It seems like one of the core problems here is that central banks have lost touch with the answer to the question, what is money?

Or they have, it's become illegible to them, perhaps.

Maybe they had kind of a bright, you know, clearly defined idea of what money was at some point,

but it's changed or evolved or it's transformed beyond their ability to

perceive or manage it. So how should we be defining money or how should they be defining money

in comparison to what is being done now? Well, what is being done now is nothing.

So that's probably a good place to start.

In fact, they're doing less than nothing.

They're actually pulling back on monetary scholarship.

I mean, 2006, they discontinued M3, which everybody said, you know, again,

critics of the Fed is money printing

said they were trying to hide inflation. When the Fed admitted to everybody who was honest and

willing to look at them honestly said, we just can't keep track of this stuff. We don't know how to.

This M3 component or this M3 aggregate that we had been producing for years, it was always incomplete to

begin with. And what we've said is that we absolutely have no idea how to keep track of it and

make it a more comprehensive and useful, a monetary aggregate. So we're just going to stop,

we're just going to stop entirely. And you look at what was in M3. M3 was not just institutional

money market funds, but it was also

repo, and it was also Eurodollar deposits and things like that. So they were trying to contain

some of this offshore monetary system in the broadest aggregate, but in 2005 and 2006 said,

we give up. We're not even going to bother with M3 anymore because we have no idea how to how to accurately or precisely or even just reasonably calculate what's going in it.

So to answer your question, it has to start with somebody standing up and saying, we need to do this.

...