Day 187: Why is Art so Expensive?

In one of the Afrikaans newspapers was an article on "Now everyone wants to have a Tretchi".

In the article, the author asks questions regarding the price of art - and why some art pieces are suddenly more expensive (though he's more talking about one artist in contrast to other artists - while from my perspective the same questions can apply to ALL Art).

The first thing that comes up when you ask people why Art is so expensive is the principle of Supply and Demand. There's only the one art piece which is unique in itself, only one person can have it and so in order to compete and exclude others from gaining access to it the price goes up.

But then the question of demand is not answered. Where does this demand come from? Where is this high willingness to pay for a physical object which may or may not even be aesthetically pleasant. I mean, Piero Manzoni canned his shit and it's called art.

It's all just based on consensus. A bunch of people agree that something is Art and now it's Art and now apparently it is 'valuable'. And if you want to be 'in' and you want to be part of this alternate reality called 'the art world' -- you want that painting/art piece that everyone agrees one is more worthy than other art pieces. I mean how ridiculous is that -- it's completely subjective. It's based on what other people agreed before them 'is art' and filter/interpret art through what they think they know about art. So they're not even looking at the actual piece for what it is, it first has to be filtered through someone's entire art knowledge before they have something to say about it.

Yes, art can be cool. I did art at some point and it's a fun medium to explore to express yourself and communicate in a different language where the art world has its own established 'symbolism' that you can use to convey a message.

But selling a painting like The card Players from Paul Cezanne for $267 million dollars? That's not what arts about, that's just a mind game. Especially if you consider that Paul Cezanne is looong dead and is never going to see any of the money -- so it's not supporting him in any way whatsover. If you look at Van Gogh, he had a terrible life -- what's in it for him when Portrait of Dr. Gachet was sold for $147.8 million. Surely, there's more important things you can do with your money? The person who actually deserved to get some money for the labour he put into the piece is long gone and you have a world where half of the population lives in misery -- so deciding to spend that amount of money on a piece of canvas with paint which together forms a picture over deciding to use your money to change the world for the better = it sounds kind of psychopathic to me.

The documentary "Exist through the Giftshop" by Banksy shows the whole Art scam quite clearly. In it, they follow around Thierry Guetta whose really into street art and basically a street art-wannabe and he ends up with his own exhibition selling pieces. And it's not like he put tons of work in the pieces because he mostly hired people to do the work for him and there's also not really a profound meaning behind any of his work. But because he's able to simulate art and 'make it look like art' = people believe it's art and make it art in their head. People come to his show and ask him questions and give their insight into what they are seeing and they're just making profound shit up and he just agrees with whatever they say = now it's art.

So art is all in the mind of the beholder and really has no other value than the time spent working on it and the money spent on acquiring the materials.

In Equal Money Capitalism Art will be valued as an expression -- not as an object to create an obsession about which leads to mental disorder like throwing tons of money away to get a piece while millions suffer.

You will also no longer be limited by people having to buy your art so you can survive and make more art -- your will be supported within developing and exploring your expression.

Expression and Creative Licensing

This will be more a ‘hobby’ point. For those people whose only income is derived from such activities, they’d have to be part of a greater collective like a Cultural Centre where many points of expression are explored and presented, where the general public can come and check it out and participate in community projects. It will be a place of coming together, having fun events, meeting people – socialising, which are all things people really enjoy.

In essence it’s about self-expression. You want the freedom to express. You will have the freedom to express and you will have the support that will give you the freedom to express. The concept of ‘ownership’ is only relevant to those points that are necessary to make your life function, like a house, a car – things like that. The other things are not really an ownership, because there’s nothing new. You’re simply expressing something that already exists. You are using notes in a particular sequence -- which forms a melody. The melody already existed - it’s just a coincidence that you’re the one that came up with that particular melody. The same goes for the lyrics of a song: the words you use for a song already exist, it’s just coincidence that you come up with it or another person comes up with it – it’s equally possible.

So it’s not about ownership there, or about having a copyright, or controlling it. That’s exactly the point we want to move away from – control. So that people can express themselves, if they like it.

http://economistjourneytolife.blogspot.com/2013/01/day-171-life-force-and-expression-in.html

This will allow a lot more people to enjoy and explore art as a point of Expression without the money constraints being in place -- while more people will also be able to enjoy appreciate one another's art. This will allow for Art to take on a whole new dimensions as there will be actual freedom to express.

