I wrote a blog awhile back basically making fun of the fact the government was simply trying to “print more money” as a way to get us out of this financial crisis. The writing was a take on my childhood misconceptions.
The odd part was the blog also prompted a lot of viewings from people that really didn’t understand why printing more money was not a legitimate way to work our way out of this. So, in order to clear this up…
Imagine the government printed more money and sent every man, women, and child $5,000. Sounds good right? Some people would save it, but the bulk would run out and buy a flat screen television, go out for dinners, or even pool some money and buy a new Harley-Davidson (my personal choice).
The issue is everyone now has more money – equally. So now the value of the dollar has decreased (there are more of them out there). Think of trading cards or collectables – they are worth more when there are less of them available.
Prices are determined by supply and demand (yes, there are some other factors but let’s not bother with those right now) which is also a way of saying “ability” to pay in some cases.
Back to the store; Let’s say only 100 people could (normally) afford the flat screen television at your local Best Buy. But now more people have money and more people go to the store to buy one.
The first week the television sells out. Well, we can’t have that in a store (and the demand has gone up) so now the prices will as well. Basically what you have now is inflation.
Inflation would not be limited to the television. It would occur on everything. Bread, Milk, Gas, Electronics, etc, etc.
So, in a nutshell, printing more money simply raises the prices of everything but the net effect is still the same. If you can’t afford it now, you won’t be able to afford it then!
For the thoughts on the stimulus package, check out this post.
Keep the Godfather Caffeinated! Donate to the Diet Pepsi Fund.
I suppose this is where you look for some witty insights to my mind. A "bio" of sorts. Here is the deal... I ride motorcycles, smoke cigars, golf, kayak, fly, race my car through the mountains, write (a lot), and travel extensively. I am almost old enough not to care what other people think about me...almost. ~ Godfather
A friend of mine just emailed me one of your articles from a while back. I read that one a few more. Really enjoy your blog. Thanks
Yes. Good, clear explanation.
Well, then to curb overall inflation, instead of giving $5000 to each and every person, how about we just spread it amongst readers of this blog…we’re spread far and wide so we’d limit the store sellouts, and hey, maybe we could all go on a big fat $400k+ retreat somewhere…maybe a hardware store where we can gather around the christmas tree!
I just came across your site today when I googled “why can’t we just print more money.” Your explanation is the clearest one I have found yet. However, I have a question. Instead of giving money to the people directly, how would printing more money not work if the money was giving to the banks directly. That money could allow the banks to help people not foreclose on their properties or end up filing bankruptcy because they can’t pay their bills. The goverment is going to buy up bad assets and wants to buy bad mortgages, I believe, as well. The government has never done either of these things in the past. Its almost like making up the rules as you go along. If the world markets are falling, and we are all in similar situations, then what difference does it matter if the US dollar isn’t as strong as the euro when the Europena banks aren’t fairing any better than our’s our?
If someone responds, please don’t mock me. I really know nothing about the economy or finances. I’m just asking questions I would like to get some good answers to. Thanks!
I’m not the money expert that the Godfather is, but the way I understand it all is that whether the money goes to us, the people, or the banks to tie the loose ends up on all the bad debt, it still puts more money into the system, as actual pieces of paper money….
more money in the system = less value of the money in that system
I still don’t like that we can’t just print more money but I guess I have to accept that this is the way it is. lol Thank you, Mike.
Michele..dont worry about printing more money..just go buy multiple games of Monopoly and Life…sooner or later that money will be worth the same as what we call the real stuff anyways!
Thanks for the comments Michele. Let me see if I can further clarify…
First off, I think the example shows how putting more money “on the street” will not help – all prices will go up (inflation).
What the government is doing is an interesting middle ground that “could” work, but it very much depends on how it is handled going forward.
Basically the money being printed is not really seeing the people on the street. It is in the form of “loans” for the most part to institutions. This money is to make up for “bad loans” the banks should not have made in the first place.
Eventually the banks, or the mortgages themselves, should pay the government back. If that goes according to plan it will work and have a minimal effect on inflation. However…
Think of the people that borrow money from their home (equity loan) to pay off their credit cards. In a lot of ways it is a good move as an equity loan is much cheaper interest than the credit cards. The problem is what a lot of people do going forward. They go out and start using their credit cards again – now they have MORE mortgage debt and credit card debt (worse than when they started).
