2 ms·
1) as to 'real'ness, which is not really I think anything I can comment on (or IMO, any honest economist can) writ large -- in the 80s we were well past nixon s
by dnautics 7y ago
1) as to 'real'ness, which is not really I think anything I can comment on (or IMO, any honest economist can) writ large -- in the 80s we were well past nixon shock when the US detached from the Bretton Woods II.
2) Perhaps you're referring to reserve limits holding back the money multiplier to a maximum of 10x, which would make it realer than now, when the multiplier is unbounded?... Even if money is realer, if we have any debt at all (presumed by the notion of an interest rate lever) you are lowering the price of debt, which encourages borrowing, meant to or not, which will not pump M0 but will increase the amount of money that people think they have (presuming they can be paid back as creditors), or really, the amount of money that people think they have in their bank accounts that they think their banks can recover from their leveraged adventures.
3) now probably the real fake labor subjective value of money is neither true to the austrian nor the keynesian/chicagoan extremes, certainly not the smith/marx/ricardian absolute (I mean let's say you do something crazy like save the earth from an asteroid strike, how much was that one hour of looking at a photograph worth surely not the same as one hour of a worker in a nail factory), and not really a thing that depends entirely on M0 nor the velocity of money (an immesurable measurable if ever there was one) in which case who the hell knows. In the end we're all dead anyways. The three universal truths are death, taxes, and network splits.