Related articles

• Day 171: Life-Force and Expression in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 180: The Word 'Capitalism' in 'Equal Money Capitalism'
• Day 173: Supply, Demand, Business and Scarcity in Equal Money Capitalism

Read More

Day 143: The Neo-Apartheid Era

In the past, Apartheid meant the segregation between people according to the colour of their skin.
Currently, many may still mistake the current inequalities in the world as being the result of an 'Apartheid' mentality - but the truth is that we are currently dealing with a whole new form of Apartheid: Neo-Apartheid.

Neo-Apartheid, is the division of people -- not based on skin colour or race -- but based on what you have or do not have as: MONEY.

In South Africa, many claim 'Apartheid' is still roaming, and that the major inequalities present are the result of division based on race. It's really a division based on money: you have those with money, and you have those without money (or very little). It just happens to coincide, that many black people are poor and thus disadvantages -- but the colour of one's skin is not the foundational point, money is, and this is what the Neo-Apartheid is all about.

In the past, for building you had two doors: Whites and Non-Whites -- and based on your skin colour you would have a particular access to resources. Now, we work with a different system of segregation: Money. You want food? This is the price-tag: You have money = you have food. You don't have money = you don't get food. Our current Money System, does not care about the colour of your skin, your gender, your age, where you're from -- all it wants to know is: do you have money?

The peculiar thing with Neo-Apartheid as the Money Division Scam -- is that no-one seems to notice that it exists. We don't seem to think that it is strange, that we go to the shop and see a homeless person in a shaggy box, begging for food or money. We don't ask: "How come that I am able to go into this shop, and get myself food, because I have a card with digital money on it -- and this person who does not have a card with digital money on it, or paper with numbers on -- for some reason does not get to go inside and buy food? Why is that?".

No instead, we try not to look the person in the eye, shush the children that are with us shopping, telling them not to look or interact with the person -- like he has some freaking disease -- and just walk into the shop stone-cold. And then once you're in the shop with all the bright lights and sparkly colours you can relax, you're safe -- that person cannot come through the sliding doors, he does not belong here.

I mean: what the fuck.

If money is our ticket to basically everything in this world, then how come some have it and others don't? And how come some have A LOT of it, while others don't?

This Neo-Apartheid phenomenon, is not an isolated incident that is typical for only a few countries -- this is a World Wide phenomenon taking place!

Let’s have a look at the Lorenz curve of the world – but first, let me explain what a Lorenz curve is:

The Lorenz curve is a graphical method of depicting inequality within a particular area and thus concerning a particular group of people.
You have your vertical and horizontal axis, where the vertical axis represents cumulative income in percentage, and the horizontal axis represents cumulative percentage of people/households, like this:

Then, there is a straight diagonal line in the graph – which represents the point of ‘perfect equality’: the first 10% of the people receive 10% of all income, the first 20% receive 20% of all income and so forth. This line is our point of reference and is always included in the graph:

Then, another curve is drawn, and the ‘deeper’ the other curve is compared to the straight line = the more inequality, as income is more disproportionally distributed. The closer the second curve is to the straight line – the closer it is to being equal.

Here’s a few curves to get an idea of what I’m talking about:

So here you can see the curves become more curved – indicating more inequality.

Now let’s look at the Lorenz curve of the WORLD


Woooaaaah!! That is like practically bordering on the point of Perfect Inequality (and there is no curve more unequal than this one for any part of the world -- this is it) ! That means, that currently, in our Neo-Apartheid Era --- the majority of the people have to do with very little, while a few hog all the wealth. So, we can see that the most prominent inequality currently, is not a race thing, it’s a money thing – and right now, money is distributed disproportionally over the whole of the population and no-one seems to think that this is a strange thing. It’s almost like this must be the graph for some really bad, poor country, where criminals run everything and are so corrupt that nothing is left for the people… This can’t be the graph for the WORLD??

But it is, which means, the world IS run by criminals and we are in a pretty messy situation right now where so many people are living a life of misery because we as humanity have lost all common sense reasoning capability and have surrendered ourselves to fear, where we will never question authority, and never do anything that is ‘out of line’ – just nodding our heads while we’re being robbed blind.

