tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post2449619682212058980..comments2024-01-27T00:46:34.345-08:00Comments on How Fiat Dies: Three points for CullenVincent Catehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06502618776820144289noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-60725572379963466232014-01-24T16:33:28.283-08:002014-01-24T16:33:28.283-08:00Vincent and Rafael,
This is the kind of mini Sumn...Vincent and Rafael,<br /><br />This is the kind of mini Sumner speech I was hoping to find (his reply to John Becker):<br /><br />http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=26030#comment-315209<br /><br />Now I don't necessarily agree with him, but I find that to be a very nice little summary. So Vincent, that sounds like the cue for you to pay him a visit and start "waving your hands." :D<br /><br />Actually that's a good question for you Vincent: if you were made Fed chair tomorrow, and dissolving the Fed was not an option, how would you control the money supply? (OMOs, IOR rate, etc: What would your decisions be on how to control these instruments?). What would you tell the public your goal was? What would be your big picture strategy?<br /><br />I asked Geoff/Major_Freedom what he'd do as Fed chair, and his response was that he would refuse the job because only a "psychopath" would take a job like that. Nice.Tom Brownhttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-1099771967765602312014-01-24T14:47:31.861-08:002014-01-24T14:47:31.861-08:00I probably didn't represent Rowe's differe...I probably didn't represent Rowe's differences w/ Sumner on MOA and MOE very well. Here's a recent Rowe comment in his own words:<br /><br />http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2014/01/one-good-thing-about-bitcoin.html?cid=6a00d83451688169e201a51154c135970c#comment-6a00d83451688169e201a51154c135970cTom Brownhttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-64633837102760290952014-01-23T18:16:12.224-08:002014-01-23T18:16:12.224-08:00BTW, I had to laugh, once I saw where Rowe was dis...BTW, I had to laugh, once I saw where Rowe was disputing something that Stephen Williamson had written (Williamson's recent article showing how QE could be deflationary), and Rowe used one of his little stories in the comments section to argue his point. Williamson was not amused and basically told Rowe to grow up and start acting like an economist. Haha.. it was a little harsh I thought, but funny.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-49630353311497937782014-01-23T18:12:27.383-08:002014-01-23T18:12:27.383-08:00Good questions Rafael! I don't know the answer...Good questions Rafael! I don't know the answers, although I do believe that bank deposits are probably the current primary medium of exchange (MOE).<br /><br />Sumner and Rowe part ways on the importance of MOE (MOE which is not also MOA) a little bit. Rowe thinks that the MOE is important in it's own right, while Sumner disagrees. Woolsey tends to agree with Rowe on this, but not 100%. I think Glasner tends to back Sumner. But this importance of MOE is strictly a short to medium term affair in Rowe's view... in the long run, Rowe and Sumner agree I think: it's the MOA that matters.<br /><br />BTW, here's one of several posts Rowe did on MOA vs MOE. I remember his weird invented world used paintings for money, so it was easy to find based on that search word. There's another word he's used, which escapes me at the moment... which is the key to finding more on this. Anyway, here's the article:<br /><br />http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2013/09/moe-vs-moa.html<br /><br />Ah, "asymmetric" did the trick I think. Again, this is one of many: he has many little stories that repeat some of the same themes from slightly different points of view. It's an interesting way to form an argument... and appealing to those of us not interesting in pouring over pages of math or empirical data ... but I tend to take it with a grain of salt. Anyway, here it is:<br /><br />http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2009/10/what-makes-a-bank-a-central-bank/comments/page/2/Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-10137692063943202542014-01-23T16:26:35.843-08:002014-01-23T16:26:35.843-08:00I did get through the progression and will work th...I did get through the progression and will work through it again. <br /><br />"The implication is that the CB leads and any other banks are thus compelled to follow, otherwise arbitrage kills them."<br /><br />Is that more consistent with what we have witnessed or... <br /><br />The implication is that the Banking system leads and the CB/Treasury are thus compelled to follow, otherwise systemic failure kills them. <br /><br />Has the banking system consolidated its power enough to be the dog wagging the tail? The Fed does not providing the real economy with the primary medium of exchange, banks do. Right? Rafael Barbierihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01578692617118123417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-376751466950181152014-01-23T16:10:13.577-08:002014-01-23T16:10:13.577-08:00If you find any of those old Rowe articles, he arg...If you find any of those old Rowe articles, he argues that the BoC (bank of Canada) and the Bank of Montreal (BoM) have an arrangement where the BoM dollars can be traded at par with BoC dollars, but the relationship is asymmetrical. It's a good article, and I think it could be used to justify a position like Sumner's, at least in part. But overall I find it unconvincing. <br /><br />Did you follow Sumner's full progression there? Through the gold standard, etc in the other six cases? The implication is that the CB leads and any other banks are thus compelled to follow, otherwise arbitrage kills them.