I have several problems with the popular notion that there’s no money left. I think the first time the absurdity of it struck me was when I heard the incredibly wealthy entrepreneur Deborah Meaden saying it on Question Time during a debate about striking teachers and dinner ladies. I recall looking round a room of friends, wondering who would be the first to guffaw at the gargantuan level of irony in the statement. No money left? Well, she certainly seemed to be doing ok.

I facepalmed hard.

By ‘backing’ I mean the assets of the money issuer, which could include things produced by the money-issuer.

“Backed fiat money” is a contradiction in terms, since fiat money is money without backing. I contend that all so-called fiat money is actually backed by the assets of its issuer. There is no reason why the government’s issuance of new money would cause dis-coordination. An easy way to see this is to recognize that the law of reflux dictates that any money that is not needed in the circulation will reflux to its issuer, and thus not be used for purchases.

Wouldn’t this still suffer from the fact that government-backed fiat money will cause inter-temporal dis-coordination of the structure of production, thus resulting in products which nobody wants (at the price they were expected to be valued at)?