It’s time to wake up to reality, and see that what we have created is so disturbing that it just cannot get more disturbing than what we’re at now. Wake up, the world does not have to be this way, we don’t have to live in fear – check out www.EqualMoney.org -- let’s stop Neo-Apartheid.

Read More

Day 133: Mayans Demand End of Doomsday Myth as it is just a Money Scam

As 21 December 2012 is coming closer, which is supposed to mark the end of an era which has lead to a boom in doomsday literature and speculation -- tourism to Guatemala and other Southern American states is increasing.

“It’s offensive, it’s an insult, and it is contradictory for indigenous people to continue to be steeped in poverty while public funds are squandered on celebrating,” activist Ricardo Cajas, of the non-governmental Guatemalan Council of Maya Organisations (COMG), told IPS.

For the event alone, tourism industry authorities have announces that 15 ceremonies will be held, which includes a major multimedia presentation on the legacy of the ancient Maya civilization.

This doomsday hype must be really good business, as the government has already spent 8.5 million dollars on the preparations for the ceremonies surrounding the event.

Imagine, if 8.5 million dollars has already been spent -- this must mean some serious revenue for the government. And for what? For a stupid idea that the world is going to end, an illusionary idea which we've created and entertained ourselves with, while in the meantime, real people, like the native Maya Indians alive today: are suffering.

While they make up for the majority of the population, there needs have been continued to be disregarded, leaving them live a life ranging from extreme poverty to just being able to get by.

"Around 80 percent of Guatemala’s farmland is in the hands of just five percent of farmers. But 61 percent of the population is rural and 80 percent of the mainly indigenous rural population is poor, according to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)."

While everyone is so focused on this romanticized ideas about the ancient Mayans and their wisdom, there's actually people suffering, because we care more about entertaining ourselves with a doomsday hype rather than looking for practical solutions to establish Heaven on Earth for everyone: there must be something seriously wrong with humanity.

Pop the bubble of illusion and stop distracting yourself with a one day hype which is going to turn out to be just another day (except that it's going to be one COSTLY one, just for the sake of entertaining people who have too much money to spend and too little integrity to create a world that's Best for All).

Instead, spend your time and energy towards and actual solution, such as the Equal Money System. Don't wait for doomsday for our atrocious world to end -- we can decide to stop what we are doing and create a system that is Best for all.

Even the Mayans living today demand an end to the doomsday myth:

"We are speaking out against deceit, lies and twisting of the truth, and turning us into folklore-for-profit. They are not telling the truth about time cycles," charged Felipe Gomez, leader of the Maya alliance Oxlaljuj Ajpop.

Check it out: www.EqualMoney.org

Related articles

• Maya demand an end to doomsday myth

Source: http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/11/new-era-augurs-more-of-the-same-for-impoverished-maya-people/

Read More

Day 131: The Justice System – also a Scam?

Foreign Farmers Undermine Food Security in Zambia

Unlike in many countries, where large-scale farming companies dominate the agricultural landscape – it is smallholder farmers who constitute most of the farming activity in Zambia.

Many foreign and local companies are now involved in land-grabs, where large stretches of land are taken to develop their plants and factories.

On this land, live many people – who all depend on the land they have to survive, to grow food, to send their children to school. The problem is that most of these people do not hold official title deeds of the land – so legally speaking, they do not own the land: they are squatters.

So when these companies move in and take the land, things like this happen:

“They (the South African agribusiness) came with guns and threatened to shoot anyone who resisted moving out. They burnt all our household properties without any notice. We were almost 200 households. They burnt my food barns, clothes, blankets, bedding, television set – they even burnt my fields”

Before colonization, the common way of land tenure was through customs. You get a piece of land, you work it, you “own” it. Only after colonization, was statutory tenure introduced , where the whole legal technicalities and you having a particular piece of paper saying you own the land became a requirement.

So, imagine you are one of these Zambian farmers. You live on a piece of land, you grow and eat your own food for most of your life, and then someone comes chasing you off with guns and burns your shit down because you don’t have a paper that proofs that this land belongs to you. You live in a rural area, you are poor – the process of acquiring such a legal document can cost up to $2000 and take anything from 2 months to 10 years. There’s not much choice now is there? You’d have to basically sell your land to come up with the money to get a paper that says you own the land – but by then of course it’s already too late.

