The Theory that I Have Been Searching for is MMT

I have to apologize.  Some of the statements that I made in the previous post, on credit creation, were inaccurate.  I have found out there is no “multiplier effect” with credit creation.  Essentially there are multiple loans in the economy at one time, that are used in buying assets in many cases.  During that moment, the money supply has expanded.  However, when the loan is repaid, the principle amount of money has been destroyed.  The interest the bank keeps.  Only the central bank has the power to manipulate bank reserves, except for the added deposits from consumers.  Banks cannot manipulate their reserves – they are only traded and manipulated based on deposits, or transactions from the central bank.

With that out of the way.

I am going to rewind to the financial crisis of 2008.  I actually got really depressed, simply because I was so mad at the society around me.  My family is struggling financially, and institutions that are responsible for risking an entire systemic crisis, are bailed out and kept alive.  What about the American people?  Jobs were lost.  What was more displeasing was the fact that when someone was arrested for protesting, they got a felony.  There was more though.  The Fed bailed out institutions around the world for 17 trillion dollars.  There was the stimulus package.  Fox News replied by enacting fear, and started doing segments on the national debt.  Through the fear of it all, everything settled, and it occurred to me.  We didn’t collapse.  What about the federal debt?  Everything seems to be working fine with increasing government spending.  Could the government debt not matter?  How does The Fed have 17 trillion dollars?  What about spending that on the American people?

So I started to search for an explanation.  Along the way, I would piece together piece by piece what is really going on.  I would have an overall theory, and time and time again it was wrong.  But I pushed to learn more and more.  I first learned about fractional reserve banking, and contemplated an economy based upon that.  I mean, it has been the accepted theory of banking even in my macroeconomics class.  But recently, I have found out that the current theories on Quantitative Easing, which are based on fractional reserve banking, are flat out inaccurate.  My previous post, albeit with some miss information (my theorizing was inaccurate), empirically showed that banks create credit from nothing.

With more digging, it was like Neo searching for something called The Matrix.  I was searching for MMT, or Modern Monetary Theory.  The theory is complex, and will take some time to get a grasp on.  But once I have an idea on how commercial banks, central banks, and their respective governments interact with one another, I can say I have a general idea on how the economy works.  And that to me, would feel good.  To the reader, I hope you understand this is going to be a journey, and I am going to record it.  Along the way, I may say somethings that are inaccurate.  I will do my best to be as accurate as possible, but part of the process for me is to fill in the blanks so to speak, until I can verify if those blanks are accurate.  It’s part of the process.

And so, to the entree of the post.  I read a paper on the interaction of the banks among themselves, as well as on the influence of the central bank.  I learned what actual Quantitative Easing (QE) really is.

McLeay, Michael, Amar Radia, and Ryland Thomas. “Money Creation in the Modern Economy.” Quarterly Bulletin 2014.Q1 (2014): 1-12. Print.

A bank basically has assets and liabilities.  On the assets side, is paper currency and reserves – while on the liabilities side is deposits.  It makes sense.  The bank is responsible for everyone’s deposits, so therefore they are a liability.  Let’s take the first scenario, where a bank issues a loan to a consumer that banks with the same bank.  The newly credited loan, is considered an asset.  When the loan is issued to the consumer, there is a deposit matching the value of the loan.  Therefore, liabilities goes up.  And, the bank takes a percentage, the rumor on the internet is it is around 10 percent, of the loan amount to reserves.

In a more complex scenario, a loan is issued out to buy something, and then that money is deposited into another bank.  When this happens, the issued loan is still an asset to the original bank.  However the amount of the loan turns out to be deposits to the following bank.  Deposits, are a liability.  And, in order for the bank to cover this liability, about 10 percent of those deposits need to be placed in reserves.  The reserve amount is transferred from the original bank to the following bank.  Deposits are the main influence on bank reserves.  When a bank is short on reserves, or even in excess of reserves, banks can transfer reserves among themselves.  Reserves are in place by fiscal regulation, in order to satisfy consumer demand of their money.  However there is still great mystery for me the role reserves play in the whole process.