<br /><br />You should just go ask Sumner: he'll take off topic questions. :DTom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-41326552553929565482014-01-23T15:09:46.416-08:002014-01-23T15:09:46.416-08:00"He is focused on the MOA which to him is onl..."He is focused on the MOA which to him is only base money. Bank deposits he calls "credit."<br /><br />This view seems very similar to that of the Austrian economists. This is also why I would like to see how he would describe a cashless system where there is one universal bank whose liabilities in the form of bank deposits serve the role of the MOA and MOE. The deposits would come into existence as the bank acquires other securities/loans.<br /><br />Would this essentially be describing a system where the banking system and Fed have merged into one entity?<br /><br />In the FT Alphaville piece she entertains the idea that the Fed would essentially become the universal bank whose liabilities would be the primary MOE for every other entity. In this world, I can see why the monetary base would matter a lot. Other financial intermediaries would accept these Fed deposits as their assets while issuing their liabilities (which could be called bank deposits). What would happen though is that Fed deposits and bank deposits would not be guaranteed to trade at par. <br /><br />In my mind, the fixed exchange rate between bank deposits and fed reserves make bank deposits money, not credit. I can't see this not being the case as long as the Fed and Treasury are there to backstop bank balance sheets as they did during the crisis.Rafael Barbierihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01578692617118123417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-83864497625152068982014-01-23T15:07:08.534-08:002014-01-23T15:07:08.534-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rafael Barbierihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01578692617118123417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-78312246010948475502014-01-23T14:48:23.424-08:002014-01-23T14:48:23.424-08:00The one on HPE is the one I read. The quote "...The one on HPE is the one I read. The quote "Now let’s assume a cashless economy where the MOA is 100% reserves" comes from that.<br /><br />Also read the Macro Mark Musings post yesterday. <br /><br />My adventure in all things money and banking actually started when reading Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit. After a few years of experiencing the world post undergrad, it was not possible for me to stick with what I once thought to be true. <br /><br />In that book, Mises sees bank liabilities which trade like reserves as counterfeit. Contemporary monetary thinkers do a much better job of exploring the relationship between the CB liabilities and bank deposits. Perry Mehrling's work does an awesome job exploring this while incorporating the parallel/shadow banking system's role. <br /><br />Katherina Pastor’s paper “Towards a Legal Theory of Finance” is also fascinating because it explores the nature of financial securities especially securities which are forms of money. <br />http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2178066<br /><br /><br />Really I guess we are both learning. That said, I've gained a lot from reading your work which is why I ask you these questions. If anything I think they make for interesting thought experiments. <br />Rafael Barbierihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01578692617118123417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-82532072552217295432014-01-23T14:41:12.226-08:002014-01-23T14:41:12.226-08:00... Sumner and banks: Sumner actually understands ...... Sumner and banks: Sumner actually understands the basics of banks and the accounting that goes with them, but he still doesn't think they are important for macro. He once famously stated that he doesn't understand banking, but he understands at least as much as I do. He is focused on the MOA which to him is only base money. Bank deposits he calls "credit." Not all MMists agree with that. I think he makes an interesting argument for his point, but I'm not fully on board with him there. I think Vincent and Sumner perhaps agree about the importance of banks and base money, but they have very different views on hyperinflation, QE, and the wisdom of central banks targeting anything (inflation, NGDPLT, etc). Nick Rowe has a lot of good pieces exploring the convertibility issue between base money and bank deposits. Rowe likes to create crazy imaginary worlds to illustrate his points. Try looking up things like "paintings" in his search tool (if my memory serves me) for some good ones. Rowe and Sumner don't completely agree on the MOA issue.