IF, and that is a big “if,” the money goes back to the Federal Reserve we could get out clean. But if we have a spike in the economy that creates more debt we are basically hosed.
We are at a crossroads. I think you really only get one shot at this type of bailout and both the average consumer and the government need to re-think their spending habits.
Any business that spends (or borrows) more money than it earns eventually goes out of business. The government is in the same position now.
Does that help?
Yes, that helps a lot. Thank you. I would hope that people learn from this and realize that they need to change their ways. I, myself, have debt (cc, student loans and car) and have been making my payments chugging along but I have totally changed the way I do things and I do things I have never done before – baking from scratch, eat out way less than before, garage shopping, etc. I even planted a garden which I started to do 3 years in a row and never accomplished until this year. lol
However, I know how I am when I’m on a diet. When I’m losing the weight, I’m great. When I finish and I’m on maintenance, thats where the trouble starts to creep in again.
I have to keep the lid on myself this time around spending wise so in the future I don’t end up in the debt I have now. I hope others in my situation learn as well and not only learn, but teach our kids. Its going to be hard because I have learned through trial and a lot of error but its necessary for me and other parents to do the same.
Sorry I got a little soap boxy there.
Thank you again. I appreciate the explanation.
Michele
I fully understand how printing more money simply would devalue money but help me understand why the federal reserve could not print more money to get out of our “national” debt? I’ve always understood this to be what we owe to trading nations against what is owed to the US. I know it used to have something to do with gold supply but didn’t think it did anymore. Could we not “print” additional money to pay off national debt?
Great question Grey,
Printing more has the same effect whether you give it to homeless, taxpayers, or foreign lenders (ie: pay off the national debt) – more money out there equals higher prices. Let’s look at two scenarios…
If you printed more money and gave it to every man, women, and child in the US, prices would go up accordingly – but, in theory, everyone could still buy the items because they just received more money.
Now, if you printed more money but sent it OUTSIDE the US, prices would still go up BUT we are not the ones with the money this time. You would have effectively devalued the dollar and gave more of it to foreign lenders. It is largely why the National Debt is so important to not have – it comes with interest.
In its simplest form, the US has a really big credit card (national debt) it needs to pay off. No matter who you are, that is hard to do without some sacrifices to get back on track.
Godfather is wrong to suggest that printing money necessarily leads to inflation. Print too much and obviously inflation will rise. But print the right amount and the result ought to be more people buying more stuff, which will employ more people. The Scottish philosopher, David Hume cottoned onto this in his essay “Of Money” written in 1752. He said in reference to an increased money supply, “If the coin be locked up in chests, it is the same thing with regard to prices as if it were annihialated”. I.e. the inflationary effect of an increased money supply depends on what people do with the extra money. Unfortunately this area of economics has not advanced much in the last 250 years!!!
Re Michele’s idea, print money and give it to banks, why should we bail out the incompetent idiots (i.e. banks) who got us in this trouble? I’d rather see ordinary folk be given money, with banks going to the wall. This would be a severe jolt to the system, however, and would cause unemployment to rise short term, but I’m attracted to the idea.
There are plenty of leading economists who advocate money printing as a last resort, (i.e. if interest rates dont kick start the economy). One of them is Ben Bernanke, head of the US central bank. Another is the veteran economics commentator for the Financial Times, Samuel Brittan: see article entitled “The Big Myth of Taxpayer Cost” at http://www.samuelbrittan.co.uk/textdate.html
Thanks for the comments Ralph.
I will concede that printing a SMALL amount money does not lead to inflation (counterfeit money in the system comes to mind).
Actually the (inflation) issue due to printing more money is typically not the first three transferences of newly printed money. It is the long term affect of the money being in the system since it typically is not removed.
Thanks again! Great stuff.
Hi Godfather – all your explanations are very clear, and you’ve made perfect sense of how printing more money = more dollars for the same pool of goods and services = prices for those same goods and services go up, and eventually everyone can only afford what they could aford in the first place, except now dollars are worth less than before.
However, is this such a bad thing given the current situation?
My understanding is part of the problem is falling property values and mortgages that exceed property values. So, if giving everybody newly printed cash would increase de3mand for properties and pump up prices, is that a bad thing?