For one, reserves don’t have to be cash.  As this paper in particular put it, some banks have Treasury Bonds in their reserves for the appropriate amount of cash.  I also read from a different source, that banks essentially have Mortgage-Backed Securities in their reserves.  (ring a bell?)  In other words, when money is put into the reserves, a “portfolio” is constructed, as I understand it.  It is true that the interest on loans is a way the bank makes money.  However, I’m starting to wonder if the banks uses its reserves as a means to accrue more wealth with financial instruments.  It is true, that the reserves cannot be created nor destroyed by the bank, however I am wondering if the principle amount of the reserves are used to accrue more wealth, and the only way the principle amount is adjusted, is when there are new deposits.  This, I am unsure of.  Also, something noted that the paper didn’t cover, is the reserves are a fraction of the deposits.  Where do the rest of the deposits go?  If they remained to satisfy money demand, would that not make them reserves as well?  But reserves are a fraction of total deposits.  Where does all the deposit money go?  It doesn’t go to loans, because loans are issued from fabricated credit.  Does it go to the bank to be used?  How do they use it?

As you can see, this paper does a great job showing the process of banking, but there is bad explanation in other areas.  There is knowledge that is assumed to be known, that I don’t know.  And as with anything when learning about MMT, once I learn more, I have more questions to be asked.  It is going to be a long process.  But it is a bear that I really want to tackle, and I’m going to record this growth over this blog.

With those questions aside, the paper makes a thorough case as to why banks have a limit to what they can loan out.  The limits are:

  1. Market forces constrain lending because individual banks have to be able to lend profitably in a competitive market.
  2. Lending is also constrained because banks have to take steps to mitigate the risks associated with issuing new loans.
  3. Regulatory policy acts as a constraint on banks’ activities in order to mitigate a build-up of risks that could pose a threat to the stability of the financial system.

-page 4.

This is important to understand.  Because if you think about it, if banks can issue loans with fabricated credit, why couldn’t they just lend out as much as possible, to get the most interest?

First banks not only get paid through interest on their assets (loans), but they also pay interest on their liabilities (savings accounts).  The whole idea is to receive more money from loans than they have to pay to their liabilities.  This interest rate, the rate on the loans and savings accounts, are determined by the central bank, which we will learn is the ultimate “constraint” to money creation.  Also one has to realize, it is very possible that loans created from a bank is deposits (liabilities) for the other.  In which case, reserves change accordingly.  I am going to assume for now the banks uses their money for themselves and invests with it, simply because why have fractional reserves?  If the bank can’t use the rest of the liabilities, why have reserves?  Reserves are rumored to be around 10 percent of deposits.  So why not just keep all of the bank’s liabilities as reserves?  The 10 percent rule I believe is in place to be able to provide money demands to the consumer base, while the rest the bank uses as means to accrue more wealth or pay for expenses.

Remember the interest rate on the loans vs. the savings accounts or deposits?  Well if for instance, a bank were to issue out loans at a lower value to compete, they may receive more assets (the loans) but deposits are sent to another bank, whereby the first bank lowers their bank reserves.  When looking at reserves, as well as the interest coming in and the interest paying out, they may have to start charging more interest on their loans, in order to make sure they can satisfy their consumer base.  If a bank were to continually loan under market value, eventually they would run out of reserves, and could not function as a bank.

Another variable on what determines when and how much a bank lends, is their cash flow.  Overtime, how much deposits does the bank receive?  Over time, what usually is the amount withdrawn?  If most of the bank’s deposits are withdrawn at one time, there is what is called “liquidity risk.”  Since banks loan out for months to even a year, they very well could not have the money to satisfy the demands for the deposits.

And this is what I don’t get.

What about the reserves?  If strictly speaking, reserves are a fraction of your deposits, once deposits are taken out of the bank, what happens to the reserves?  I’m thinking that reserves are taken from the deposits.  So if I deposit 100 dollars, 10 dollars are put in reserves.  If I withdraw all of my 100 dollars, 10 dollars are removed from the reserves to satisfy the withdraw.  So if many people are withdrawing most of their deposits at one time, most of the reserves are lowered.  This lowers the power of the banks to lend (assuming this is correct).  Because once a loan is issued, deposits are created somewhere else.  They would have to send reserves to the bank receiving deposits.  And if they are short on reserves, they are at risk to not being able to satisfy the demand on their liabilities.

Really this reserve system puts more risk on the bank, but I guess there is a chance that it makes more money, because they only have to have a fraction of reserves on hand.  But yes, I’m still confused.  It’s the learning process, right?

