Originally Posted by Brian Rush

And that, by the way, prefigures one aspect of the next High. We will have optimistic Millies entering midlife, feeling their muscle and ready to remake the world, calling for this, that, and the other thing, while burnt-out Xers sit in power, applying the brakes. The grand, visionary projects like those Robert describes, and others put forth by his peers, will mostly wait until the Awakening to actually be attempted. During the High, they will be restricted to the drawing board.

That's the way it was in this saeculum, anyway. From Medicare to civil rights legislation to men on the Moon, it was almost all done in the Awakening, not the High.

A nation can flex its muscles all it likes, but if those muscles are atrophied and the underlying bones brittle and liable to snap with exertion, it will accomplish very little. The U.S., no matter how optimistic its future Millie leadership, will not be able to will away crushing public and private debt, which will be the ultimate limiter of national aspirations in the 21st century. It is impossible to eliminate this debt because of the way the money supply is regulated. If the government ceases borrowing and balances its budget, private borrowing must pick up the slack or the money supply contracts, there isn't enough money to pay the interest on outstanding debts, and the economy tanks. This happened in 1836 when the Jackson administration managed to eliminate the federal debt, only to throw the country into a depression. It's a catch-22 that few Americans comprehend.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

And that, by the way, prefigures one aspect of the next High. We will have optimistic Millies entering midlife, feeling their muscle and ready to remake the world, calling for this, that, and the other thing, while burnt-out Xers sit in power, applying the brakes. The grand, visionary projects like those Robert describes, and others put forth by his peers, will mostly wait until the Awakening to actually be attempted. During the High, they will be restricted to the drawing board.

That's the way it was in this saeculum, anyway. From Medicare to civil rights legislation to men on the Moon, it was almost all done in the Awakening, not the High.

A nation can flex its muscles all it likes, but if those muscles are atrophied and the underlying bones brittle and liable to snap with exertion, it will accomplish very little. The U.S., no matter how optimistic its future Millie leadership, will not be able to will away crushing public and private debt, which will be the ultimate limiter of national aspirations in the 21st century. It is impossible to eliminate this debt because of the way the money supply is regulated. If the government ceases borrowing and balances its budget, private borrowing must pick up the slack or the money supply contracts, there isn't enough money to pay the interest on outstanding debts, and the economy tanks. This happened in 1836 when the Jackson administration managed to eliminate the federal debt, only to throw the country into a depression. It's a catch-22 that few Americans comprehend.

If the government ceases borrowing and balances its budget, private borrowing must pick up the slack or the money supply contracts

When less money is borrowed, the money supply increases rather than contracting.

If the government ceases borrowing and balances its budget, private borrowing must pick up the slack or the money supply contracts

When less money is borrowed, the money supply increases rather than contracting.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I just love that dialogue between Madscientist and Arkham. If that isn't a clear case of Hero optimism meeting Nomad pessimism, I'm a rabbit.

You misapprehend me. I actually believe the long-term prospects for the human race are fairly good, provided it can escape this death-trap of a planet before the next dinosaur-killer resets the evolutionary clock. But I do not believe the long-term prospects for the West are good. No civilization is immortal, and ours is fast approaching its end. Other, more vital civilizations will cannibalize our physical and intellectual remains and eventually expand into space, but that will be many decades or centuries from now, long after I am dead.

Geez, what an optimist!

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I just love that dialogue between Madscientist and Arkham. If that isn't a clear case of Hero optimism meeting Nomad pessimism, I'm a rabbit.

You misapprehend me. I actually believe the long-term prospects for the human race are fairly good, provided it can escape this death-trap of a planet before the next dinosaur-killer resets the evolutionary clock. But I do not believe the long-term prospects for the West are good. No civilization is immortal, and ours is fast approaching its end. Other, more vital civilizations will cannibalize our physical and intellectual remains and eventually expand into space, but that will be many decades or centuries from now, long after I am dead.

Geez, what an optimist!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If the government ceases borrowing and balances its budget, private borrowing must pick up the slack or the money supply contracts

When less money is borrowed, the money supply increases rather than contracting.

