소상공인의 절규 "내가 죽으면 문재인 대통령이 죽인 것" / 매경 --->대한민국이 죽으면 문죄인이 죽인 것. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 문재인 비판하다 사표 쓴 김태규 판사의 격정토로! (진성호의 융단폭격) https://youtu.be/jXLk8SeNuk0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 북에 USB 넘긴 것보다!! 더 충격적인 사건이 있다!! - 전광훈 목사 2021.02.01 https://youtu.be/OwC9FlUyQ54 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 친중군부가 사기총선 단죄/요지경속 국제정치/미얀마내 중공 소수민족의 위력 박상후의 문명개화 https://youtu.be/b2UePpHVmLo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 화폐 공급의 적정 공급율이란 없다 대부분의 경제학자는 경제가 성장하면 그에 대한 수요가 증가하기 때문에 화폐의 양도 증가해야 한다고 말한다. 만일 그렇지 않으면 상품과 서비스의 가격이 하락하고, 이로 인해 경제적 침체가 유발될 거라고 주장한다. 화폐 공급의 증가가 이렇게 중요하기 때문에 경제학자들은 늘 적정 화폐 공급의 속도가 무엇인지 머리를 싸매고 고뇌한다. 통화론자인 밀턴 프리드먼의 추종자들은 중앙은행이 화폐 공급의 성장율을 일정하게 정해야 한다고 주장하기도 한다. 이들의 주장을 들으면 화폐가 경제활동을 유지하는 듯한 느낌을 받는다. 하지만 화폐는 단지 교환의 매개체일 뿐이다. 진정으로 경제활동을 지속하게 하는 것은 저축, 다시 말해 아직 소비되지 않은 최종 소비재들이다. 화폐는 단지 생산자와 소비자 사이에 상품과 서비스가 원활하게 유통하도록 도울 뿐이다. 역사적으로 금이 화폐로 상용되었다. 하지만 현재 금은 보석으로 또 산업용으로 쓰이고 있어 수량이 부족하다고 말한다. 하지만 우리가 화폐에 대한 수요라고 할 때, 그것은 사실은 화폐의 구매력에 대한 수요를 가리킨다. 사람들은 주머니에 거액을 넣고 다니기 보다는, 단지 큰 구매력을 원할 뿐이다. 또 시장에서는 화폐가 모자라면 그 교환가치는 올라가게 된다. 반대로 화폐가 충분하면 교환가치는 떨어진다. 따라서 자유로운 시장에서는 화폐가 적다느니 많다느니 하는 일이 있을 수 없다. 그리고 그 연장선에서 화폐의 적정 공급율이라는 말도 성립하지 않는다. 그렇다면 현재의 종이 화폐의 수량을 그대로 유지하면 어떨까? 하지만 그렇게 한다면 현재의 통화 시스템을 곧바로 붕괴하고 말 것이다. 왜냐하면 중앙은행이 부분준비은행들이 파산하지 않도록 지속적으로 돈을 주입해주고 있기 때문이다. There Is No "Optimum" Growth Rate for the Money Supply Frank Shostak Most economists hold that a growing economy requires a growing money stock on the grounds that growth gives rise to a greater demand for money that must be accommodated. Failing to do so, it is maintained, will lead to a decline in the prices of goods and services, which in turn will destabilize the economy and lead to an economic recession or, even worse, depression. Since growth in money supply is of such importance, it is not surprising that economists are continuously searching for the right, or the optimum, growth rate of the money supply. Some economists who are the followers of Milton Friedman—also known as monetarists—want the central bank to target the money supply growth rate to a fixed percentage. They hold that if this percentage is maintained over a prolonged period of time it will usher in an era of economic stability. The idea that money must grow in order to support economic growth gives the impression that money somehow sustains economic activity. However, money's main job is simply to fulfill the role of the medium of exchange. Money does not sustain or fund economic activity. The means of sustenance, or funding, is provided by saved final consumer goods. By fulfilling its role as the medium of exchange, money just facilitates the flow of goods and services between producers and consumers. Historically, many different goods have been used as the medium of exchange. On this, Mises observed that over time there would be an inevitable tendency for the less marketable of the series of goods used as media of exchange to be one by one rejected until at last only a single commodity remained, which was universally employed as a medium of exchange; in a word, money. Through the ongoing process of selection over thousands of years, people settled on gold as their preferred general medium of exchange. Most economists, while accepting this historical evolution, cast doubt on the idea that gold can fulfill the role of money in the modern world. It is held that, relative to the growing demand for money because of growing economies, the supply of gold is not adequate. Furthermore, if one takes into account the fact that a large portion of gold mined is used for jewelry and various industrial purposes, this leaves the stock of money almost unchanged. In this way of thinking, the free market, by failing to provide enough gold, is likely to cause money supply shortages. This, in turn, runs the risk of destabilizing the economy. Hence most economists, even those who express sympathy toward the idea of a free market, endorse the view that the money supply must be controlled by the government. What Do We Mean by Demand for Money? Much of this theory is built on a misconception. Demand for money is not demand for a larger amount of money. Rather, when we talk about demand for money, what we really mean is the demand for money's purchasing power. After all, people do not want a greater amount of money in their pockets; what they want is a greater purchasing power. In a free market, in similarity to other goods, the price of money is determined by supply and demand. If there is less money, its exchange value will increase. Conversely, the exchange value will fall when there is more money. Within the framework of a free market