The obvious reason is next.  Credit risk.  If people have bad credit, a bank shouldn’t lend money out to them, because that would be too high a risk of the loan not being repaid.

There are two possible outcomes to money when it is issued out by banks.  First, a loan that is paid to someone else, could use that money to payback their loans.  This is called the “reflux theory”, because essentially money is being destroyed, and therefore having no effect on the economy.  On the other hand, the loans to pay for something, when that person or business receives that money, if they don’t have outstanding loans, the money is spent through the economy.  And, as it passes hands, it will continually be spent through the economy.  It is the view in this paper, that this is an inflationary process.  In other words, if bank loans aren’t destroying money, it is put out into the economy and expands the money supply, resulting in higher prices.

Onto the central bank.  As with England’s policy, as this paper was written in the context of the British economy (economies with central banks essentially work the same), the government wants inflation to be at around two percent.  So the central bank does practices to try and meet that two percent goal.

One interest rate that the central bank influences is the interest rates paid on the bank reserves that banks deposit into the central bank.  Therefore, the amount of money that they make from reserves deposited to the central bank influences their issuance of loans.  Also, the central bank is able to influence interest rates on loans that are sent through the money markets, which is basically banks and financial institutions.  These different interest rates have different “maturities” and are felt throughout the banking sector.  Ultimately, the interest rates put on reserves and the money markets have an impact on how much a bank is willing to lend.

Maturities – the state of being due.

The last section discussed in the paper, has to do with Quantitative Easing, or QE.  In England, the central bank went to the private sector, and bought assets from corporations.  It could of been an insurance policy, pensions, or what have you, and the central bank bought these assets with cash.  The central bank therefore has assets to accrue wealth, and in turn these corporations have this access cash that they do not particularly want.  Most will reinvest, while same may spend into the economy.  In both cases, this stimulates the economy.

In the states I have heard things are done differently with QE.  The Fed actually, by a mechanism that I can’t remember, increases the reserves of banks.  This is in hopes will create a incentive for banks to lend out more money, and therefore stimulate the economy.

Here are the main questions that I have after this reading:

  • With the reserves being a ratio to deposits, what is done with the rest of the deposits?
  • Do banks pay an interest to the central bank for depositing their reserves, or does the central bank pay an interest on the reserves deposited to it?  From the language of the paper, it is hard to discern either way.  I hope one day I will find out.
  • Why is spending money inflationary?  I got to get a pdf on variables that affect inflation.
  • How does The Fed increase bank reserves?
  • Are banks able to make their reserves a portfolio equal to the amount of reserves?  Whenever reserves have to be released, they can either sell to get cold cash, or just trade the asset, assuming this is what they do.  If they make a profit off of the assets, they can sell, but they cannot add to the principle of the reserves.
  • When banks send reserves to one another, is there interest associated with it?  Does the bank that transfers the reserves, do they get an interest payment or does the bank receiving the reserves?  I just don’t know from the paper that I read.

It seems as when there is anything you are trying to tackle intellectually, especially something as complicated as this, more questions are provided once you read the paper, and it seems more questions arise than questions that are answered.  I’m not done reading about banks.  I need a more thorough read on the practice of banks, but I think I’m going to dive deep into my next paper that is prepared, and it is over the central bank and the treasury.  I don’t know if it is written in the context of The United States, but it has been told to me from multiple people, that really any economy that uses a central bank does the same thing.  So I’m going to put this on hold, and learn how the central bank and treasury print money indefinitely.  A key component to the Modern Monetary Theory.

As you see, it is a process.  As I have stated earlier in this blog, I’m going to record the process of understanding this very complex theory.  Getting into it, is showing to be intimidating.  Every single time I read something I just have so much questions.  I just hope one day I can read something about MMT and say, “Interesting.  I get it.”  And leave it at that.  Only time will tell.

Thanks for reading!




The Revolutionary Theme in Film

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1

There are two movies that I have recently watched, and it has been awhile since I have enjoyed movies.  The first movie, is The Hunger Games:  Mockingjay Part 1 and then Exodus Gods and Kings.  And really, the main theme that I keep seeing in these movies is some sort of revolution.  Exodus has been redone by Hollywood I don’t know how many times, and it makes me wonder why they focus on that one story so much.  What my theory is, is it has to do with revolution.  Mazerunner was another example.  The game essentially forced these kids to risk their lives to exit the maze, a sense of rebellion/revolution.  I want to explore as to why this theme keeps recurring throughout movies over the years.