No, the money supply contracts because money is created with each new loan and destroyed with each repayment of principle. This is due to the multiplicative power of fractional reserve lending, which makes it possible for banks to loan far more money than they have actual currency in reserve. Banks fabricate money from nothing when they issue loans, and this money would disappear back into nothing if all loans were simultaneously repaid. The money supply would shrink back to the size of the currency reserves, which in olden days was fixed by the supply of precious metals -- but which today is fixed by nothing more than faith in the efficacy of financial institutions. The problem arises when interest is computed. The money to repay interest is not created with the principle of the loan, and therefore the debt can only be serviced by shifting it onto someone else, not by eliminating it outright. It is impossible to eliminate interest-bearing debt because its monetary value will always increase faster than the actual money supply. As more money is borrowed (i.e., created from nothing), more interest is accumulated, and more money still must be borrowed to keep up payments. The process continues until governments, businesses, and households are so heavily leveraged that they are forced to default or declare bankruptcy. If this happens on a sufficiently large scale, you see bank runs and hording and a sharp curtailment of consumer demand as people are thrown back to subsistence lifestyles by the sheer lack of money.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If the government ceases borrowing and balances its budget, private borrowing must pick up the slack or the money supply contracts

When less money is borrowed, the money supply increases rather than contracting.

No, the money supply contracts because money is created with each new loan and destroyed with each repayment of principle. This is due to the multiplicative power of fractional reserve lending, which makes it possible for banks to loan far more money than they have actual currency in reserve. Banks fabricate money from nothing when they issue loans, and this money would disappear back into nothing if all loans were simultaneously repaid. The money supply would shrink back to the size of the currency reserves, which in olden days was fixed by the supply of precious metals -- but which today is fixed by nothing more than faith in the efficacy of financial institutions. The problem arises when interest is computed. The money to repay interest is not created with the principle of the loan, and therefore the debt can only be serviced by shifting it onto someone else, not by eliminating it outright. It is impossible to eliminate interest-bearing debt because its monetary value will always increase faster than the actual money supply. As more money is borrowed (i.e., created from nothing), more interest is accumulated, and more money still must be borrowed to keep up payments. The process continues until governments, businesses, and households are so heavily leveraged that they are forced to default or declare bankruptcy. If this happens on a sufficiently large scale, you see bank runs and hording and a sharp curtailment of consumer demand as people are thrown back to subsistence lifestyles by the sheer lack of money.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

...You've got one thing right: fossil fuels will be gone by mid-century...

Just one thought on this. While I tend to lean in your direction, an idea circulating among credible scientists (and thanks to Sean Love for pointing it out) concern's Thomas Gold's "beep, hot biosphere. If he is right about the microbes, and about the deep, geologic hydrocarbon cycle, then there is a clear process by which the world's petroleum supply might be partly or entirely regenerative.

One thing that really gets to me about this is a bit subtle--it is the oil claimed to be inside or under the Earth's continental shields. (Vince could speak to this quite well, as he lives on the edge the "Cambrian shield.") Here's the funny part. Since these are the oldest of the Earth's mantle rocks, you've got to ask where their petroleum reserves are coming from. Trickled down from the Carboniferous Period? Hmmm. I don't know about that. I am now officially suspicious about bugs in the deep, hot bisphere.

--Croaker

I live on the Paleozoic Platform. The Canadian Shield is hundreds of miles away!

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

...You've got one thing right: fossil fuels will be gone by mid-century...

Just one thought on this. While I tend to lean in your direction, an idea circulating among credible scientists (and thanks to Sean Love for pointing it out) concern's Thomas Gold's "beep, hot biosphere. If he is right about the microbes, and about the deep, geologic hydrocarbon cycle, then there is a clear process by which the world's petroleum supply might be partly or entirely regenerative.

One thing that really gets to me about this is a bit subtle--it is the oil claimed to be inside or under the Earth's continental shields. (Vince could speak to this quite well, as he lives on the edge the "Cambrian shield.") Here's the funny part. Since these are the oldest of the Earth's mantle rocks, you've got to ask where their petroleum reserves are coming from. Trickled down from the Carboniferous Period? Hmmm. I don't know about that. I am now officially suspicious about bugs in the deep, hot bisphere.

