I received this email last night:
Hi,
I wanted to raise a question on your blog post (now closed) “Why we need more government debt” based on some recent research I have undertaken.
Specifically I have read the following article by the IFS on the provision of health & social care through to 2066(!) [https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9219]. This seems to be underpinned by unstated assumptions about the amount of debt the government can afford to generate. This article lead me to the OBRs report [http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/fsr/fiscal-sustainability-report-january-2017/]. This latter piece seems to suggest that for the government to ‘fully fund' social and health care would soon( 2066 .. ] lead to a situation where the payment of interest on the national debt would exceed the ‘national income'.
The above seems so very different from your perspective that I wish to ask is there any validity to the assumptions which I feel underpin both of these reports?
Regards
Andy
This was my reply:
Andy
Those reports assume that the state is limited by its capacity to tax and borrow
​This completely ignores the fact that the state need do neither. It need not tax to spend. And it need not borrow. It can instead create all the money it needs at the stroke of a computer keyboard. The government asks the Bank of England, which it owns, for a loan and technically it can provide it in unlimited amount. We know this is true. £435 billion of quantitative easing proves it.
We do tax though. That is to prevent new money causing inflation.
And we do issue debt. Partly that's because EU law, which is a slave to defunct dogma, demands it. Partly it's because a century ago when we were on the gold standard we had to borrow and no one in the Treasury has noticed the world has changed as yet. And partly it's because the banking, pension and savings systems needs to be underpinned by a safe place to save - which is government debt. But it's just a convention and remember that right now the real rate of return on government debt is negative.
So in fact money is no obstacle to social care. We can have as much money as we want and need. And we only need to tax enough to stop inflation. And both are subject to the real constraint, which is having enough available people. If we have them we can afford to look after the elderly. If we haven't we can't. But the IFS ignore this economic reality, and even real need, and show their neoclassical economic roots by thinking money is the issue. They also show their neoliberal roots by implying that we can only look after the elderly if private wealth creates the means to pay through tax, which implies they think there is no value in itself in looking after the elderly or those needing social care.
But this is nonsense: the act of creating the money to create the employment to provide the care will also create the means to pay the tax to balance the equation, and if interest gets to be too much, don't worry: QE wipes out debt and interest. If you doubt me, rest assured that not a penny of interest is now paid on the £435 billion of its own debt the government repurchased.
So, we can afford social care.
And we can afford to pay people to provide it.
All we can't afford are bankrupt economists who produce nonsense because they don't understand money or tax, even if the do call themselves the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Regards
Richard
PS And note that the Office for Budget Responsibility is headed by a former director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Richard,
If we ever get a Labour Government, can you promise to be their Economic Advisor? I am always disheartened by Politicians and Commentators showing their economic illiteracy e.g. The Magic Money Tree Argument. Would you consider it?
Michael
I can promise nothing of the sort
It’s not within my control
Perhaps not, but I hope you cc’d John McDonell into your (excellent) reply! ; )
I’m sure that McDonnell and his team know this full well. But you wouldn’t expect them to expose this to a hostile media, would you?
Carol,
If the election has exposed anything it is the fact that the ‘hostile media’ has suffered a humiliating loss of influence.
We could almost now say that the more the media attack Corbyn’s Labour the better they seem to do.
Perfect.
My compliments to the Chef.
Brilliant! But how to tell that to the ‘masses’ in a language they can understand? As has been mentioned repeatedly in earlier posts, this is the absolute number one issue confronting any future Labour government. It’s a communication mountain to climb so I’m not holding my breath that it can be achieved in the short-medium term.
They’re caught between a rock and a hard place. As you say, without government investment on the scale required the economy will never recover and advance along an egalitarian path. Yet if they embark on it without the understood credentials they will be hung out to dry with the same old shrieks of ‘Zimbabwe’, ‘Greece’, ‘Weimar Republic’ and ‘Venezuela’. Unless they can get this message through it will be a lot easier to achieve power than to keep it.
