Money Creation: Genesis 1: Before the Goldsmith-Bankers

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Pierre Faure
Keyword(s):  
2017 ◽  
pp. 131-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Yefimov

The review discusses the institutional theory of money considered in the books by King and Huber, and the conclusions that follow from it for economic policy. In accordance with this theory, at present the most of the money supply is created not by the Central Bank but by private banks. When a bank issues a loan, new money is created, and when the loan is repaid this money is destructed. The concept of sovereign money involves the monopoly of money creation of the central bank. In this case the most of newly created money is handed over to the ministry of finance to implement government spending.


2019 ◽  
pp. 5-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikhail V. Ershov ◽  
Anna S. Tanasova

Russian economy has reached the low level of inflation, but economic growth has not accelerated. Moreover, according to official forecasts, in the following years it will still be low. The article concludes that domestic demand, which is one of the main factors of growth, is significantly constrained by monetary, budgetary and fiscal spheres. The situation in the Russian economy is still hampered by the decline of the world economic growth. The prospects of financial markets are highly uncertain. This increases the possibility of crisis in the world. Leading countries widely use non-traditional measures to support their economies in the similar environment. In the world economy as well as in Russia a principally new combination of factors has emerged, which create specific features of economic growth. It requires special set of measures to stimulate such growth. The article proves that Russian regulators have large unused potential to stimulate growth. It includes monetization, long-money creation, budget and tax stimuli. It is important that the instruments, which will be used, should be based on domestic mechanisms. This will strengthen financial basis of the economy and may encourage economic growth. Some specific suggestions as to their use are made.


Canon&Culture ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 21-50
Author(s):  
Chong-Hun Pae

2020 ◽  
pp. 85-104
Author(s):  
Борис Тимофеев

Современная научная богословская мысль склонна к унификации терминов и явлений в сфере своих компетенций. Эта тенденция в современных исследованиях в некоторых случаях распространяется и на древние христианские памятники. Так, например, слово θεωρία многие учёные определяют как мистический метод духовного толкования Священного Писания. Это определение нередко применяется в качестве универсального технического определения при анализе экзегетических произведений древних авторов. При этом игнорируется узус самих экзегетов, которые употребляют это слово в иных значениях. В рамках данной статьи предпринимается попытка выявить и показать основные значения слова θεωρία в древней греческой экзегетической литературе. The article deals with the theology, composition and literary form of the narrations which constitute the prologue part of the book of Genesis (1, 1-11, 26). During the second half of the 19th and at the turn of the 20th cent., following the emergence of the Documentary hypothesis as well as the comparison of the Holy Scripture with the newly-discovered literary monuments of Ancient Near East, the greater part of the narrations that constitute the Prologue were labeled myths and ancient Hebrew folklore (J. Wellhausen, H. Gunkel, J. Frazer). In addition to the then detected Near Eastern parallels, this new attitude towards the narrations of the Prologue was fostered by its lack of a clearly expressed historical dedication and the symbolic form of their exposition. Defending the traditional view of the Prologue as sacred history and prophetic revelation, bishop Kassian (Bezobrazov) proposed to consider all the biblical narrations that contain theophanies as metahistorical. Archpriest Sergey Bulgakov, A. F. Losev and B. P. Vysheslavtsev, who analyzed the phenomenon of myth-making, called the Biblical narration of the origins of the world a myth, but in a sense different from that proposed by Gunkel and Frazer. They have founded a new and positive conception according to which a myth is not fi but rather a kind of reality based upon mystical experience. The author of the article analyzes each of the terms enumerated - «history», «myth», «metahistory» - in their use relating them to the Prologue; he also examines the possibility of their harmonizing with the traditional ecclesiastical view of this part of the book of Genesis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document