First, since the first movies of this kind have been successful, it is a recipe to be repeated by Hollywood to maximize their profits.  But why do we like them?  We like to see the oppressed to be free of their bondage.  All throughout human history, there have been revolutions because living conditions were so poor, or their treatment was so unjust, there had to be something done.  However, with the repetition that this movie theme is used, it makes me wonder, is there another purpose to this?  When the revolution is successfully fulfilled, there is a better life for many.  Seeing that moment, feels good, and maybe why these movies are so successful.  However, I think the action of putting revolutions on the big screen, undermines actual revolution.  What I mean is, when people watch something fictional on the big screen, and see the loss of life and risk involved, mixed with current contentment in their lives, people don’t even think about enacting a new government forcefully.  When I say contentment, is our way of life is decent enough to not risk for many, even though the quality of life for everyone could greatly improve if our government was forcefully abolished.  So since we have large amounts of things to consume, and we are programmed to consume at a young age, we don’t think about the possibilities of other lives.

And just as fictional stories show, there is risk involved, including one’s life.

I suppose peoples’ standards of living are at the point they aren’t willing to risk their lives for the possible betterment of humanity.  After all, things in theory may end up being practiced completely differently.  But I see so many problems with our economy, our government, and our way of life.  I suppose my life right now is fine.  I get to watch movies, play video games, listen to an insane amount of music, and have libraries full of databases and books.  However, as one example of so many I could list, The Supreme Court of the United States just issued a verdict that basically says if the owner of the property is not present, cops have the legal authority to search the property.  That basically undermines the fourth amendment.  I’m saying this, because ever so slightly, our Constitution is degrading.  We as a people revere it so much, but are not educated about it.  And our way of life is moving further and further from the intentions of our forefathers, allowing greed and apathy to consume our population.

And these movies?  In a way I think it is a defense for the establishment towards the idea of the masses revolting over what is going on.  Because the people in power, and the people making all the money, feel it too.  They dehumanize, just like any moment in history, people making less money than them, to justify their exploitation.  But they know it isn’t right.  There was a UN study done on social stratification, and it found that countries with the most social stratification had the least quality of health among all classes of that population.  When Donald Trump sees a homeless man, two things occur.  There is a pyschosocial stress experienced between the homeless man and Donald Trump.  This stress, leads to failing health.  Donald Trump, to deal with the psychosocial stress, dehumanizes the homeless man.  The homeless man, probably feels the stigma associated with being homeless, and feels worse about themselves when they see affluence.  Both parties experience stress, and both parties have less health because of it.

I also see these movies as an expression of a fantasy.  I think it in a way, because it is enjoyable to all of us, we desire a better life.  It speaks to us.  But because it is on the big screen, it is undermined.  “Because it is a movie.”  Nevertheless, I feel there is a desire in people for a better life.  For example, what the band MGMT feels.

They are giving up on life, because they don’t want to work the 9-5 life.  They don’t feel like they are living if they live that life.

So will America keep consuming movies about revolutions, or will they one day do something about the state of this country?  Time will tell.

I want a nation of workers, not thinkers.  -John D Rockefeller


The Credit Creation Theory of Banking is Empirically Verified

The Federal Reserve of the United States.

The Federal Reserve of the United States.

First, let me cite the article I am going to refer to:

Werner, Richard. “Can Banks Individually Create Money Out of Nothing? – The Theories and the Empirical Evidence.” International Review of Financial Analysis (2014). Print.


This 18 page article is extraordinary in the amount of research put into it, resulting in a very dense read filled with economical theory and schools of thought.  As with any good works, it unveils a layer of Truth.  Truth has not been obtained in economics, or pretty much anything for that matter, but it brings about a moment of clarity on not only how things work, but how things got to be the way they were.

The article first focuses on each hypothesis on banking theory, and goes into the historical shift among the economists with regards to this issue.  The author decided to let the former economists speak for themselves, and drenched the article with quotes from economists who lived in the late 18th century to modern times.  Then the author was able to do an experiment, and emperically verify one of the hypothesis.  But first, to the three hypothesis of how banks operate, in order from the oldest hypothesis that was favored to the most recent, before this paper was published.