I agree with yourself turning the idea of a magic money tree from an insult to discredit you to an idea that is just common sense will be a mountain to climb. I watched the leaders debate during the election and was disappointed that Corbyn didn’t take Amber Rudd to task over her comments about magic money trees. So if the Labour leader doesn’t know how to counter such comments then we can’t expect the public to support such ideas. If I had been Corbyn I would have pointed out that the government had used the magic money tree to prop up the banks with £435 billion. And that he was proposing to use a fraction of that money to invest in hospitals, schools and homes etc to grow the economy. As for the institute for fiscal studies they claim the extra money each party was offering the nhs as being the same. In money terms the IFS is correct but if one party spends money preparing to sell off nhs assets while the other spends money on nurse’s, doctors and hospitals etc then surely it’s not the same. Or its not what you spend it’s the way that you spend it that gets results.
I suspect Corbyn is not fluent with the operations of the monetary system; this is normal for politicians -they are drivers that don’t study the Highway Code ( although it’s a moot point whether they are drivers!).
Even if Corbyn had have known, he still would have been careful because of the media memes around Labour and spending going back to the 70’s; so if he had launched that challenge it would have been used against him.
Now that the tabloids have buggered up big time and in a way that even the most blinkered cannot deny the manufacturing of consent by these rags might have lost some power so NOW might be a good time to start chiselling way at the myths. But wit will take time, the mental wallpaper has very strong paste!
Oh, Simon, don’t underestimate Corbyn. In any case it’s McDonnell who is responsible for economic policy and he is far from being an ignoramus.
Hi John,
One such way of handling the communication mountain and counter the Tory’s favourite accusation that “there is no such thing as a money tree” is this:
1.
Agree in the literal sense: “You’re right, money doesn’t grow on trees.”
What Tory can disagree with their own statement without looking like a flip flop?
2.
Then you say something like, “What Labour is proposing is to go to the bank instead. Because, as everyone knows, this is where the money actually comes from.”
Again, what Tory can disagree with this literal truth without looking like they live in La La Land?
3.
Then you follow up by saying something like, “We’ll instruct the Bank of England to create X billion which will be ring fenced and only used to fund essential repairs, maintenance and improvements to schools, hospitals, roads etc. We don’t need to increase in tax to create this fund because tax increases should only be used to control inflation and to stop the economy overheating. Doing it this way round – the right way round – and not taxing then spending means we will be able to upgrade our infrastructure and public services so that we are open for post-Brexit business and able to live and enjoy a healthy well-balanced life.”
Or something to that effect.
Richard may be able to supply more appropriate financial terminology. But you get the gist.
Basically, Labour has to use the Tory’s own words against them to reposition the argument and introduce its own angle.
It’s much easier to agree with, then reframe, an existing idea or problem than it is to dislodge it from the mind.
Since money trees don’t literally exist, it’s ok to agree with a Tory, for once. But just this once!
Each and every time the Tories respond by saying, “This is tax and spend by any other name!” Labour will again be given the chance to point out the correct order in which things actually work and thus educate people without requiring them to learn lots of new or complex economic terms.
All that is required from the voter is to swap the order of two words and understand the idea that tax is only used to control inflation.
What could possibly go wrong!? 🙂
I like it
I am script writing….
Some other things occurred to me:
When the Tories accuse Labour of “raiding the piggy bank”, as they surely will, this isn’t hard to reframe either.
You go for the literal reply again, “You’re right, raiding the piggy bank would be disastrous for the economy! Taking people’s savings would rob them of their hard earned money. That’s why instead we’re going to instruct the Bank of England to create a new investment fund… Etc. Etc.
When the Tories accuse Labour of DoubleSpeak, “Swapping the words tax and spend won’t fool us Corbyn!” you can say, “You’re right, tax and spend is the wrong order! We’re glad you’ve finally realised! Welcome aboard!”
When the Tories accuse Labour of imitating its past, “You’re just like Labour of the 70s who taxed and spent the country to oblivion,” you can say, “You’re right, Labour of old may not have understood how things worked, even if their heart was in the right place. That’s why we’re going to do things in the right order from now on. Create the money first, invest it and only raise tax if the economy starts to overheat.”
When the Tories ask how the Bank of England will be paid back, you can say,”It’ll be paid back by the tax receipts earned from a growing economy, and the reduced overheads of a healthier and better educated population.”
I sense you are enjoying this
Yes I am. I hope it’s of some use.