Also, if everyone was given $5,000 of newly printed cash, and the goods and services they can buy with that money may fall 9with the value of the money), but their debt remains the same – so anyone with a $5,000 credit card debt, can smash it – part of the problem gone…or, they could put $5,000 onto their mortgage, another part of the problem gone.
Alternatively, what if there was widespread inflation – normally this also means higher wages. That means everybody earns more, but their mortgage remains the same, meaning more dollars getting slammed onto mortgages.
I do understand that normally inflation is something we try to avoid, but considering that in inflationary times the one thing that doesn’t inflate is the value of a personal debt, and considering the problem in the US at the moment stemms from debt, why is inflation a problem?
Thanks Aaron (sorry for the delay, I was off for the holidays).
You certainly bring up some good points. I think it is really a matter of nothing moving too fast. Influx of cash (bailout) or inflation. I don’t think that giving everyone $5,000 fix the problem (although I certainly would not turn it down), I think more along the “teach someone to fish” lines.
One thing in the works is trying to create affordable, fixed-rate, loans for people to purchase homes. No balloons, no interest-only, just fully amortized 30-year loans at 4-5%. I think that would help the RE market.
I had to think twice about your last comment. You are right, although the value (or debt owed) of personal debt would not go up, if everything cost more you would have less money to pay off your personal debt.
Thanks again!
Fantastic explanation, and the most precise and clearest I have come across….
Thanks
So, I get the whole hyperinflation issue… but-
If we think about the money ‘pool’ as having X amount of dollars prior to the stock market and housing crash, then we lost a huge chunk of value (x-v=currrent value) why could we not just print the amount of money that was lost between here and there (current value + lost value = previous value), and still not cause hyper-inflation (? I suppose the easy answer to that is that much of that ‘evaporated’ wealth was ‘unrealized’, meaning it was not in circulation because it was tied up in various assets, stocks, which had gained and lost value over time, therefore perhaps ‘didn’t quite exist’. Well, as a response to this, what about simply printing the amount of money that has been lost in the housing/stock markets, and using it to reduce loan principals- pay down mortages, directly to banks, to reflect the current market values of the properties mortgaged. Wouldn’t it allow the banks to get a bit more comfortable with allowing more lending without taking one on the head? I don’t believe it would flush significant cash into ‘everyone’s hands.’ And it might just stop the spiraling increase in foreclosures, as folks who can pay their mortgages won’t just walk away from them for being underwater. Anyway, just keep wondering why someone (not here but in general in public) isn’t saying this… thoughts?
Interesting points Jon. I would have to give it some thought.
Initially I would say the overall “loss” is still the minority of the country. Let’s say that 10% of the people lose their homes (or jobs). That still leaves 90% of the population that certainly feels the effects, but is still handling the situation.
The distribution of more money would then help those with loss but also devalue those that “saved for a rainy day.” This is kind of in line with the discussion here…
http://www.theslowbleed.com/2009/02/20/do-we-have-to-bailout-our-neighbors/
I think the other challenge is the issue is global. The country that prints the least extra money (in the long run) will hold a greater international value when it comes to currency exchange or trade.
Now, I do believe the best way to stabilize the real estate market is to provide 30-year loans at an affordable rate (backed by the government). Instead of printing money, it is an extension of debt. I believe if you had say a 4% fixed loan available many people would be able to ride this out and stay in their homes. It also is a lot easier to track than giving companies billions of dollars and “hope” that it gets spent correctly.
I hear what you’re saying… I just can’t get past the sheer level of ‘value destruction’ we’re experiencing now… Seems like we are primed and ready for a crisis equivalent to or worse than Japan’s “lost decade” due to the immense amount of destroyed value in long-term assets of the housing market. I would be looking at more of an across the board on all properties revaluation, then recapitalization of banks based upon the lowered principles remaining. Sort of a giant do-over. Otherwise, banks can’t get rid of the bad debt, which causes further forclosures, which causes further decrease in home values, which further causes banks to not be able to get rid of bad debt, etc. etc etc. The feedback loop here is pretty nasty at the moment…. just seems like we may be past the point where punishing irresponisble investors and lendors has much meaning for anyone.
Plus, I can’t get past the idea that we would not be causing inflation – we would only be mitigating some portion of the massive value destruction that has occurred. Aren’t we in a deflationary condition now?