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-29805613546971801362014-01-23T14:17:18.164-08:002014-01-23T14:17:18.164-08:00re: the link to the Sumner post: that's the on...re: the link to the Sumner post: that's the one I gave you on HPE. Is that what you meant to post?Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-73697270030768515782014-01-23T14:15:41.522-08:002014-01-23T14:15:41.522-08:00Rafael, I'll try to get to that FT Alphaville ...Rafael, I'll try to get to that FT Alphaville piece a bit later. And your other questions too. Keep in mind I'm really no expert... I haven't even really made up my mind what I believe yet... the more I learn the more questions I have, etc. (I'm used to being the one asking the questions actually!). But I did notice this the other day: an MMist highlighting both Miles' and Sumner's proposals:<br /><br />http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2014/01/miles-and-scotts-excellent-adventure.html<br /><br />I think Austrians would scoff at both!<br /><br />A long time ago I did read a piece by Miles on that subject, but I don't recall 18 steps! I'll check it out.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-28058739711100385242014-01-23T12:46:12.213-08:002014-01-23T12:46:12.213-08:00Here is another post which explores "trade at...Here is another post which explores "trade at par" or par clearing. <br />http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=23314<br /><br />In order for 1 bank deposit to always trade at par (fixed exchange rate) with 1 reserve, does this imply that the Fed/treasury is on the hook for all bank deposit liabilities? If there was a systemic issue with assets held by banks where the fixed exchange rate broke down, wouldn't the Fed have to swap out the toxic assets with reserves or t-securities? Otherwise, the bank could either fail or their deposits would start to trade at a discount (sort of like Cyprus where depositors faced a haircut). <br /><br /> Rafael Barbierihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01578692617118123417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-22757876686580563122014-01-23T12:12:50.665-08:002014-01-23T12:12:50.665-08:00From the Sumner post:
"Now let’s assume a cas...From the Sumner post:<br />"Now let’s assume a cashless economy where the MOA is 100% reserves."<br /><br />Has he ever addressed what would happen in a cashless system where there is only a single bank? Would there be zero need for Fed reserves or the Fed? Would the single bank issue bank deposit balances when swapping for private (loans, securities) and public assets (t-sec/agencies)? Would those bank deposit balances serve the function of MOA and MOE? I would say yes. <br /><br />Am I essentially describing a merger between the CB and Banking system? In the story above, would financial intermediaries exist to receive bank deposits as their assets in exchange for their liabilities? What if their liabilities start to act like bank deposits?<br /><br />Stepping back to where we stand today, bank deposits (at least guaranteed deposits) trade at par with reserves.<br /><br />The fact that, <br />$1 bank deposit = $1 Fed reserves is incredibly under-appreciated. <br /><br />In the story, even if the liabilities of the financial intermediaries acted like the single bank's deposits, they wouldn't be because their prices are not pegged to one another. The fixed exchange could eventually break down. <br /><br />In our system, I don't think the peg between bank deposits and reserves will be allowed to clear at anything less than 1 to 1. A deposit/reserve fixed exchange rate is only possible because the Fed's balance sheet is elastic in a multi bank system. If it weren't and bank deposit balances were allowed to float relative to $ reserves, then physical federal reserve notes would reassert themselves as the real MOE. <br /><br />I'd love to get your thoughts on this<br />http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2013/09/05/1623992/gold-paper-scissors-lizard-e-money/<br /><br />Rafael Barbierihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01578692617118123417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-71598605854845868112014-01-23T10:44:35.705-08:002014-01-23T10:44:35.705-08:00"So when thinking about hyperinflation or hig..."So when thinking about hyperinflation or high inflation, isn't it more important to focus in on the quantity of bank deposits relative to economic output/spending, and not changes to MB? Again, the important effects of the changes in the MB in QE manifest themselves in the changes in bank deposit totals anyways. Even here, it is always important to consider that the Fed is removing government guaranteed securities when conducting QE. Isn't it also important to focus in on the quantity of treasury securities held by the private sector as well?"<br /><br />Yes and yes. :D<br /><br />Although not just hyperinflationists would disagree: MMists wold probably disagree too... and they make an interesting argument. Sumner argues that the hot potato effect still exists even in a cashless society with fiat money (see his case 7 here):<br /><br />http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=23314Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-36640478406586617502014-01-23T08:53:20.136-08:002014-01-23T08:53:20.136-08:00"I think of velocity as literally NGDP/M, and..."I think of velocity as literally NGDP/M, and try not to be confused by the terminology "velocity" since it has nothing to do with movement or change in ownership of the M you've identified."