Stupid World

[bogan]

But then it'd just be worth 1$ yet they now have 5$ also you're neglecting the next stage where that imaginary 5$ is taken & split into another 25$ so now we have 25$ backed by 1$ but it doesn't stop there cause that 25$ will be taken & turned into 125$ still only backed by 1$ & this goes on & on until someone defaults & that OG 1$ turns out not to be much of a backing after all because all that $$$ turns out to be made from nothing after all... Now you know the basics of the GFC

Actually that is taken into account, what you have forgotten to take into account is the fractional reserve. At each bank deposit/lending transaction 20% (from example) must be held at the bank. Do the sums on the $1 being given to the bank, with 20c kept and 80c lent out, then that 80c coming back and 64c lent out again... You totals will be $4 lent out and $1 kept by the bank, hence the money multiplier of 5; and simply backing up my point that how much money a bank can lend out is proportional to the money it has, and thus is not creating it out of nothing.

Cannot spread etc...

let me just say that you're a dumb fuck, then follow by re-iterating

Like I've said many times, you guys need to get an education; Scuba is demonstrably wrong, and your mindless agreement with him merely shows your ignorance and bias.

I'm most definitely going for money driving behaviour, because if that money didn't exist, neither would the behaviour... well certainly not at the levels we currently know. I can't see past what? The only reason I want money is so that I can make an attempt and rendering it obsolete, aha, ironing or what eh. I don't hate money and I'm certainly not blind (coz I know where it comes from and you don't ) and have looked at it as objectively as is possible and see it as damaging the future of mankind. So yet again I say that I'm not looking at things from a negative perspective and so you decide that you know better. , so you're going to persist in telling me how I view things huh? In which case you're fooling yourself, bigtime

, they do print it, or are you calling one of NZ's chief economists and the imf liars? Actually that would fit with your modus operandi telling others what they think and what they should believe... well trying to... but you'll need an ounce of credibility first and that's something that you seem to be lacking. No rant there, just stating the facts as you tell me I'm negative when I'm not, and you persist in that vein by stating that economists and the imf are full of shit. Dude, you may want to get that projection looked at or at the very least upgrade your logic engine to something that is this side of the 60's... that's this side of the 1460's to be clear. Economics 101 baby, you've just failed it... and using your yard stick that means that you have absolutely zero credibility when discussing matters of the financial system... although I'm sure you'll ream of a string of caveats to dig yourself out of your own hole.

Blaming me for your lack of knowledge is not my problem. Blaming me for your lack of logic isn't either. And then telling me what I need to focus on, WTF ? Why do I need to focus on the flaws (tsk tsk such negativity) when I can focus on a solution that can do everything the financial system can and more.

Well that was a whole lot of negativistic claptrap, hope you feel better for venting, cos it achieved fuck all else.

[mashman]

Like I've said many times, you guys need to get an education; Scuba is demonstrably wrong, and your mindless agreement with him merely shows your ignorance and bias.

Well that was a whole lot of negativistic claptrap, hope you feel better for venting, cos it achieved fuck all else.

Yet you can't debunk what he has said, just straight for the ad hominems... choice bro.

No it isn't... I thought we'd made that clear. I know why it achieved nothing and that it might actually achieve nothing, but I'm optimistic so post anyway in the hope that you'll grow a pair and man up.

If you had an education I'd be inclined to look into your claims

You deny truth because you cannot look past where the information comes from. I'm flattered that I can affect you in such a way... although it's pretty pathetic really and so closed minded it renders every stance you take completely subjective, and such ironing coming from a so called self-professed objective person. Now go grab yer security blankie and we'll say no more about scared you truly are.

[mashman]

My assets far outweigh my debts

Are you sure those assets are yours? I'm betting that the "authorities" could remove every single one of them should they choose to.

[bogan]

Yet you can't debunk what he has said, just straight for the ad hominems... choice bro.

No it isn't... I thought we'd made that clear. I know why it achieved nothing and that it might actually achieve nothing, but I'm optimistic so post anyway in the hope that you'll grow a pair and man up.



You deny truth because you cannot look past where the information comes from. I'm flattered that I can affect you in such a way... although it's pretty pathetic really and so closed minded it renders every stance you take completely subjective, and such ironing coming from a so called self-professed objective person. Now go grab yer security blankie and we'll say no more about scared you truly are.

What part of the 'they must have 20% reserve' do you not understand? (I even gave the beginnings of a numerical example to SS in my reply just above what I wrote to you) it is a simple way to prove that there is a limit to how much $1 can be multiplied to; if you can't understand that, then you do need an education, that is not an ad-hominem, that is just an honest recommendation.

I mean it achieved nothing because you are just jerking yourself off with your own ignorance (russel brand, bono, etc, etc), if you feel like finding and applying some logic, you might be a bit happier. Always the same with you isn't it, you'll say something demonstrably false, then fall back on the whole semantics of what was said, or logic-less arguments of my way is better than the current way cos here is a big list of the negatives I see in the current way which isn't negativity, but the negatives you see in my way is negativity. Grow up mashy, and get rid of your narcissism.