there cannot be such thing as "too little" or "too much" money. As long as the market is allowed to clear, no shortage or surplus of money can emerge. Once the market has chosen a particular commodity as money, the given stock of this commodity will always be sufficient to secure the services that money provides. Hence, in a free market, the whole idea of an optimum growth rate of money is absurd. According to Mises: the services which money renders can be neither improved nor repaired by changing the supply of money….The quantity of money available in the whole economy is always sufficient to secure for everybody all that money does and can do. How can we be sure that the supply of a selected commodity as money will not start rapidly expanding because of unforeseen events? Would it not undermine people's well-being? If this were to happen, then people would probably abandon this commodity and settle on some other commodity. Individuals who are striving to preserve their lives and well-being will not choose a commodity that is subject to a decline in purchasing power as money. Printing Money to Save an Unstable Banking System So, the problem does not stem from the fact the market supposedly requires more money than is available. Under our current system of constant new injections of money, it appears that the central bank is "managing" the monetary system and enhancing the economy by increasing the money supply. The truth, however, is something else: initially, the present paper monetary system emerged because central authorities made it legal for the overissued banks not to redeem paper certificates into gold. Nowadays, this system must be sustained as a fractional-reserve fiat-money system. To manage the system, the central bank must constantly create money "out of thin air" to prevent banks from bankrupting each other during the clearing of checks. This leads to persistent declines in money's purchasing power, which destabilizes the entire monetary system. Since the present monetary system is fundamentally unstable, the central bank is compelled to print money out of thin air to prevent the collapse of the system. (Again, the present monetary system emerged because the government allowed banks to issue certificates unbacked by gold). It does not really matter what scheme the central bank adopts as far as monetary injections are concerned—it can print money directly or it can act in the money markets to target interest rates. Regardless of the mode of monetary injections, the boom-bust cycles are likely to become more ferocious as time goes by. Even Milton Friedman's scheme to fix the money growth rate at a given percentage won't do the trick. After all, a fixed percentage growth is still money growth, which leads to the exchange of nothing for something—i.e., economic impoverishment and boom-bust cycles. What about keeping the current stock of paper money unchanged? Would that not do the trick? An unchanged money stock will cause an almost immediate breakdown of the present monetary system. After all, the present system survives because the central bank, by means of monetary injections, prevents the fractional reserve banks from going bankrupt. It is therefore not surprising that the central bank must always resort to large monetary injections when there is a threat of various political or economic shocks. How long the central bank can keep the present system going is dependent upon the state of the pool of real savings. As long as this pool is still growing, the central bank is likely to succeed in keeping the system alive. Once the pool of real savings begins to stagnate—or, even worse, shrink—then no amount of monetary pumping will be able to prevent the implosion of the system. Conclusion Since the present monetary system is fundamentally unstable, there cannot be a "correct" money supply growth rate. The present monetary system emerged because central authorities allowed and encouraged the practice of issuing banknotes that were not fully covered by gold. In order to sustain this system the central bank was introduced. By means of ongoing monetary management, the central bank’s job is to prevent banks from bankrupting each other during the clearance of checks. Whether the central bank injects money in accordance with economic activity or fixes the money supply growth rate, it continuously destabilizes the system. To make the system truly stable is to permit the free market to take over. In a truly free market, there is no need to be concerned with the issue of the "correct" money supply growth rate, and no institution is required to regulate the supply of money. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------