Zambia’s situation is not a very pleasant one, 59% of the people live below the poverty line, and 65% of the people live in rural areas. The dislocation of these farmers does not just destroy their personal lives, but will also generate consequence for the whole of the population, as food security turns into insecurity.

If we look at the definition of ‘justice’ we get:

1. Just behavior or treatment.
2. The quality of being fair and reasonable.

The situation described above is not fair nor reasonable – these people’s lives are completely disregarded in the favour of those who can afford to acquire legal documents. This in itself shows that the Justice/Legal System is corrupt – as one has to bribe their way in to be able to be part of the legal system.

This is completely unacceptable and goes contrary to everything justice as a principle is supposed to stand for.

It is time, once more, to critically investigate the nature of our reality and what we participate in.

In an Equal Money System, no such phenomenon will have space to take place – as all will be IN FACT equal, and not have to buy their way in. You are here on Earth, you should not have to ‘earn’ your living or prove that you are worthy of existing based on your economic and legal status. Investigate Equal Money – the only valid alternative to transform our world of abuse and corruption to a world that is Best for All Life.

Related articles

• Foreign farmers undermine food security in Zambia

Read More

Day 129: Copy Right Scam Revisited

This blog is a continuation to:
Day 127: Copyright Scam
and related to:
Day 132: Does Copyright Make Sense? Or Just Cents?

So let’s have another look at the scenario of the man who bought textbooks overseas at a cheaper price than what they are sold and the US – and then sold these online in order to pay for his study tuition and living expenses – and then got sued for it.

One of the comments on Facebook on the previous blog had the following point in it:

Intellectual Property is a strange area - you need to protect the people who create it because they invest a huge amount of time and effort (and risk) into doing so - however obviously it can easily be exploited if not carefully monitored.

With regards to educational text books its an area which needs protection imho as they're incredibly arduous to undertake and require a lot of research etc. - yet they have a miniscule market in reality compare to a traditional novel etc.

What's being looked at here is the point that people require 'protection' --where in this case, the people making textbooks require 'protection' because their work requires a lot of time, work and investment -- and they need a point of 'safety' which is apparently why the books are being sold so expensively. Yet at the same time, the student also requires protection. In a lot of places in the world, study fees are very high and many need to resort to student loans which they may not even be able to pay off -- being shackled to debt for life.

This is because in our current economic system, we do not have a platform of support that supports and ensures even basic survival. The textbook producer is scared for his survival, and so is forced to move to expensive prices for their textbooks. The same way, the student is scared for his survival and is forced to find ways to make money to pay able to pay for his expenses -- which in this case he did with selling cheaper textbooks from overseas within the US.

Now, how would this scenario look like if a basic platform of support was in place, where each one receive an unconditional income? The survival point falls away: the textbook writer does not have to fear for his survival and ask a high price for his book, and the student can simply focus on studying without having to struggle his way into studying because of fear of not being able to afford to study.

This point is typical to the dynamic of supply and demand, where the supplier's point of Self-Interest lies within selling their products/services expensively -- where he wants to get the most amount of money out of it -- while on the demand side of things, the consumer wants to buy and goods/services as cheaply as possible -- like that he or she can get the most amount of goods/services for the money he/she has available. Within having a basic platform of support in place -- each one's personal point of Self-Interest is removed -- as they both are trying to 'get the most out of it' for the sake of their survival, where each one's Self-Interest lies at opposite poles. Once the point of self-interest is removed, one can instead of looking after one's own ass only -- look at what's in the Best interest of All Beings involved -- and come up with ways that works for both producer and consumer.

Read More

Day 127: Copyright Scam

There is currently a court case going on concerning a man from Thailand who went to go study in the US, and to be able to pay for his studies and other living expenses, he asked his friends and family to send him foreign editions of textbooks, which he would then sell in the US, as they can be bought cheaper there.

So now this guy has been sued for copyright infringement and lost, though the decision was appealed and is now being heard in the Supreme Court.

The point which is being debated is whether copyrighted stuff which was made and created aborad can be bought and then sold in the US without requires the copyright owner's decision.