I guess, in addition, I am fundamentally opposed to bringing more debt online to solve our debt problems. It seems to me that the value of the dollar based upon the strength of the US economy is every bit as at risk from our ballooning deficits and foreign debt.
All good information here, but I have a question on how the government “prints more money”. I’m pretty sure printing more money is an old expression since only a teeny tiny fraction of our money supply is circulated as cash, which is probably decreasing all the time as credit can be used almost anywhere these days.
So by what mechanism does the government “print more money” in our modern system? Is it in the form of loans via the prime interest rate, the recent bailout loans, regulatory changes, etc.?
Of course you are correct Dac, the government does not have to physically “print more money” to get the same net effect. If debt changes hands (such as the bailout) it can have the same result.
It is also much easier to do when you have deficit spending (Ie: the bills just keep getting bigger and bigger). At the end of the day, someone is sending over more money (lately it has been China).
Of course, they should put more money in, but think about it. They want you to spend it, so the more you spend the more jobs avaliable. But if you get money would you spend it or no just save it? Pretend you won the lottary, you got 1 million dollars and put it in one account, that doesn’t create jobs. And more people will get fired. When the ecomany isn’t good like right now what you need is to create more jobs, spending the money that you won. It is like cascade when you spen the money you create more jobs and thoughs new jobs (people’s) people spend their money, so it creates more jobs and so on…..My sibiling got told by their Social Studies teacher that if you win 1 million dollars and put it in 1 account, the government will need it and take most of the money you won and will leave you win 100 thousand dollars because you don’t spend. You should spend it, but some people diside to make more accounts and split the money into those accounts. Think about it, they would make more money if you would choose the right thing!!
PS I am not old I am less then 12 yrs old!!
I think now that deflation is a very real issue, the government printing money actually seems like a good idea. It amounts to a pure monetary tax, but one that drives down the value of the dollar. We’ve got some pretty strong deflationary pressure heading our way, with our declining assets and strengthening dollar.
Also re: debt, if everything cost more presumably wages would too. This is obviously not always the case, but generally inflation punishes wealth and rewards wages where deflation punishes wages and rewards wealth. Since debt is negative wealth, inflation is generally much better for debtors than deflation, when suddenly a monthly payment on a home loan becomes a much larger chunk of purchasing power.
What would happen if the government flooded the market with money, and controled the inflation rate to normal levels. If the demand for goods would rise then suppliers would have to hire more workers, expand their factories and they would probably raise prices. That would be understandable, as long as it was in accordance with the government to normal levels. Also the banks would have more money, and therefore more loans, more investments and basically full employment would be at 0% unemployment. What’s so bad about this idea in comparison to what we have today. Is the money supply some kind of way to control the people?
Looks like the Fed agrees with me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/business/economy/19fed.html?hp
“Worried about Deflation” has some good points and I am not surprised the “fed agrees with him/her.” However:
I also read the NY Times article and there are a couple things to realize. One, it is a very risky move. If they are wrong the consequences are huge. Secondly, they aren’t really sure it will work. They are really just out of options.
When the government tried this years ago it did work but the current economic situation is much different. The national debt is much higher, per capita export much lower, population higher, and so on.
this still makes no sense to me. If the government prints out more bills, it shouldn’t work in the way of trading cards. if anything it should be just added to the amount of wealth our country has, not to the value. it’s a load of bull for it to be that way. i mean i collected cards, and when it came to the blue eyes white dragon, no matter how many there where the value never went down amonst the people. so why should the amount of the accual dollar even matter. a dollar is a friken dollar. enough said.
Thanks Jason, I don’t collect cards, but I think it will make a great analogy. Obviously some cards are worth more than others….so…
Let’s say the Blue-eyed white dragon is worth $5. Plenty of them out there, but not so many they come in every pack.
Let’s say that a Red-eyed white dragon comes in every pack, so it is really only worth $1 to a collector.
Now, the printer decides to print millions of Blue-Eyed white dragon cards. They aren’t rare anymore. Matter of fact, to the card collector they become pretty cheap since everyone has more than one. The card goes down in value because there are more of them.
thank you soooo much for clearing that up for me. no one i know could answer that question to why that wpuldnt work. but wait ! i have one more
i thought of this the other day.
ok here goes:
you know how we are like trillions of dollars in debt to china or whatever right.
well what if we print more money and buy it all back. so then we can just be in debt to our selves.
and then you know how like july fourth is americas birthday . well on july forth for our birthday we will say to our selves happy birthday america you dont have to pay back the debt you owe us. wouldnt that work ?
in theory at least?
it would be like if my friend owed me twenty bucks and for her birthday i said hey you dont have to owe me twenty bucks any more happy birthday. right
Hello Danica, thanks for the comments!
