<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Five Question for Frederick J. Sheehan, Author, PANDERER TO POWER</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/five-question-for-frederick-j-sheehan-author-panderer-to-power/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/five-question-for-frederick-j-sheehan-author-panderer-to-power/</link>
	<description>Macro Perspective on the Capital Markets, Economy, Geopolitics, Technology, and Digital Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:30:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: InspectorDan</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/five-question-for-frederick-j-sheehan-author-panderer-to-power/comment-page-1/#comment-240927</link>
		<dc:creator>InspectorDan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:02:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=43434#comment-240927</guid>
		<description>Mr. Mitchell,

I did not see any reasoning or causality behind your statement, 

&quot;The notion that federal money creation (aka federal borrowing) could make our government poorer is ludicrous.&quot;

all I saw was a grand pronouncement. 

Perhaps you are technically correct in saying that the U.S. can print money ad infinitum and never be any poorer but I see perhaps a logical inconsistency in that statement. 

If, as you say our wealth is dependent on  the &#039;Full Faith and Credit&#039; of the U.S., and if we print money as if it there were no tomorrow, then doesn&#039;t that eventually indeed make the U.S. poorer by reducing other entities &#039;Faith&#039; in the U.S.? 

I&#039;m sure if I read your book I would have a better understanding of your concepts but perhaps you could tell us again how printing greater and greater quantities of U.S. dollars does NOT negatively impact our economic standing both at home and abroad. Isn&#039;t that one of the definitions of &#039;being poorer&#039;? 

Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Mitchell,</p>
<p>I did not see any reasoning or causality behind your statement, </p>
<p>&#8220;The notion that federal money creation (aka federal borrowing) could make our government poorer is ludicrous.&#8221;</p>
<p>all I saw was a grand pronouncement. </p>
<p>Perhaps you are technically correct in saying that the U.S. can print money ad infinitum and never be any poorer but I see perhaps a logical inconsistency in that statement. </p>
<p>If, as you say our wealth is dependent on  the &#8216;Full Faith and Credit&#8217; of the U.S., and if we print money as if it there were no tomorrow, then doesn&#8217;t that eventually indeed make the U.S. poorer by reducing other entities &#8216;Faith&#8217; in the U.S.? </p>
<p>I&#8217;m sure if I read your book I would have a better understanding of your concepts but perhaps you could tell us again how printing greater and greater quantities of U.S. dollars does NOT negatively impact our economic standing both at home and abroad. Isn&#8217;t that one of the definitions of &#8216;being poorer&#8217;? </p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RodgerMitchell</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/five-question-for-frederick-j-sheehan-author-panderer-to-power/comment-page-1/#comment-233900</link>
		<dc:creator>RodgerMitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:16:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=43434#comment-233900</guid>
		<description>In one sentence Sheehan demonstrates he has no idea what he&#039;s talking about. He says: &quot;It is axiomatic that when savings are depleted and debts are rising the person, or company, or government is poorer.&quot;

He doesn&#039;t understand the profound difference between the federal government and all other entities.  The federal government has no savings, so it has no savings to deplete.  The so-called &quot;debts&quot; of the federal government merely are a tally of the money created by the government.

Unlike people, companies, cities, counties and states, the federal government has had, since 1971 (the end of the gold standard) the unlimited power to create money.  Therefore, it cannot be &quot;poor.&quot;  If the government wanted to give Mr. Sheehan $1 trillion tomorrow, it merely would mark his bank account with an additional $1 trillion.  This would make Mr. Sheehan rich, but would not make the federal government one cent poorer.

Even government so-called &quot;borrowing&quot; is obsolete. What we erroneously call borrowing is actually creating T-securities from thin air, collateralized by full faith and credit, then selling them for money we previously had created.  The federal government just as easily and prudently could create money directly, also from thin air and also collateralized by full faith and credit.  That would end federal debt along with the nonsense written about federal debt.

The notion that federal money creation (aka federal borrowing) could make our government poorer is ludicrous.

This is explained in more detail at  http://www.moslereconomics.com/ [The 7 Deadly Frauds]  and at http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/the-problem-with-debt-hawks-economics-chicken-littles/

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In one sentence Sheehan demonstrates he has no idea what he&#8217;s talking about. He says: &#8220;It is axiomatic that when savings are depleted and debts are rising the person, or company, or government is poorer.&#8221;</p>
<p>He doesn&#8217;t understand the profound difference between the federal government and all other entities.  The federal government has no savings, so it has no savings to deplete.  The so-called &#8220;debts&#8221; of the federal government merely are a tally of the money created by the government.</p>
<p>Unlike people, companies, cities, counties and states, the federal government has had, since 1971 (the end of the gold standard) the unlimited power to create money.  Therefore, it cannot be &#8220;poor.&#8221;  If the government wanted to give Mr. Sheehan $1 trillion tomorrow, it merely would mark his bank account with an additional $1 trillion.  This would make Mr. Sheehan rich, but would not make the federal government one cent poorer.</p>
<p>Even government so-called &#8220;borrowing&#8221; is obsolete. What we erroneously call borrowing is actually creating T-securities from thin air, collateralized by full faith and credit, then selling them for money we previously had created.  The federal government just as easily and prudently could create money directly, also from thin air and also collateralized by full faith and credit.  That would end federal debt along with the nonsense written about federal debt.</p>
<p>The notion that federal money creation (aka federal borrowing) could make our government poorer is ludicrous.</p>
<p>This is explained in more detail at  <a href="http://www.moslereconomics.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.moslereconomics.com/</a> [The 7 Deadly Frauds]  and at <a href="http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/the-problem-with-debt-hawks-economics-chicken-littles/" rel="nofollow">http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/the-problem-with-debt-hawks-economics-chicken-littles/</a></p>
<p>Rodger Malcolm Mitchell</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wednesday links: Black November Abnormal Returns</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/five-question-for-frederick-j-sheehan-author-panderer-to-power/comment-page-1/#comment-233852</link>
		<dc:creator>Wednesday links: Black November Abnormal Returns</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:42:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=43434#comment-233852</guid>
		<description>[...] Frederick Sheehan, &#8220;Alan Greenspan was the kingpin in the impoverishment of the American people.&#8221;  (Big Picture) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Frederick Sheehan, &#8220;Alan Greenspan was the kingpin in the impoverishment of the American people.&#8221;  (Big Picture) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/five-question-for-frederick-j-sheehan-author-panderer-to-power/comment-page-1/#comment-233658</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:57:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=43434#comment-233658</guid>
		<description>Largely Third World Countries have no private debt. This makes them well placed to experience growth in the face of a Western World global recession.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Largely Third World Countries have no private debt. This makes them well placed to experience growth in the face of a Western World global recession.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