--Croaker

I live on the Paleozoic Platform. The Canadian Shield is hundreds of miles away!

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I just love that dialogue between Madscientist and Arkham. If that isn't a clear case of Hero optimism meeting Nomad pessimism, I'm a rabbit.

You misapprehend me. I actually believe the long-term prospects for the human race are fairly good, provided it can escape this death-trap of a planet before the next dinosaur-killer resets the evolutionary clock. But I do not believe the long-term prospects for the West are good. No civilization is immortal, and ours is fast approaching its end. Other, more vital civilizations will cannibalize our physical and intellectual remains and eventually expand into space, but that will be many decades or centuries from now, long after I am dead.

Geez, what an optimist!

Yes, it is optimistic. Mediterranean civilization fell apart spectacularly, but in time gave rise to vibrant successor civilizations, including Christendom (or the West as we call it today) and Islam (by way of Byzantium). These civilizations built on ancient achievements and took them farther than any Greek or Roman could have imagined possible. Whatever civilizations succeed the West will do the same -- provided no big rocks fall out of the sky in the meantime.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I just love that dialogue between Madscientist and Arkham. If that isn't a clear case of Hero optimism meeting Nomad pessimism, I'm a rabbit.

You misapprehend me. I actually believe the long-term prospects for the human race are fairly good, provided it can escape this death-trap of a planet before the next dinosaur-killer resets the evolutionary clock. But I do not believe the long-term prospects for the West are good. No civilization is immortal, and ours is fast approaching its end. Other, more vital civilizations will cannibalize our physical and intellectual remains and eventually expand into space, but that will be many decades or centuries from now, long after I am dead.

Geez, what an optimist!

Yes, it is optimistic. Mediterranean civilization fell apart spectacularly, but in time gave rise to vibrant successor civilizations, including Christendom (or the West as we call it today) and Islam (by way of Byzantium). These civilizations built on ancient achievements and took them farther than any Greek or Roman could have imagined possible. Whatever civilizations succeed the West will do the same -- provided no big rocks fall out of the sky in the meantime.

That's an interesting bit of reasoning, Arkham. Will you at least acknowledge that it sets conventional economics on its head? The money supply is usually treated as a function of interest rates, in that it represents the money available as (primarily) investment capital. Monetarist accounts of recessions make them out to be contractions in the money supply so that investment in profitable enterprises becomes more difficult and slows down. (I disagree, but not about what constitutes a contraction in the money supply.)

If all loans were completely repaid, and no more borrowed by anybody for any purpose, including investment in profitable enterprises, obviously we would have the recession from Hell itself! But that would not represent a contraction in the money supply. The only way you can get to that conclusion is to buy the monetarist explanation for recessions with religious fervor, observe the recession from Hell itself, and conclude, ipso facto, that the money supply had contracted to zilch. Not so. The money would be there to borrow and invest, and that means there's a good supply of money. It's just that nobody wants to invest it for some reason.

That's an interesting bit of reasoning, Arkham. Will you at least acknowledge that it sets conventional economics on its head? The money supply is usually treated as a function of interest rates, in that it represents the money available as (primarily) investment capital. Monetarist accounts of recessions make them out to be contractions in the money supply so that investment in profitable enterprises becomes more difficult and slows down. (I disagree, but not about what constitutes a contraction in the money supply.)

If all loans were completely repaid, and no more borrowed by anybody for any purpose, including investment in profitable enterprises, obviously we would have the recession from Hell itself! But that would not represent a contraction in the money supply. The only way you can get to that conclusion is to buy the monetarist explanation for recessions with religious fervor, observe the recession from Hell itself, and conclude, ipso facto, that the money supply had contracted to zilch. Not so. The money would be there to borrow and invest, and that means there's a good supply of money. It's just that nobody wants to invest it for some reason.

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

...You've got one thing right: fossil fuels will be gone by mid-century...

