The bi-annual Post Keynesian Conference at UMKC hosted a session on the Circuitist School, with an overview paper by Guiseppe Fontana, and papers by myself, Jan Kregel and Claude Gnos.
My presentation tried to explain, in 30 minutes, the analysis presented in much more detail in this paper on the dynamics of money creation. The paper challenges several accepted propositions in the Circuitist tradition, though in general the paper is intended to show that the Circuit analysis makes sense. As Warren Mosler pointed out in the discussion that followed, some of the debate was due to me using terms that had different meanings to some members of the audience.
Chief amongst these was the meaning of the word "money". Warren suggested that had I used the term "bank deposits" to describe what I called "money", there would have had far less disagreement with my analysis.
I think Warren is right—though others might disagree. So I accept his suggestion that, to those whom money necessarily involves, for example, an entity that requires the existence of a state, please substitute "bank deposits" wherever you read "money" in my presentation—and indeed, in the paper.
In this sense too, the concept of "destruction of money" is sensible—since I quite happily accept that, if one defines money as "bank deposits", then "repaying debt destroys bank deposits" is one I in fact make in my presentation and paper.
To be continued...