During the firs two decades of the twentieth century, the credit creation theory was the favored theory among economists.  It basically says that when a bank issues out a loan, it fabricates that loan out of nothing.  Following the 1920’s and more up to the 1960’s, the favored hypothesis is that banks utilize fractional reserve banking (the method that I have been using in my own understanding of how the economy works.)  According to this paper, this method basically means the banks are a “financial intermediary,” using their just resources to issue out loans.  They create money out of nothing by what is termed “the multiplier effect.”  A bank can only issue a loan if it has received new reserves, which a fraction will be deposited to the central bank.  The bank only lends out the excess reserves.  Whereby another bank receives a deposit, puts a fraction in reserves, and issues the rest out as a loan.  What this does, is it takes the initial deposit and magnifies the available funds for loans based upon that initial deposit.  If Bank A gets a deposit of $100, the available deposits if put thru enough banks can exceed $9,000.  The banks themselves don’t create the money, however it is the issuance of loans that systemically create money by being deposited to bank after bank.  The most recent hypothesis that has been more or less favored by the majority of economists, is the financial intermediation theory.  First, let’s define intermediation:

Intermediation –>  Being, situated, or acting between two points, stages, things, or persons.

The bank is merely acting as a party to provide services for their customers.  As Keynes puts it:

A banker is in possession of resources which he can lend or invest equal to a large portion of the deposits standing to the credit of his depositors.  In so far as his deposits are Savings deposits, he is acting merely as an intermediary for the transfer of loan-capital.  In so far as they are Cash deposits, he is acting both as a provider of money for his depositors, and also as a provider of resources for his borrowing customers.  Thus the modern banker performs two distinct sets of services.  He supplies a substitute for State Money by acting as a clearing house and transferring current payments backwards and forwards between his different customers by means of book entries on the credit and debit sides.  But he is also acting as a middleman in respect of a particular type of lending, receiving deposits from the public which he employs in purchasing securities, or in making loans to industry and trade mainly to meet demands for working capital.  This duality of function is the clue to many difficulties in the modern Theory of Money and Credit and the source of some serious confusions of thought.

-Keynes [(1930, vol. 2, p. 213)] page 9

Keynes is an interesting figure.  He actually made statements backing all three hypothesis during his career.  Remember, the time frame outlined above talks about the prodominant view on banking theory.  There were probably some economists in the 1960’s thought that the credit creation theory was the most accurate view of how banks operate.  But it is clear, that over a period of time, economists regressed from the actual truth.  However I would argue that fractional reserve banking’s multiplier effect is still present even though credit is being created.

The authors of this study found a small cooperating bank in a small town in Germany.  The two directors of the bank agreed to allow them to monitor their transactions, and reserve amounts.  A small bank is actually a better choice than a big bank, simply because there is less transactions from the general public.  There is another reason why these researchers did not monitor a big bank – the big banks declined for various reasons, most notably the security of their data.  Nevertheless, it would of been a huge headache to pull off this research with thousands upon thousands transactions happening in a day.  So I personally think it worked for the best to do this procedure on a small bank.  And just because it is a small bank, doesn’t mean they don’t operate at the same standards and procedures of other banks.

The researcher took a loan out of 200,000 Euros with no interest, in agreement with the bank directors, and watched the process by which the money was credited to his account.  The process was video taped.  The researcher tested the account, and made small purchases that were a success.  The money indeed had been transferred, and there was no influence by any party, accept the gentlemen responsible for issuing to loan to the account.

The financial statements of the bank, when deducting all the deposits of other customers, revealed that the bank issued credit to the test account, without altering their own reserves, or obtaining money from external sources.  In essence, it is empirical evidence that the credit creation theory is actually a fact – money is created from nothing.

There is so much to talk about it is hard to start.  I guess I want to start by talking about the field of economics itself.  It’s ironic that the economist in the late 19th and early 20th centuries got it right.  Economists got further and further away from the truth, however when reading the various logic to defend each hypothesis, it is sound, assuming their axioms and assumptions are correct.  That is the core component to economic theory – assumptions.  When reading a theory, or a forecast on our economy going to fail, what are the assumptions?  Are those assumptions accurate?  Because if they aren’t, the logic maybe sound within those assumptions, but without those assumptions everything is moot.  Bernanke himself, the head of The Fed for the longest time, believed that banks were just intermediaries.  This paper reinforced for the the assertion that economics is merely educated guessing.  I follow a blog of an economist.  He basically states that macroeconomics is useless (which is taught everywhere), and discredits theory after theory on issues regarding the demand of money, labor, or trade just to name three.  However he never, I mean never, puts his two cents in.  It’s easy to discredit and criticize something for various reasons that can be seen, it takes guts and is plain harder to provide an alternative.  What economists need is data, and this is a good start.