This whole care opens up a whole can of worms on the whole 'copyright ordeal':

the stakes could prove enormous for those who buy and sell books, movies, music, artwork, perhaps even furniture, electronics, automobiles, and clothing -- anything that may be considered "intellectual property."

"The idea -- upheld by the Supreme Court since 1908 -- is that once a copyright holder legally sells a product initially, the ownership claim is then exhausted, giving the buyer the power to resell, destroy, donate, whatever. It's a limited idea -- involving only a buyer's distribution right, not the power to reproduce that DVD or designer dress for sale."

"We're going to help the global economy with this," said Theodore Olson, an attorney with Gibson Dunn hired by the publisher. "The whole idea of the copyright laws is to provide people with an incentive to create books, movies, or other works of art. If you take away that incentive, you're not going to have creators out there doing things that give us pleasure or educate us."

"--Libraries would have to either purge their stacks of every foreign-printed work, pay a royalty, or essentially go out of the public lending service."



I mean, the whole textbook business is such a scam -- where people are forced to buy very expensive textbooks for school, which sometimes -- you do not even really need. Or where you have to buy a book, and you want to save yourself some money because hey, school's already so expensive -- and you want to buy it second-hand -- but then it turns out that you need the 9th Edition, which juuuuust got out this year, and you can only find the 8th edition version -- and then when you compare them, there's only a few sentences added and some punctuation corrected.


So now this guy is getting sued, for buying cheaper textbooks overseas and selling them in the US. The issue isn't even 'who owns what' -- but what profit was made and 'that profit should have been mine'. There's a general mentality that everyone has the 'right to make profit' in the liberal economic and democratic system -- that's exactly what this guy is doing. He's playing the Game we've all accepted and agreed upon to play: He saw an opportunity to make money and he took it -- isn't that what all the textbook companies do? They see they can make a lot of money and then they do it?

The whole point of 'incentive' that if this copyright points goes down the toilet, that people won't create 'art' and 'entertainment' anymore is such BS. Yes, everyone should have access to basic necessities to be able to live a life of comfort -- there's no reason why people should not do something simply because they are not getting a grotesque amount of money. There's lots of people creating 'free stuff' simply because they enjoy doing it and want to share what they create with everyone else without expecting anything in return.

If everyone has equal access to resources to live a life of comfort and explore career possibilities without monetary restrictions such as in the Equal Money System -- people would still create art and entertainment and do it because they like doing it -- and without going into Greed of wanting a shitload of money just because you can.

Investigate Equal Money -- we can make a better version of this reality.

Also check out the College Conspiracy documentary to get some perspective on our current educational system of a scam.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/26/justice/court-student-copyright/index.html

Related articles

• Day 125: Double Con - Australian Mining Interests in Africa
• Day 127: Abraham Hicks - Life is supposed to be fun continued 2...
• Day 89: There ain't no Such thing as a Free Lunch
• The Science of Thought - Introduction: DAY 149
• Dag 126: Turning a Blind Eye to Corruption
• Day 100: Will a Doctor's Handwriting be Legible in an Equal Money System?

Read More

Day 94: How is Money Created?

Also read Day 71: The Money Supply for additional Context

When someone takes out a loan from the bank, we believe (and most of the time have been taught) that this money is money that has been entrusted to them by depositors. This is not what happens in reality. The money that is received as a loan is actually created by the bank. This money does not come from what people have deposited and it also does not come from the banks own revenue. It is created from the borrower’s promise to repay.

When you sign a loan agreement, you agree to pay back the bank the amount borrowed, plus interest. You also agree that in the event that you are unable to pay back your loan, the bank has the right to confiscate your car, your house or whatever asset that was pledged as surety. The only thing of real value that is involved in a loan transaction, are the assets one has pledged to the bank in the event one fails to pay back the loan. (This loan agreement now carries value. The promise that sometime in the future you will pay off your loan means that at some point in the future, the bank will have this money. And even though the bank does not have the money now, it will use this loan agreement as if it is worth the amount of money owed – and use/spend it as such.)

Once the loan agreement has been signed, the bank is allowed to summon into reality the amount of the loan and just insert it into the borrower’s account.