<br /><br />"you can't say the $1 paper note in Bank A's vault belonged to anybody but Bank A: it only appears on Bank A's balance sheet (as an asset: and the CB's BS as a liability of course). This doesn't change when commerce takes place. X and Y only have their bank deposits on their BSs, no paper money."<br /><br />Tom I 100% see the system in this way as well. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was implying that changes in velocity had to do with changes in the ownership of base money.<br /><br />If velocity is defined as NGDP/M, my question was referring to which M to use and why. Why is using MB as M more informative than using bank deposits as M? Commerce is dominated by the use of electronic bank deposit balances not MB. Even when the Fed conducts QE by buying securities from non-banks, the most important effect is captured in the change in total bank deposits. <br /><br />Good write up on QE, reserves, deposits. <br />http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2014/01/21/banks-dont-lend-out-reserves/ <br /><br />So as a non-bank as long as I hold bank deposits, I am not simultaneously possessing ownership over any form of MB. The only way for me to possess ownership over MB is for me to exchange my bank deposit for physical notes. Thus any commerce that is done using bank deposits does not necessarily result in the changing of ownership of MB unless both parties transacting in bank deposits hold accounts at different banks. At that point the two different banks would need to settle in MB. <br /><br />"I don't think getting rid of cash, or having a single commercial bank, or reducing the reserve requirement to 0% amount to huge changes from our current system."<br /><br />Exactly. I don't either. Using a single bank example or a cashless system where all non-banks always transact in bank deposits isn't far from where we already are. Those thought experiments help drive home that point. <br /><br />So when thinking about hyperinflation or high inflation, isn't it more important to focus in on the quantity of bank deposits relative to economic output/spending, and not changes to MB? Again, the important effects of the changes in the MB in QE manifest themselves in the changes in bank deposit totals anyways. Even here, it is always important to consider that the Fed is removing government guaranteed securities when conducting QE. Isn't it also important to focus in on the quantity of treasury securities held by the private sector as well? <br /><br />This is the chart I was referring to earlier. <br />http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=rgP&dbeta=1Rafael Barbierihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01578692617118123417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-80773183259350546482014-01-22T22:38:11.304-08:002014-01-22T22:38:11.304-08:00Rafael, some thoughts: I don't think getting r...Rafael, some thoughts: I don't think getting rid of cash, or having a single commercial bank, or reducing the reserve requirement to 0% amount to huge changes from our current system. For Vincent that might not be true: if we don't have cash, does that seem like a big deal to you Vincent?<br /><br />I also don't see the activities of the Fed with QE as being particularly Earth shattering. Why? Because the Fed only spends in a limited market, and a relatively small amount*, and they pay market prices. If the Fed purposely overpaid for ANYTHING, that could cause some inflation though. And of course deficit spending by Tsy always has the possibility of independently causing inflation.<br /><br />*I wrote above "relatively small amount" ... here's some justification:<br /><br />http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=25996#comment-314586<br /><br />"So what’s eligible for purchase? Roughly…<br /><br />Federal government Treasuries – $12.0 trillion<br />Agency bonds – $2.0 trillion<br />Agency guaranteed securities – $5.8 trillion<br />Bankers acceptances – zilch<br />Gold – $6.9 trillion<br />State and municipal bonds – zilch<br />Foreign bonds – $5 trillion<br /><br />This comes to about $31.7 trillion dollars. Now, the Federal Reserve currently holds about $3.8 trillion in such assets so that leaves about $27.9 trillion in assets that they still haven’t bought.<br /><br />(And I suppose they can buy up all the world’s foreign currency and overnight deposits which ought to be worth at least a few trillion dollars but let’s not get crazy!)<br /><br />And I still haven’t touched on section 13.3 of the FRA yet.<br /><br />Section 13.3 allows the Fed to lend to any individual, partnership, or corporation upon any collateral the Fed deems satisfactory." <br /><br />-- Mark Sadowski<br /><br />Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-11564962393638551862014-01-22T21:30:57.926-08:002014-01-22T21:30:57.926-08:00BTW, it looks like you have replies on Rowe's ...BTW, it looks like you have replies on Rowe's site from 1) Too Much Fed, 2) Ralph Musgrave, 3) anon (who provides a great link to another Rowe article):<br /><br />http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2014/01/nominal-loss-aversion-and-its-consequences.html<br /><br />... and 4) Peter N.