Because now in the economical modeling, economists know how banks work.  That, obviously, is a central component to creating a more accurate model.  Economists know the interaction between The Fed and the government pretty well, they know how banks work now, the next step is trying to figure out the relationship between The Fed and The IMF, or the world bank.  Then the clearest picture of our economy would take fruit.

I read part of a book from an economist from MIT.  I didn’t finish it it was so bad.  His stance was that the capitalist markets behaved like that of an organism.  It is constantly evolving, so it can never be truly understood, and will always do what is necessary to ensure survival.  In essence, he has no idea.

The point of all of this is to take what economists say in the news with a grain of salt.  Their science is lacking serious data, and a lot of their assertions have core assumptions.  Those assumptions could down right be inaccurate, or there may not be right amount of assumptions.  This influences the train of logic, and can make something sound completely logical be completely false.

By knowing how banks operate, more appropriate fiscal policy can be put into place to prevent high systemic risk.  As stated in the study, current fiscal policy on banks assumes that the banks merely act as a intermediary.  This as we have learned, is inaccurate.

One thing I learned from this paper, is that banks deposit their reserves to The Fed.  Access reserves are either used to issue out loans or to invest.  If a bank can instantly issue out credit, this has no impact on their reserves initially.  However, when the issued loan is paid back with interest, they have essentially increased their reserves out of thin air.  Also, the bank can use old banking theory as well.  They can use a fraction of their deposits to issue loans or invest.  Regardless of how the loans are made, it is deposited in another bank, whereby a fraction is sent to The Fed, and that money can either be invested or loaned out.  What I am trying to say, is that I think the “multiplier effect” is still valid even though banks issue credit out of thing air.  Bank A issues a loan, and is deposited into Bank B.  Bank B takes a fraction of that, and puts it in the reserves with The Fed.  The next loan can be created through credit, however there is still excess reserves from the Bank A loan.  It all depends on the decisions of the bank.  The bank can take that money, or a fraction of it, and invest it.  Or it can us it to issue out more loans.  Whereby the amount goes to Bank C.

I don’t think it is as straight forward as economists put it on both sides of the credit creation and fractional reserve banking.  I think to some extent, both processes are used with current banking.  Regardless if this is true or not, and making an assumption that we know is true, which is that banks use credit creation, banks have a huge impact on the expansion of the money supply.  This is why our economy is so inflationary.  First there is deficit spending of the government (interaction between the government and The Fed), which we know by The Great Depression increases aggregate demand.  That is how America was able to get out of The Depression.  Increasing demand increases prices, and the reason why it increases aggregate demand is because there is more money to spend.  Eventually business owners will raise prices to increase profitability.  Banks, by creating credit out of nothing, increases the amount of money in the economy while keeping higher reserves.  This is accomplished in two parts.  First, if loans are created from thin air, the overall reserves from their customer base remains the same.  Second, once the issued credit and interest rate is paid off, this is a direct deposit to the bank’s reserves.  Higher reserves means more loans by a more traditional approach, or investing in financial instruments.  The creation of credit, in my opinion, contracts the money supply eventually by being repaid with interest.  However it is this multiplier effect between banks that really expands the money supply.  Therefore, it is with my understanding, that banks create money out of nothing, but expand the money supply using the multiplier effect, which was laid out in fractional reserve banking.

In any case, this was a very enlightening read.  Now entities that were a mystery to me aren’t anymore.  That is what I love about reading and learning.  Something just became clear, and it provides a sense of comfort, of knowing, the world around me.  I’m sorry I haven’t updated this blog in a while.  But life has its obstacles, as well as the fact that I have undertaken a pretty big project.  I will never forget this blog.  It may take some time for me to update it, but when I get my hands on that article, book, or study, you better believe I am going to share it to the world.

Thanks for reading.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the average American could create money out of nothing?