Money trees do actually exist, you only need to hike through ‘tax avoidance forest’ and you will find them in abundance 😉
Lee,
A brilliant contribution to the debate. Richard, be sure to post the script…
Thanks Bon, much appreciated.
And Rik! I love it. A little humour to sprinkle on the literal cake.
Can we expand on it?
Take a hike through tax avoidance forest, an awe-inspiring walk through unicorn valley, a slide down the rainbow bridge and a hop skip and a jump on to tax haven island, and there, hiding in plain sight grow the magnificent money trees in abundance. Marvel at how they bring prosperity for the few.
No one here has yet brought up the role Labour’s the national investment banks would play in paying money directly into the economy debt-free.
They are a canny move, creating a mechanism that is asking but is not private and market controlled, which can bridge and make more acceptable the concept of money created to enter into the economy.
As the politics and public opinion might allow, it could be a mechanism for the govt to pay funds through, or if that proves too controversial, to go back one step and pay money into the reserves of the national banks, for them to use to loan against. funding reserves would be closer to how QE operated and would be seen as safer because the money does not go directly into the economy, it still goes to a bank just not a private bank, so there is less to object to.
Whatever steps are needed, I am looking forward to the day the govt can directly spend into the economy debt-free money through an appropriate mechanism like the one Positive Money suggests where the responsibility is shared with the BoE, with the BoE deciding how much should be spent and the govt deciding where it should be spent to prevent it being misused by govts tempted to spend and spend You can issue money debt free but there has to be the capacity in the economy for that money or you do get inflation so it isn’t an endless supply of money, it’s just a far better mechanism for creating and destroying money than leaving to the markets and private banking interests.
Returning money creation to monetary policy which facilitates business rather than it being a business in itself is the most fundamental correction and advancement needed to our mixed economy model.
The idea transferred into Labour from the Green New Deal
See other blogs today
Richard,
Those of us who follow the Heterodox School of Thought in economics are fully aware that the mythical ‘Money Tree’ actually does exist, namely within our commercial & retail and that this reality is accepted by the Bank of England, the Bundesbank and indeed, one Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve System – so there is nothing in actuality stopping government treasuries or central banks injecting money at no interest in to an economy
However, I do have one concern, namely, whilst I favour the state, be it the treasury or central banks, creating money for much needed infrastructure projects & social care costs moving forward, one does worry that we should not stop issuing debt with interest that slightly above inflation via government bonds as these ‘safe assets’ are of great value to institutional investors, specifically the pensions and insurance sectors, which have suffered greatly as a result of very low interest rates, causing them to invest in other assets with high risk levels.
As such, and as with placing great value in a mixed economy, rather than a market-based only economy, a mixture of non-interest based debt/money creation and interest debt payable money creation via the debt capital markets is quite a wise move if we are to have a more equitable society.
I have argued that we need more debt
I am not sure we need to do more than offer a net just positive interest rate
But I accept there is a role for debt and see no reason not to meet demand for it
@ Chris and Richard,
Perhaps one should move away from calling it “more debt”.
“More safe assets” would be far less likely to scare the electoral horses.
Agreed
National equity
Yes!
Very good. Semantics are critically important. They shouldn’t be but they are.
Clearly the IFS believes that there is no “magic money tree”.
But can they really believe that the amount of money in circulation is finite and that it is only the velocity of circulation that matters.
That position does not stand up to a moments scrutiny.
Banks, under licence from the central bank, create money on a daily basis.
What the IFS is implying is that money created via the increase in privare debt is good but that money created via public debt is bad.
Money created via private debt enhances private property rights whereas money created by public debt enhances collective or common property rights.
Of course we need a healthy mixture of the two but, alas, the neoliberal agenda cannot countenance the growth of public assets at the cost of private assets.
As for interest the IFS could equally have said that the interest on private borrowing if that increased at its current or increased level would at some point in the future exceed the ability of the borrower to repay it.
The IFS position shows a fundamental misunderstanding of most macroeconomics
It’s really quite worrying
It makes me worried that it is deliberate and intentional Richard rather than just stupidity.
Deliberate misunderstanding through malice.
Or misunderstanding through ignorance?
I think we can assume ignorance is off the table?
@KeithP The neoliberal position is basically that private debt is fine but public debt is bad.
