer? - nereus, 17.03.2001, 22:17
  • Re: Wer ist hier eigentlich wer? - Stefan, 17.03.2001, 22:42
    • Die Frage, die ausschliesslich Du beantworten kannst, bleibt leider... - Cosa, 17.03.2001, 22:59
      • Re: Die Frage, die ausschliesslich Du beantworten kannst, bleibt leider... - Stefan, 17.03.2001, 23:47
        • Re: Die Frage, die ausschliesslich Du beantworten kannst, bleibt leider... - Rudow, 18.03.2001, 00:05
        • Re: Die Frage, die ausschliesslich Du beantworten kannst, bleibt leider... - JÃœKÃœ, 18.03.2001, 00:13
          • Re: Die Frage, die ausschliesslich Du beantworten kannst, bleibt leider... - Stefan, 18.03.2001, 00:51
            • Re: Die Frage, die... / JETZT IST ABER GUT! - JÃœKÃœ, 18.03.2001, 01:11
              • Re: Die Frage, die... / JETZT IST ABER GUT! - Stefan, 18.03.2001, 01:39
                • Gute Nacht - Stefan, 18.03.2001, 01:42
                • Re: YES SIR! - JÃœKÃœ, 18.03.2001, 01:56
          • Re: Die Frage, die ausschliesslich Du beantworten kannst, bleibt leider... - Cujo, 18.03.2001, 19:02
          • Re: Die Frage, die ausschliesslich Du beantworten kannst, bleibt leider... - Cujo, 18.03.2001, 19:04
        • Stefan! Was soll dieses Satans-Geschwafel? - ich habe noch alle Sinne beisammen - nereus, 18.03.2001, 00:17
    • Re: Wer ist hier eigentlich wer? - immer schön der Reihe nach - nereus, 17.03.2001, 23:01
  • Re: Wer ist hier eigentlich wer? - Dr. Quandt, 17.03.2001, 23:14
    • Re: Wer ist hier eigentlich wer? - Oldy, 17.03.2001, 23:43
      • Re: Wer ist hier eigentlich wer? - I_have_a_dream, 18.03.2001, 00:34
        • Re: @ I_have_a_dream - JüKü, 18.03.2001, 00:46