Just one thought on this. While I tend to lean in your direction, an idea circulating among credible scientists (and thanks to Sean Love for pointing it out) concern's Thomas Gold's "beep, hot biosphere. If he is right about the microbes, and about the deep, geologic hydrocarbon cycle, then there is a clear process by which the world's petroleum supply might be partly or entirely regenerative.

One thing that really gets to me about this is a bit subtle--it is the oil claimed to be inside or under the Earth's continental shields. (Vince could speak to this quite well, as he lives on the edge the "Cambrian shield.") Here's the funny part. Since these are the oldest of the Earth's mantle rocks, you've got to ask where their petroleum reserves are coming from. Trickled down from the Carboniferous Period? Hmmm. I don't know about that. I am now officially suspicious about bugs in the deep, hot bisphere.

--Croaker

I live on the Paleozoic Platform. The Canadian Shield is hundreds of miles away!

You're right, Vince. I meant to say "pre-Cambrian Shield," which I'm guessing may also be called the "Paleozoic Platform."

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

...You've got one thing right: fossil fuels will be gone by mid-century...

Just one thought on this. While I tend to lean in your direction, an idea circulating among credible scientists (and thanks to Sean Love for pointing it out) concern's Thomas Gold's "beep, hot biosphere. If he is right about the microbes, and about the deep, geologic hydrocarbon cycle, then there is a clear process by which the world's petroleum supply might be partly or entirely regenerative.

One thing that really gets to me about this is a bit subtle--it is the oil claimed to be inside or under the Earth's continental shields. (Vince could speak to this quite well, as he lives on the edge the "Cambrian shield.") Here's the funny part. Since these are the oldest of the Earth's mantle rocks, you've got to ask where their petroleum reserves are coming from. Trickled down from the Carboniferous Period? Hmmm. I don't know about that. I am now officially suspicious about bugs in the deep, hot bisphere.

--Croaker

I live on the Paleozoic Platform. The Canadian Shield is hundreds of miles away!

You're right, Vince. I meant to say "pre-Cambrian Shield," which I'm guessing may also be called the "Paleozoic Platform."

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

...You've got one thing right: fossil fuels will be gone by mid-century...

Just one thought on this. While I tend to lean in your direction, an idea circulating among credible scientists (and thanks to Sean Love for pointing it out) concern's Thomas Gold's "beep, hot biosphere. If he is right about the microbes, and about the deep, geologic hydrocarbon cycle, then there is a clear process by which the world's petroleum supply might be partly or entirely regenerative.

One thing that really gets to me about this is a bit subtle--it is the oil claimed to be inside or under the Earth's continental shields. (Vince could speak to this quite well, as he lives on the edge the "Cambrian shield.") Here's the funny part. Since these are the oldest of the Earth's mantle rocks, you've got to ask where their petroleum reserves are coming from. Trickled down from the Carboniferous Period? Hmmm. I don't know about that. I am now officially suspicious about bugs in the deep, hot bisphere.

--Croaker

I live on the Paleozoic Platform. The Canadian Shield is hundreds of miles away!

You're right, Vince. I meant to say "pre-Cambrian Shield," which I'm guessing may also be called the "Paleozoic Platform."

Perhaps you fellows could compromise and agree to call it the "pre-Canadian Shield"?

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

...You've got one thing right: fossil fuels will be gone by mid-century...

Just one thought on this. While I tend to lean in your direction, an idea circulating among credible scientists (and thanks to Sean Love for pointing it out) concern's Thomas Gold's "beep, hot biosphere. If he is right about the microbes, and about the deep, geologic hydrocarbon cycle, then there is a clear process by which the world's petroleum supply might be partly or entirely regenerative.

One thing that really gets to me about this is a bit subtle--it is the oil claimed to be inside or under the Earth's continental shields. (Vince could speak to this quite well, as he lives on the edge the "Cambrian shield.") Here's the funny part. Since these are the oldest of the Earth's mantle rocks, you've got to ask where their petroleum reserves are coming from. Trickled down from the Carboniferous Period? Hmmm. I don't know about that. I am now officially suspicious about bugs in the deep, hot bisphere.

--Croaker

I live on the Paleozoic Platform. The Canadian Shield is hundreds of miles away!