They arrive at this conclusion on the basis of individual freedom. We are all free to decide to take on private debt whereas public debt is imposed upon us by others (individually we may not have voted for it and we do not accept the collective will).
Of course their viewpoint is hopelessly naive in that individual freedom cannot be individually maximised, but still I find it useful to understand where they are coming from.
Hi Richard
How important is the exchange rate and the confidence of markets, so that sterling can be used to pay for imports? I assume we need to maintain this confidence to stop the price of imports escalating out of control. I understand we can grow the money supply up to full employment and full use of resources, but how much restraint comes from the need to import? I assume it is key that markets still want sterling, will give us their currencies for it, that people outside the UK want to buy our goods and services and want to live and spend in the UK. How do you see these factors balancing out with more money supply?
This is obviously an issue: vast amounts of currency have been left here and if it is not then things are going to change
But exchange rates depend on productivity more than anything else and the UK’s is priced in already
I certainly foresee blips – if there was a property crash for example – and a really bad Brexit – but we can survive on fundamentals because they are already known
Just one question Prof Murphy.
If your reply to Andy estsblishes that ( if a nation controls its own currency ) the Govt. . controls the money
supply and needs neither to be limited by its volume in society nor to tax it other than to control inflation ;
why is it it that for forty plus years the anti offshore movement has been campaigning ardently for moneys
offshore to be declared so they can be ……taxed. Culminsting in FATCA/ AEOI and its offshoots/successors ?
Presumably it is because ( in a jurisdiction like Uk which has a ” controllable” national currency ) there is
not sufficient money supply ( M2 , M3 or whatever the uptodate monicker is) to
tax sufficiently to have a substantive effect in the control of the aforementioned inflation(?)
The reason is obvious
First in many countries the flight is of dollars and not local capital and local debt is also in dollars so your assumption does not hold
Second, a fundamental reason for taxing is redistribution and offshore undermines that so of course it needs to be tackled
You need to read The Joy of Tax
Of, and I am aware that you are posting from an industrial level trolling email address
a) Sorry. Niot understqnding first point . How are dollars involved in flight of sterling , yen or yuan etc from their indigenous jurisdictions ?
b) A ha.
c) Will try to read if I get the time.
d) Don t recognise description . My email address is from a privately encrypted no-repky ISP. Is that verboten?
d) These are often used for trolling
” Sorry. Niot understqnding first point . How are dollars involved in flight of sterling , yen or yuan etc”
I am not going to write the essay length answer that may be required in this case and nor will anyone else I imagine.
Your question misses the point that Prof. Murphy was making about ‘the flight of dollars’ (‘dollars’!) It is often the case that nation’s trade, and in some cases debt, is transacted in a currency that is not its own.
With that being the case what you may need to do is familiarise yourself with the role of the US Dollar as the world’s primary reserve currency. You needn’t use academic sources initially or read anything that is political. Something like Wikipedia may be sufficient.
Having done that you could follow up by reading about the history of “petrodollars” and the diplomatic relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia. (as a case study). To keep that brief, once again, something like Wikipedia or even this blog post from a finance commentator:
ttp://dailyreckoning.com/u-s-saudi-relations-cracking-petrodollar/
Having done both of those things I am fairly confident that your line of inquiry would be sufficiently answered.
Thanks
Indeed
“Paul Johnson will freely admit that the IFS does not do macroeconomics. For many years before 2008 the IFS could get away with that, but no longer”. (Simon Wren-Lewis)
Without macroeconomic considerations the IFS forecasts are meaningless.
On another matter
Do you know who is currently on the Labour EAC? The initial lineup looked very good:
Mariana Mazzucato, Thomas Piketty, Anastasia Nesvetailova, Danny Blanchflower,
Ann Pettiffor, Joseph Stiglitz and Simon Wren-Lewis.
i understand however that many (if not all) have resigned; indeed I’m not sure if the EAC is even functional at present?
The initial line up was suggested by me….
I wrote the terms of reference
But it only met twice and Piketty and Stiglitz did not make it
Only Ann is left as far as I know
I have no idea if it is to be revived
I hadn’t realised your core contribution in setting up the EAC.
It might be worth however talking to Ann to find out the state of play. There is definitely a new urgency given the GE result. An election within the next year and a Labour led coalition is a real possibility in the close future.