Yawn, feel free to actually show me where you're right and I'm wrong, cos all this thread is showing is the 'stupid world', is a projection by the original poster (as shown by you inability to comprehend simple economic concepts like FRB).

[yokel]

Are you sure those assets are yours? I'm betting that the "authorities" could remove every single one of them should they choose to.

Yes I'm well aware of that,

[mashman]

What part of the 'they must have 20% reserve' do you not understand? (I even gave the beginnings of a numerical example to SS in my reply just above what I wrote to you) it is a simple way to prove that there is a limit to how much $1 can be multiplied to; if you can't understand that, then you do need an education, that is not an ad-hominem, that is just an honest recommendation.

I mean it achieved nothing because you are just jerking yourself off with your own ignorance (russel brand, bono, etc, etc), if you feel like finding and applying some logic, you might be a bit happier. Always the same with you isn't it, you'll say something demonstrably false, then fall back on the whole semantics of what was said, or logic-less arguments of my way is better than the current way cos here is a big list of the negatives I see in the current way which isn't negativity, but the negatives you see in my way is negativity. Grow up mashy, and get rid of your narcissism.

Yawn, feel free to actually show me where you're right and I'm wrong, cos all this thread is showing is the 'stupid world', is a projection by the original poster (as shown by you inability to comprehend simple economic concepts like FRB).

NZ has a reserve requirement of 20%? Oh dear bogdan, you really need to get your facts straight before spewing such tripe. Funny thing is, Scuba Steve showed a valid example and you denied it, primarily, by the looks of things, because you're looking at the issue from the perspective of a single bank. Irrespective, banging up figures to prove your argument even though you can't demonstratably prove otherwise is a desperate measure... but please, keep digging coz it's fuckin funny.

Oh my giddy aunt, you read what I have said incorrectly and then blame me for it GOLD. Shit, and it keeps on going. I've highlighted the issues with the current system by evaluating them against the positives of another system , but it ain't surprising that you'd see things in the way (your negativity is glaring) you do irrespective of how far away from the mark they are. You need to watch your projection son, coz I'm almost starting to feel embarrased for you... and would do if I wasn't pissing myself with laughter at just about every single spoonfed nugget of gold that you regurgitate with ultimate confidence, irrespective of its validity.

So, we're back to right and wrong eh. I have no need to show that you're right or wrong, the few KB members that have posted and the word of nz economists and the imf have done that job quite comfortably , but fuck man, that's classic bogdan right there. Here endeth the lesson for today. I know you won't have learned anything given your propensity for ignoring the message, but kudos for sticking it to the man bro (economists and imf) by denying that which they tell you is factual.

Yes I'm well aware of that,

heh, just checkin in case you'd come down with bogdanitis.

[mashman]

Tax evasion: a multi billion-dollar issue... well duh, shirley they don't think them legal loopholes are there by accident... and if you close them all of the rich people will runaway . If they don't give a shit about life in NZ, then they should fuck off . Aye, money, it's a winner

[bogan]

NZ has a reserve requirement of 20%? Oh dear bogdan, you really need to get your facts straight before spewing such tripe. Funny thing is, Scuba Steve showed a valid example and you denied it, primarily, by the looks of things, because you're looking at the issue from the perspective of a single bank. Irrespective, banging up figures to prove your argument even though you can't demonstratably prove otherwise is a desperate measure... but please, keep digging coz it's fuckin funny.

Oh my giddy aunt, you read what I have said incorrectly and then blame me for it GOLD. Shit, and it keeps on going. I've highlighted the issues with the current system by evaluating them against the positives of another system , but it ain't surprising that you'd see things in the way (your negativity is glaring) you do irrespective of how far away from the mark they are. You need to watch your projection son, coz I'm almost starting to feel embarrased for you... and would do if I wasn't pissing myself with laughter at just about every single spoonfed nugget of gold that you regurgitate with ultimate confidence, irrespective of its validity.

So, we're back to right and wrong eh. I have no need to show that you're right or wrong, the few KB members that have posted and the word of nz economists and the imf have done that job quite comfortably , but fuck man, that's classic bogdan right there. Here endeth the lesson for today. I know you won't have learned anything given your propensity for ignoring the message, but kudos for sticking it to the man bro (economists and imf) by denying that which they tell you is factual.



heh, just checkin in case you'd come down with bogdanitis.

No that was the example (which is why I put 'from example' in brackets). ScubaSteve's example is flawed as it does not take into account any fractional reserve, multiple banks make no difference; please explain how a bank can turn $1 into $125 given they must hold 20% (an example number) in reserve. This is a simple task, it is what your previous assertion that the 'banks print money' has boiled down to, lets dispense with the rest of the hyperbole and just focus on this simple little bit of maths.

[Akzle]

focus on this simple little bit of maths.

1 ≠ 5
1 ≇ 5

any way you dice it.