The concept of lending out more money than you actually have stored is called “fractional reserve banking”.
This concept emerged during the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe. Halfway through the 17th century, as a consequence of the civil war, goldsmiths were making less money with their traditional way of doing business as forging objects out of gold and silver. As a way to survive, they started accepting other people their precious metals and keep it safe for them in their vaults at a particular fee. The goldsmith would then issue a receipt for the deposit made to the depositor. These receipts started circulating as a form of money, functioning as a representation of the actual physical precious metals that were stored in the vaults. As time went on, the goldsmiths realised that not all of the depositors would use their receipts to claim their gold and silver at the same time. The goldsmiths would thus be able to lend out more money as receipts than what he actually had in stock, and nobody would notice. Fractional reserve banking was born.

Fractional reserve banking is where only a fraction of bank deposits are backed by actual cash that is present and available for withdrawal. This system started with the goldsmiths and is currently still being applied in most countries all over the globe.

When the people realised what the goldsmiths were up to, it was already too late. Their money making mechanism had become a vital and essential part to the expansion of European commerce. So instead of banning fractional reserve banking, the government decided to regulate it instead.

Over the years, the fraction of gold backing the debt money has gradually declined to zero. Presently, paper or digital money can only be redeemed for another piece of paper or digital money.

In the past, the amount of money that was in circulation was limited and in accordance to whatever physical commodity was used and valued as money (e.g. gold, silver). For there to be more money, there had to be more of the particular commodity (e.g. more gold and silver).

Nowadays, money is created as debt. Using the fractional reserve banking method, new money is created through issuing loans. The only limit to the money supply is the total level of debt.

The most common ratio by which money is created is 9 to 1. Where for each actual dollar the bank has, it can bring 9 more “fictional” dollars into being. If this ‘new money’ then circulates between individuals and banks, even more ‘new’ money can be created from the previously ‘new money’.

This practically implies that money can only come into being through debt, and that essentially money is debt.
This has the even more disturbing implication that without debt, there will be no money.

Let use some simply mathematics to illustrate this point.
We start with zero ( 0 ) amount of money.

Now we want to take out a loan of let’s say, 500 dollars.

By taking out a loan of (+) 500 dollars, we are creating debt for the amount of (-) 500 dollars.

If we now pay off our loan, the money count will simply go back to zero, as the equation has been balanced out again. And the money is gone. We are thus completely dependent on debt for the existence and circulation of money! If everyone in the world would pay off their debts -- which sounds like a ‘good thing’ and considered by most to be a form of ‘improvement’ -- then there will be no more money!

“This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the Commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are, absolutely, without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is.”

 -       -   Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta, Georgia

But now, as you may have noticed, we have not yet addressed the point of paying back interest.

Banks will borrow you the principle amount of your loan, but where does the money come from to pay off the additional interest? The only way borrowers can pay the additional interest is by using money from the overall money supply in circulation. But now as we’ve just seen, most of this money has been created through debt which also has to be paid back with more than that which was created/borrowed.

We are faced with a situation where many (if not everyone) has to pay back both the original amount borrowed - plus interest - using money from the overall money supply. But this overall money supply consists of only the sum of all the principle amounts borrowed. It is thus impossible for everyone to pay back the original / principle amount and pay back the additional interest (unless the interest that is being paid to the banks gets spend immediately so others can use it to pay off their interest as well). Unless a vast amount of extra money is created to pay off the interest, a high level of foreclosure will be prominent in society. For a society to function at an effective level, foreclosure rates require to stay low. To be able to achieve this, more and more money needs to be created (= more and more debt), just to be able to meet the plea for money to be able to pay off the previous debt. We are literally taking out loans just to pay off our previous loans. This results in to a never-ending cycle of going into more debt to be able to pay off previous debts. The only thing that keeps the system going is the time lag between money being created and the loans being paid off over time. If this time lag was not in place, the whole system would collapse instantaneously.

It is an unsustainable system that eats itself up from the inside out.

 

Related articles

• Day 71: The Money Supply - Part 1
• Day 72: The Money Supply - Part 2
• Day 78: Monetary Policy - Part 1
• Day 79: Monetary Policy - Part 2
• Day 73: The Money Supply - Part 3
• Day 75: The Demand for Money - Part 1
• Day 84: Fiscal Policy and the Budget
• Day 68: The Functions of Money - Part 2
• Day 80: Monetary Policy - Part 3
• Day 70: Feedback on Inflation and Purpose of This Blog

Read More