I am in touch with Ann
I don’t have an insider’s insight of course but I could imagine that the election result might inspire a revival of interest from some of those involved.
For them, the distance to Downing St may not be certain but it is not quite as long as it may have once seemed.
Wouldn`t it be best to avoid the phrase `magic money tree ` altogether? For the uninitiated (ie majority of population) the seeds of doubt are contained within the statement.
I agree
My only reservation would be that the concept has been introduced to the debate by the Tories.
This means that each time that they wish to, say, reduces taxes or alleviate austerity then they are open to the charge of shaking the magic money tree.
Mr Bernanke is quite candid https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/12/22/is-the-fed-printing-money/
They’re not printing, I agree
But they are computer keyboard hitting and these days that comes to much the same thing
there is ‘high level’ authority for what you are saying. There is an alternative to the view of the political establishment.
I think we’ve been here before in the 1930s when the government of the day set up the -wait for it- May committee -which recommended cuts in government expenditure to meet the economic crisis.
In the 1960s almost all economists said it was the wrong answer. Those who were proven to be right were in a small minority.
i read modern economics course do not include the history of economic theory. “Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it” It’s an old quote.
What a gratuitously unpleasant response to a polite inquiry.
A couple of questions for you.
1) What are you qualifications in economics?
2) What are your qualifications in tax?
I know you’re a Professor. I’m not asking about that. I’m asking about qualifications, peer reviewed research, the sort of stuff we ask for from other experts. Otherwise, I’m concluding you’re basically a media person who’s got himself a job without the hard work that others have to do.
Look at my CV
And note that I am a professor of practice
I was appointed because I have done IPE
Maybe you don’t want teachers who have done the subject
It seems that the students appreciate it though
Richard, I do not understand your reasoning, so I asked a dear friend for his views and thought you might appreciate sight of his reply:-
“RM admits that the problem with printing money is that it causes inflation as explained at http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/634/economics/the-problem-with-printing-money/
However inflation is not unavoidable since in the http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/634/economics/the-problem-with-printing-money/ example, instead of increasing prices for books, the publishers could just increase the supply of books, thereby increasing jobs and tax revenues as RM recognises.
If newly printed money is truly money OUT for the government, then the new tax revenue resulting from it is BALANCING money IN for the government and the printing effect on government finances (debt?) is circular.
If, on the other hand, government can ‘create all the money it needs at the stroke of a computer keyboard’ and it is not in any ‘real’ or ‘gold standard’ sense a liability and is not therefore really money OUT, then the new tax revenue resulting from it is NET GAIN and really money IN for the government finances (provided inflation is controlled and doesn’t cancel out the net gain) and the printing effect on government finances (debt?) is non-circular.
In the first case you principally get inflation plus positive or negative effects on debt.
In the second case, you principally get jobs (and some inflation) plus positive effects on debt.
So whether RM is right about keyboard strokes seems fundamental to whether printing money is good or bad overall.
From The Institute of Bogonomics.
Just go and read my book
Sorry, but I can’t be bothered with all the third rate reasoning
As a layman trying to understand this subject, I gather that some people think the government creates money whenever it engages in spending, thereby boosting the money supply and economic activity (MMT).
Others think government spending is normally financed by taxing the private sector and the government only creates money when it runs a deficit (Steve Keen).
And still others think the government doesn’t usually create money at all, other than physical currency (QE being exceptional) — that private commercial banks create virtually all the money in circulation (“97%”) through lending (Richard Werner, Bank of England).
Who’s right? Apologies in advance if your book provides the answer as I haven’t had a chance to read it yet.
The first para is right
But it looks in practice like the second para
And the third again appears the case but is not true – all banks operate under licence and the money the create is nit their own – it is the currency of the state for whom they are acting as agents
Are the IFS ‘experts’ the perfect example of dysfunctional technocracy? Possibly.
Inadvertently, or otherwise they generate ignorance. The IFS is the reason why some idiotic concepts (such as the the “net contributor”) have currency in the UK but nowhere else in the Western world.