I have to admit, I did have to think about that scenario for a minute. I was making your question way too complex, sometimes simplest solution is the best, so he we go…
In the end it would take someone ok not getting paid pack. In your analogy you gave your friend $20, then later told them they didn’t have to pay it back. That works great for your friend but not so great for you (you actually lent out $20 you never got back). Now that is a small amount so let’s kick it up a bit.
Let’s say you lent your friend $1,000 and they were going to pay you back. Are you as likely to let it go if YOU have rent coming do? Maybe, if you can afford to “lose” $1,000.
In the case of other countries, we owe them billions. It is unlikely they will say – “oh, forget about it.” So we are going to have to come up with the money. Now, if we PRINT money to give them it has the same net effect as it did all along (THEY will now have US currency to spend – thereby flooding the market).
Your scenario would work in theory if someone came along and said, “I will pay off the US debt and ask nothing in return.” Of course this person would need to have trillions of dollars and be pretty altruistic. No one comes to mind
dang alrighty then thanks i thought it was a pretty good idea
Hey, I’m curious as to what your response would be to Krugman’s latest column. He addresses this issue head on, and seems to disagree with you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/opinion/29krugman.html?em
Thanks “Worried about deflation.”
I have no real issues with Krugman’s article. It, like other articles including mine, are speculative. He is correct in saying that, thus far, we seem to be ok (other than creating a significant debt for our children that will be difficult to repay).
Part of it has to do with “what” the government spends money on. Purchasing debt (that has a chance to be repaid) has a good chance of a “positive” return. Handing out money to fund projects with no significant benefit (welfare projects) do not. Thus far we have been heavier on the side of debt.
On the other hand his comments on what happened in France is to the point and certainly a road we do not want to go down with debt increasing from our current war.
Secondly his comment about it not being an issue in Japan is also correct. But keep in mind how well Japan restructured its output (to the world) to help keep money coming into the country with exports.
What will the US sell to the world? Therein lies part of my question. We are great weapons of mass consumption – can we shift our education and output to supply the world?
our education? seriously? are we talking the same education which is graded on a curve and dumbed down so that everyone can pass? or are we talking about the education that leaves the average graduate about 4 years behind those from England?
OK, OK…… what a blog. Lots of good ideas and information, but……. Its time to get real. True, if we print money and hand it out wherever, we will have inflation, but, it MUST be done.
Kudo’s to President Obama for trying to do a quick fix, however history has proven that trickle down economics don’t work. It never has, it never will. Why? Because while some things may roll down hill, the money given to these massive corporations will not. Yes, it helps to bail them out short term, but it is the lowly John and Jane Doe’s who buy groceries, cars, electronics, dinners and a myriad of other things that keep these corporations running.
If my car gets repossessed then why do I need to pay for insurance? Now, I have a repo on my credit so who is going to give me another chance, especially with the times being what they are?
If my house gets foreclosed, I will no longer need homeowners insurance, wont need to pay those property taxes and then what? Rent? Great, I get to reduce my electric bill, get very cheap renters insurance, and most likely put my 2 large dogs to sleep because most apartments wont let you have a dog that weighs more than 10 pounds.
And then there is the nice credit score that comes with these two things and the rest of the outstanding debts, but hey, we at least bailed out those large companies for a couple of months.
Lets be realistic here, you can throw a bandage on a severed artery, but unless you fix the artery, you are still going to bleed out and DIE! Coining part of a phrase from the great Jack Nicholson, This Country Needs An Enema!!!
We must print and print a lot. Regardless of the inflation or deflation of that little piece of linen paper, my cable company is still going to want 140 of them at the end of the month. Until we do a true bailout of the American people, we are going to stay in this downward spiral.
Now I know you mentioned that this situation only affects about 10% of the people at whole, but you SIR are soooooo wrong. This country now has in excess of a 10% unemployment rate, but this does not include any of those who are unable to file for unemployment, like the independent contractors, the mom and pops who just lost their businesses, the self employed and so on. This 10% is easily in excess of 20% and climbing rapidly. With GM and Chrysler closing dealerships in record numbers, Hummer and several others being sold off to overseas companies, thousands of more people are going to be cramming the unemployment lines like crazy. This is an epidemic.