You're right, Vince. I meant to say "pre-Cambrian Shield," which I'm guessing may also be called the "Paleozoic Platform."

Perhaps you fellows could compromise and agree to call it the "pre-Canadian Shield"?

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

...You've got one thing right: fossil fuels will be gone by mid-century...

Just one thought on this. While I tend to lean in your direction, an idea circulating among credible scientists (and thanks to Sean Love for pointing it out) concern's Thomas Gold's "beep, hot biosphere. If he is right about the microbes, and about the deep, geologic hydrocarbon cycle, then there is a clear process by which the world's petroleum supply might be partly or entirely regenerative.

One thing that really gets to me about this is a bit subtle--it is the oil claimed to be inside or under the Earth's continental shields. (Vince could speak to this quite well, as he lives on the edge the "Cambrian shield.") Here's the funny part. Since these are the oldest of the Earth's mantle rocks, you've got to ask where their petroleum reserves are coming from. Trickled down from the Carboniferous Period? Hmmm. I don't know about that. I am now officially suspicious about bugs in the deep, hot bisphere.

--Croaker

I live on the Paleozoic Platform. The Canadian Shield is hundreds of miles away!

You're right, Vince. I meant to say "pre-Cambrian Shield," which I'm guessing may also be called the "Paleozoic Platform."

Perhaps you fellows could compromise and agree to call it the "pre-Canadian Shield"?

I hit the Laurentian Plateau with my snowplow this morning. It didn't move very much. :?

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

...You've got one thing right: fossil fuels will be gone by mid-century...

Just one thought on this. While I tend to lean in your direction, an idea circulating among credible scientists (and thanks to Sean Love for pointing it out) concern's Thomas Gold's "beep, hot biosphere. If he is right about the microbes, and about the deep, geologic hydrocarbon cycle, then there is a clear process by which the world's petroleum supply might be partly or entirely regenerative.

One thing that really gets to me about this is a bit subtle--it is the oil claimed to be inside or under the Earth's continental shields. (Vince could speak to this quite well, as he lives on the edge the "Cambrian shield.") Here's the funny part. Since these are the oldest of the Earth's mantle rocks, you've got to ask where their petroleum reserves are coming from. Trickled down from the Carboniferous Period? Hmmm. I don't know about that. I am now officially suspicious about bugs in the deep, hot bisphere.

--Croaker

I live on the Paleozoic Platform. The Canadian Shield is hundreds of miles away!

You're right, Vince. I meant to say "pre-Cambrian Shield," which I'm guessing may also be called the "Paleozoic Platform."

Perhaps you fellows could compromise and agree to call it the "pre-Canadian Shield"?

I hit the Laurentian Plateau with my snowplow this morning. It didn't move very much. :?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That's an interesting bit of reasoning, Arkham. Will you at least acknowledge that it sets conventional economics on its head? The money supply is usually treated as a function of interest rates, in that it represents the money available as (primarily) investment capital. Monetarist accounts of recessions make them out to be contractions in the money supply so that investment in profitable enterprises becomes more difficult and slows down. (I disagree, but not about what constitutes a contraction in the money supply.)

If all loans were completely repaid, and no more borrowed by anybody for any purpose, including investment in profitable enterprises, obviously we would have the recession from Hell itself! But that would not represent a contraction in the money supply. The only way you can get to that conclusion is to buy the monetarist explanation for recessions with religious fervor, observe the recession from Hell itself, and conclude, ipso facto, that the money supply had contracted to zilch. Not so. The money would be there to borrow and invest, and that means there's a good supply of money. It's just that nobody wants to invest it for some reason.

