Jardine K Jardine
re;
Foyle has no answer to these arguments because he is only endlessly regurgitating the long-refuted Keynesian nonsense that's causing the problem in the first place.

You obviously do not understand that private banks do not consider if they have adequate reserves before lending. Before they became too greedy for their own good they lent to people who met prudential tests. They knew that the cheques they wrote when creating loans would end up back in the banking system and that what each bank lost on the roundabout would be picked up on the swings. Creating a loan created the reserve.

I wish people would read and understand the work readily available from Professor Wray, Dr Kelton, A/P Black, and particularly J D Alt as published on the blog neweconomicperspectives.org

It is not hard to understand that;
1. for private financial wealth to increase, a sovereign government must run a deficit if the foreign (current) account is in balance. That is simply a truth from the rules of double entry accounting.
2. Any move toward austerity, either by the private sector or the sovereign government, reduces demand and increases unemployment.
3. That the budget outcome is a result, not an aim, and that if the community wealth (the common weal) has increased by more than the deficit in any accounting period the deficit increase has been a benefit.

Foyle
So no private wealth ever increased before governments ran deficits?

Printing money creates real physical wealth, and socialism makes a society more physically productive?

We are back to wondering why you don't care that what you say is obviously untrue?

Yebiga
"Is not warren questioning the role of the federal reserve and the unfettered expansion of debt?"

No. Not according to the article at least. Did you read it? If she were questioning the role of the federal reserve, that would be good. But she isn't. Neither Warren nor Greg display any awareness of the role of the federal reserve. Warren is entirely concerned with subsidiary symptoms,and more of the monetary central planning that's causing it, and Greg is cheering her on.

"Is not this precisely the point?"
It is precisely the point, and one which Warren and Greg both missed.

"And is not this something Mises a d Hayek themselves would approve?"
No. You obviously haven't read and don't understand them.

"I suggest if you stop and think, and actually read and comprehend your own references, you will see quite clearly that at least on this matter Hayek and warren are sitting at the same table."

You are mistaken. It's you who don't understand the Austrian theory you refer to. Please cite where they support regulation of the downstream effects of inflating the supply of money substitutes.

It's no use advocating the benefits of regulation unless you're going to explain why all productive activity should not be undertaken by government. All you're doing is displaying ignorance of the fundamental clanger you've just dropped.

Jardine
The article is supportive of senator Warren because she is challenging the concept of too big to fail and too big to jail.
She is wanting to restrict banks increasing the money supply with credit expansion based purely on asset speculation and prevent the repeat of the GFC and something even bigger.

Neither Misse or Hayek would argue with that would they? Tell me that Hayek would be supportive of the banks increasing speculative credit.

Sadly, you are so desperate to evangelising the libertarian ideology that in this and many other instances your really not comprehending what is actually going on.

So who made the Clanger?

Jardine,
If your heroes are correct why do their austerity programs still have Europe stuck in a recession after nearly seven years of the same failed approach to the problems caused by inadequate demand?

Before repeating your errors please read J D Alt's article at; www.neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/08/mobilization-and-money.html
The first few sentences read;
"I’m nearly finished with a very long book that may well be the best illustration of the basic principles of Modern Money Theory available. The book is “A Call To Arms,” by Maury Klein. It is an historical account of the U.S. mobilization as it prepared for, and engaged in, war with Germany and Japan. The scale of the task was unprecedented in human history—and the accomplishment of it changed not just the structure of the American economy, but American society as well. What is striking about the story—and the monumental effort to quickly build, virtually from scratch, the largest and most sophisticated war machine ever to exist on the planet—is that there is nary a peep of concern or argument about how this enormous task would be paid for".

You obviously do not understand how corporations and the conservatives, in peace time, manage to hobble sovereign governments from providing a better community.

Yebiga

If what you are saying was right, it would apply to other economic goods as well as money.

Think old Soviet Union. It’s like saying, the chaos caused by central planning can be solved by more regulations. That’s what you’re saying. End of discussion. You’re wrong. You and Warren have learnt nothing from the last hundred years of economic theory and practice.

Warren is essentially arguing that there’s nothing wrong with the *principle* of central planning of the supply of money and credit, it’s just that those greedy capitalist running dogs keep mucking up the Grand Plan of their betters the clever know-it-alls in the political class who just happen to have set up and presided over the monopolistic governmental system whose corruption they now blame on unregulated capitalism.

If you think that Hayek or Mises supported such interventionism in theory or practice, you are wrong as a matter of fact, which is why, when challenged, you can’t cite any authority for that proposition. The reason in theory is the ole ‘Fighting for peace is like having sex for virginity’ thing. Given the root of the problem is the Fed, Warren proposes as a solution leaving the entire corrupt system as it is, and adding a few more regulations!

‘For every thousand hacking at the branches, there is only one striking the root.’

Foyle
Your question assumes what is in issue, and assumes your theory of causation is correct. We have already established it’s not, by the fact you can’t defend your assumptions.

Repeating your belief that governments make society physically richer by printing squiggly pieces of paper, and by blowing up cities, doesn’t make it true. According to your theory, full socialism would be both more physically productive, and fairer. It’s nonsense.

It’s no use appealing to the absent authority of NEP while you can’t defend their premises. It's like advancing trigonometric jargon while getting Pythagoras’s theorem wrong. ‘Garbage in,garbage out’. According to your theory, if the government burnt down all our houses, we could be economically better off. It’s moral and intellectual gibberish.

WARREN DOES NOT HAVE A GOD COMPLEX