What must happen is the government set up an true bailout program that first gets with the mortgage lenders and banks and says, we are going to help those who are behind in their car payments and house payments as of this date, we will catch them up to current status. In return, you WILL refinance them at this interest rate and give them 6 months before their first payment is due. Granted, these lenders will be taking somewhat of a hit by doing this, but it will be a much smaller hit overall than what is happening to them right now.
The government just saved hundreds of thousands of people a lot of pain and gave them a chance to begin to see light again.
Second, instead of bailing out the auto makers, fund billions THROUGH the American peoples pockets with buying them new American made cars at substantially large discounts of course.
Then turn around and dump billions more in stimulus money in these same Americans bank accounts. 10,000 for non married individuals and 25-30,000 for married and married with family.
Now, add the zeros to the federal reserves bank account and pay off our debts owed to other countries, have the fed reduce the interest rate to ½ of a percent, mandate very tight restrictions on new credit and initiate a 20 cents per gallon federal tax that goes straight into the reserve to compensate for what it paid out to the other countires.
A year or two down the road, start pulling this money back out of America and destroy it, but save the country now, before it is completely devastated.
Of course, we need to really revamp our government spending and ours as well, but we are in a pickle. It needs fixed and it needs fixed now. This will give the American people light at the end of the tunnel, it will create new jobs, it will stimulate the global economy and mend that artery, at least temporarily.
Oh, and by American, I mean those who are actually Americans, naturalized or not, we do not need to bail out those who are here illegally.
Did you know that many counties are considering taking the foreclosed homes in their counties and turning them into low income housing? Umm, if we weren’t in a sudden state of low income, many of these houses would not be in foreclosure.
Actually your cable company is going to want 350 dollars. So what has the extra money in your pocket done for you now. Nothing.
Ahh the point missed….. Funding masive corporations is nothing more than a temporary fix to a problem that will come right back, funding the American people will spread the monies around the US and create more spending. THus, stimulating the economy from the ground up. If the American people are spending, big business and little business thrives, if the American people are not spending, which they are not spending as they were, then the little business fail rapidly and the big businesses survive for a short period longer.
Take a look at dIsney for example. Disney, even during the slowest times of the year, never has a hotel occupanc level of less than 85%, the past 2 years, 85% has been their high levels of occupancy.. This means that some of their 53 thousand employees are losing their jobs. If just 1% lose their jobs that more than 530 additional people out of work.
Drive down any major road in just about any city and look at the high levels of empty businesses, who is bailing them out? Not the Federal Government.
Look at it this way, Geico spends Millions and millions of dollars every year on some very lame adertisement. these dollars come from the policy holders monthly premiums. If they stopped advertising all together, how many actors, producers, editors, other film crew, members of their marketing division and hundreds of others would be jobless? Now, if they did it so they could cut the premiums for the policy holders to help the policy holders through the rough time, although it would be a nice gesture, it would be poor business practices. But if they HAD to cut all ad productions due to the sudden loss of revenue because 25% of their policy holders had their cars repo’ed, that would be a tragedy.
This is exactly what is happening, due to the greedy American public and a major economic downswing, millions are losing their jobs becaues the american public just can no longer afford the things they used to. Restaurants are closing in massive numbers, bars are dropping like flies, hotels are shutting down, auto makers are failing, the construction industry (which drives the economy in a major way) has all but died, heck, even record producing companies are floundering.
as for what the extra money has done for me? That is the exact type of mentality that causes this country to fail, it is We the people, not ME THE PEOPLE.
No, what you fail to realize is that printing money on a grand scale is bad for everyone. The VALUE of a dollar is inversely proportional to it’s AVAILABILITY. You can currently see this at work in the housing market. As more and more houses hit the market, values drop further and further. If you flood the market with dollars they will plumet in value.
Nope, your blog assumes way too many things. I have yet to see a single compelling theory as to why we can’t print more money
Seriously Mark? That is your convincing counter theory? I hate to tell you, my opinion remains unchanged.
I dunno Godfather..seems like a lot of sound logic coming from his argument, I may have to go back to being cornfused now! LOL