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-65277216544095039062014-01-22T20:45:19.013-08:002014-01-22T20:45:19.013-08:00Vincent, Sumner has now picked up Rowe's ball ...Vincent, Sumner has now picked up Rowe's ball and run with it... giving you license to jump in over there and drag the conversation off into the hyperinflation pit as well!<br /><br />http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=26025Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-8898891673801570772014-01-22T16:20:23.686-08:002014-01-22T16:20:23.686-08:00O/T: Looks like Cullen's favorite MMist (David...O/T: Looks like Cullen's favorite MMist (David Beckworth) also made a recent appearance on Erin's RT show:<br /><br />http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2014/01/my-interview-on-rt.html<br /><br />The little write up before the video is a pretty good summary. I liked the preceding article too. Nothing there directly pertaining to hyperinflation, but I thought you might like it anyway since some of the ideas that he briefly summarizes there are probably in direct conflict with aspects of Austrian theory (aspects which may underpin your hyperinflation theories).<br /><br />BTW, I think I mentioned that I did a brief poll amongst the MMists to see if they'd be OK with an algorithm replacing human judgement at the CB to implement NGDPLT. A bit of a mixed reply, but overall they'd be OK. Sadowski actually says the existing Taylor rule can be used for that purpose and that furthermore had that been implemented in late 2008, the CB BS would be much smaller than it currently is.<br /><br />Your thoughts? Would you accept a robotic CB performing NGDPLT?Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-71198200715117322332014-01-22T15:47:49.509-08:002014-01-22T15:47:49.509-08:00... and BTW, Vincent, in my example above, you can...... and BTW, Vincent, in my example above, you can't say the $1 paper note in Bank A's vault belonged to anybody but Bank A: it only appears on Bank A's balance sheet (as an asset: and the CB's BS as a liability of course). This doesn't change when commerce takes place. X and Y only have their bank deposits on their BSs, no paper money.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-73819445553394064082014-01-22T15:13:47.523-08:002014-01-22T15:13:47.523-08:00... so even with a single commercial bank and no c...... so even with a single commercial bank and no cash, because of gov and CB payment clearing with the public, the 1:1 convertibility with bank deposits would be maintained.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-30753645164150950322014-01-22T15:10:58.748-08:002014-01-22T15:10:58.748-08:00Rafael, you write "What is the goal for tryin...Rafael, you write "What is the goal for trying to understand velocity?" ... well I think of velocity as literally NGDP/M, and try not to be confused by the terminology "velocity" since it has nothing to do with movement or change in ownership of the M you've identified. I confused myself on this point in a comment above!<br /><br />LInk to the graph on Fed website?<br /><br />I don't think it'd be a huge shock to go fully electronic. It wouldn't be smooth sailing either though (lots of political opposition to that I'm sure).<br /><br />A country like Canada basically does have a system where bank reserves are somewhat divorced from the rest of the economy: they target overnight interest rates on a short term basis (for six week intervals). They do still have cash, so the tie isn't completely severed (although they did consider getting rid of cash at one time). The reserve requirement is 0%, but banks do hold small amounts of reserves overnight anyway.<br /><br />But yes, you are correct, reserves would primarily be used to settle between banks and nothing more, although they'd also have a role in foreign exchange and any payments to or from Tsy, other gov agencies, and the Fed as well.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-43567684663741797132014-01-22T14:57:29.338-08:002014-01-22T14:57:29.338-08:00Vincent, yes I know. Consider this situation thoug...Vincent, yes I know. Consider this situation though. Bank A owns $1 in reserves, and has two deposits, each of $1: one for customer X and one for customer Y. Customer X pays Y $1 for a service, and thus NGDP is $1. But now we want to calculate VB = NGDP/MB = $1/$1 = 1. The velocity of base money was 1, but yet Bank A's reserves (say consisting of a single $1 paper note in its vault) didn't move at all: only credit money moved (X and Y's deposits are part of M1, not MB). Now let's calculate M1 = $3. Thus V1 = 1/3. Curious that no base money moved at all, yet VB > V1. If both X and Y had savings accounts instead of time deposits, then bank A could have purchased a $1 T-bond and still met its reserve requirements, but MB would be $0. Now VB = infinity, and V1 = 1/2.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892824566694270102.post-31445652323666794462014-01-22T14:16:58.590-08:002014-01-22T14:16:58.590-08:00Tom, if bank deposits are changing ownership that ...Tom, if bank deposits are changing ownership that counts as money movement. Vincent Catehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502618776820144289noreply@blogger.com