The idea there is that a ‘net contributor’ is someone who pays more in tax than they receive in state benefits and a ‘net beneficiary’ is the opposite. This notion imagines that the individual has a direct and isolated relationship with the state. It ignores the fact that the fortunes of the ‘contributor’ rely heavily on the health, education and incomes of workers or consumers that may be ‘beneficiaries’. Those fortunes also rely on infrastructure, the benefits of which which cannot be individually accounted. In other words, this notion fails to include the most basic understanding of economic interdependence – which is pathetic.
In macro terms, the concept described above also fails to recognise the purpose of redistribution with respect to aggregate demand. All in all I find it to be the perfect example of everything that is wrong with the IFS. Their facile accounting takes one narrow piece of the picture and pretends that it is somehow representative or broadly significant when clearly, it is not. The national accounts are not an end in themselves.
It should also be said that the Institute for Fiscal Studies is a misnomer. I note here that Sean Danaher included a quote from Wren-Lewis, “Paul Johnson will freely admit that the IFS does not do macroeconomics”, Indeed they do not. They don’t consider counter-cyclical budgeting or demand-side economics generally. In which case they don’t do fiscal studies. Their scope is too narrow to claim that they do. They are the Institute for Superficial National Accounts. Being so might have some purpose but to present it as anything more significant is hopelessly misleading and a dis-service to the nation generally.
“Interdependence? How dare you! I built my achievements all on my own”
You know the rest
The ‘ magic money tree ‘ issue is one of cognitive dissonance. I mentioned on this blog recently that I have been writing some talks to offer to small groups of people interested in the subject which I have called ‘ Money in the 21st Century . They are not quite ready for general consumption, but I am trying them out with a guinea pig group later this month. One of the main difficulties as others have commented is how to overcome the communication issue . My approach to this is to focus on the operational reality ( which cannot be disputed ) at every stage and there is no better source for this than the Bank of England’s own website which contains all the various papers and bulletins that explain the fact that banks create money when they make a ‘ loan ‘ and that the Bank itself creates money ‘ electronically ‘. Of course these words need to be explained, or better still translated, but once a person gets over the first hurdle mentally then it is my hope that the rest will fall into place. As a non financial expert , but having spent the best part of the last seven years in my limited spare time working to discover how money actually works I think there are many people ready to do the same , but in a shorter time frame – hence these talks.
Great work
Film it
Hi John,
This sounds like a great idea. I’d be very interested in seeing what you’ve produced because I am only just beginning to get a grasp myself on how money, debt, interest and tax are created and the role they play in our society. So please do post a link here to anything you have created that helps the lay person understand it and to connect the dots.
Thanks,
Lee
Can i join your group please?
Richard, how does QE wipe out interest and debt? And writeup by you on it?
Look at the whole of government accounts
The QE reduces the national debt on there
And no interest has been paid on QE debt since about 2012 as a matter of government policy
Hi Richard
I was under the impression (possibly dated) that the interest paid by private banks for the QE funds given to them was at a lower rate than that received by them when the government repurchases back that debt. I have struggled to find the actual rate however and think you may know, are they now both 0.25%?
My honest answer is I do not know right now
I would not pay interest on bank reserves, but that’s a pretty contentious view
OK thanks. I only brought it up as in your original post you say “rest assured that not a penny of interest is now paid on the £435 billion” which goes against what I remember.
I certainly agree banks shouldn’t be making a profit on the funds the government borrows back, which if true is clearly a direct subsidy to the banks. It should be easier to find an answer on this.
The £435 bn is not owned by banks anymore
It is government debt owned by the government and no interest is paid on it
I posted this in the daily mail earlier.
It is an annoying trite meme, many Politicians do believe it though, 9 out of 10 according to positive money.
What we all need to do is pay more attention to the Much talked about Magic Money Tree. Yes, it is imaginary and it is made up, it lives not at the bottom of the Garden with the Fairies but in the Silicon chips programmed as Merkle Trees. link one for beginners. https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/the-magic-money-tree-exists-822ee0ecb09a A poem for Light relief.http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/06/the-magic-money-tree-poem-by-roger-g.html and the main event for the folk with lots of courage and a strong stomach.http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/08/neo-liberalism-billy-no-mates-or-just.html Nearly there now Check out What the 1844 Bank Charter Act intended all along.http://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-did-we-end-up-here/ And there you go, you now know more than 90% of MPS about the money creation process. Magic Money Trees, haha, now there’s a thing?