We may differ greatly on our conception of "traditional" economics. I would say Adam Smith is traditional, while you may replace him with Keynes or Friedman or whoever. The money supply would indeed contract because money is not the same as currency: currency is a portable form of wealth, while money is an accounting device. Money does not have to have physical existence to be circulated, which is why banks can loan more money than they have currency reserves -- the money created by loans is just an entry in a ledger. But in 2004, even currency is inherently worthless, being merely printed notes and coinage containing no precious metals. It only functions as a store of value because the government says it does, hence the term "fiat money". This is problematic, because it requires that people have faith in government and financial institutions for the economy to function. When that faith is shaken, serious instabilities arise, and the economy tailspins. The United States has never experienced a truly severe crisis of confidence in its monetary system. Even during the Depression, people held onto dollars because they were at the time convertible to gold, and later to silver. But in countries where fiat money schemes have imploded, people burn money for fuel because it is otherwise worthless. This will happen in the U.S. some day, as bankruptcies proliferate, banks prove unable to recoup more than a fraction of outstanding debt, and people are forced increasingly to question the soundness of the financial (and by extension, monetary) systems.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That's an interesting bit of reasoning, Arkham. Will you at least acknowledge that it sets conventional economics on its head? The money supply is usually treated as a function of interest rates, in that it represents the money available as (primarily) investment capital. Monetarist accounts of recessions make them out to be contractions in the money supply so that investment in profitable enterprises becomes more difficult and slows down. (I disagree, but not about what constitutes a contraction in the money supply.)

If all loans were completely repaid, and no more borrowed by anybody for any purpose, including investment in profitable enterprises, obviously we would have the recession from Hell itself! But that would not represent a contraction in the money supply. The only way you can get to that conclusion is to buy the monetarist explanation for recessions with religious fervor, observe the recession from Hell itself, and conclude, ipso facto, that the money supply had contracted to zilch. Not so. The money would be there to borrow and invest, and that means there's a good supply of money. It's just that nobody wants to invest it for some reason.

We may differ greatly on our conception of "traditional" economics. I would say Adam Smith is traditional, while you may replace him with Keynes or Friedman or whoever. The money supply would indeed contract because money is not the same as currency: currency is a portable form of wealth, while money is an accounting device. Money does not have to have physical existence to be circulated, which is why banks can loan more money than they have currency reserves -- the money created by loans is just an entry in a ledger. But in 2004, even currency is inherently worthless, being merely printed notes and coinage containing no precious metals. It only functions as a store of value because the government says it does, hence the term "fiat money". This is problematic, because it requires that people have faith in government and financial institutions for the economy to function. When that faith is shaken, serious instabilities arise, and the economy tailspins. The United States has never experienced a truly severe crisis of confidence in its monetary system. Even during the Depression, people held onto dollars because they were at the time convertible to gold, and later to silver. But in countries where fiat money schemes have imploded, people burn money for fuel because it is otherwise worthless. This will happen in the U.S. some day, as bankruptcies proliferate, banks prove unable to recoup more than a fraction of outstanding debt, and people are forced increasingly to question the soundness of the financial (and by extension, monetary) systems.

Arkham:

All of that is interesting, but beside the point. The money supply isn't the supply of money that is leant out, but the amount of money that is available to lend out. (Even "fiat" money is limited, although the limits are self-imposed in order to avoid a wild inflationary spiral.) If all loans, consumer, business, and government, were paid back, the amount of money available to lend out -- and hence the money supply -- would be enormous. Interest rates would plummet, as lenders attempted to push money out their doors.

If that money weren't re-borrowed and invested, then of course we would have a disastrous recession. Even the process of paying it back, which would remove money from circulation, would likely depress the economy. But that's not because the money supply would contract; just the opposite.

Arkham:

All of that is interesting, but beside the point. The money supply isn't the supply of money that is leant out, but the amount of money that is available to lend out. (Even "fiat" money is limited, although the limits are self-imposed in order to avoid a wild inflationary spiral.) If all loans, consumer, business, and government, were paid back, the amount of money available to lend out -- and hence the money supply -- would be enormous. Interest rates would plummet, as lenders attempted to push money out their doors.

If that money weren't re-borrowed and invested, then of course we would have a disastrous recession. Even the process of paying it back, which would remove money from circulation, would likely depress the economy. But that's not because the money supply would contract; just the opposite.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

...I hit the Laurentian Plateau with my snowplow this morning. It didn't move very much. :?

Not to be confused with another Laurentian Plateau that bubbles away nostalgically on PBS every Saturday night.