[mashman]

But then it'd just be worth 1$ yet they now have 5$ also you're neglecting the next stage where that imaginary 5$ is taken & split into another 25$ so now we have 25$ backed by 1$ but it doesn't stop there cause that 25$ will be taken & turned into 125$ still only backed by 1$ & this goes on & on until someone defaults & that OG 1$ turns out not to be much of a backing after all because all that $$$ turns out to be made from nothing after all... Now you know the basics of the GFC

No that was the example (which is why I put 'from example' in brackets). ScubaSteve's example is flawed as it does not take into account any fractional reserve, multiple banks make no difference; please explain how a bank can turn $1 into $125 given they must hold 20% (an example number) in reserve. This is a simple task, it is what your previous assertion that the 'banks print money' has boiled down to, lets dispense with the rest of the hyperbole and just focus on this simple little bit of maths.

After the first round of $1 lending the bank ends up with $5 debt on the books or $5 in repaid loans. Either way, you start again with $5 "deposit", rinse, repeat, and all from $1.
That or become a bank in a country that doesn't have a reserve requirement.

The actual maths is unrequired because as you said earlier, they could just have gone straight for $5 with nothing backing it, because that initial $1 wasn't backed with anything either... well, nothing more than confidence in the newly created ponzi scheme.

[bogan]

1 ≠ 5
1 ≇ 5

any way you dice it.

I know. FRB doesn't violate this, look at the amount of money actually in circulation at any one given stage of the transaction path.

After the first round of $1 lending the bank ends up with $5 debt on the books or $5 in repaid loans. Either way, you start again with $5 "deposit", rinse, repeat, and all from $1.
That or become a bank in a country that doesn't have a reserve requirement.

Wrong, the first round of lending is that the $1 deposited is split into 20c the bank must keep, and 80c they lend out to somebody else; thus the name of fractional reserve.

There is a table on the wiki that shows you transaction progression.

[mashman]

Wrong, the first round of lending is that the $1 deposited is split into 20c the bank must keep, and 80c they lend out to somebody else; thus the name of fractional reserve.

There is a table on the wiki that shows you transaction progression.

Sigh... The end of the first round of lending as much as can be lent until the principle can no longer be lent i.e. K, the bank ends up with 457.05. That 457.05 can then be lent out again. You said what about semantics earlier? I guess you can't help it.

[Brian d marge]

Nz is a bit murky they dont release a lot of detail

But that dollar 80 cents is lent out 20 cents is held

The interest on the 80 cents is pure fictional money u pay the bank for the risk it takes in lending u fictional money

When u repay that debt the money is destroyed but the interest u paid isnt

Do a search for banke moon speech printing money
I posted it here a long time ago

Not in a position to calculate the returns on that dollar

If i have a chance i will

[bogan]

Sigh... The end of the first round of lending as much as can be lent until the principle can no longer be lent i.e. K, the bank ends up with 457.05. That 457.05 can then be lent out again. You said what about semantics earlier? I guess you can't help it.

No, it can't, the 457.05 is total deposits (which would be 500 by end of cycle), not what they have or can lend; what the bank can lend at that point is 8.59 (or 0 at end of cycle). At the end of that cycle there is no cash in circulation from the original amount, as all $100 of it is in the bank. The money multiplier comes from that along the way those many people have deposited a total of 500 with the bank, and the bank has lent 400 out to those (or other) people with 100 in reserve.

Another way of looking at it, do the sums assuming all transactions are done by one person, total lent out is 400, total deposited is 500, leaving bank with all the money the person originally had (as per the first deposit) and only that amount; no more has been created along the way.

Nz is a bit murky they dont release a lot of detail

But that dollar 80 cents is lent out 20 cents is held

The interest on the 80 cents is pure fictional money u pay the bank for the risk it takes in lending u fictional money

When u repay that debt the money is destroyed but the interest u paid isnt

Do a search for banke moon speech printing money
I posted it here a long time ago

Not in a position to calculate the returns on that dollar

If i have a chance i will

I don't think NZ has an FRB limit in that sense, as it has mostly been superceded by a capital requirement, but that's a bit more complex in implementation with risk weighted assets etc, but follows the same general trend I think; ie, FRB is primer level, capital requirement is beginner level... and so on.

Interest on money lent is payment for a service, return on investment etc; same way that the $1 worth of gear can be sold for $2 as a product/service.

[Brian d marge]

No, it can't, the 457.05 is total deposits (which would be 500 by end of cycle), not what they have or can lend; what the bank can lend at that point is 8.59 (or 0 at end of cycle). At the end of that cycle there is no cash in circulation from the original amount, as all $100 of it is in the bank. The money multiplier comes from that along the way those many people have deposited a total of 500 with the bank, and the bank has lent 400 out to those (or other) people with 100 in reserve.

Another way of looking at it, do the sums assuming all transactions are done by one person, total lent out is 400, total deposited is 500, leaving bank with all the money the person originally had (as per the first deposit) and only that amount; no more has been created along the way.



I don't think NZ has an FRB limit in that sense, as it has mostly been superceded by a capital requirement, but that's a bit more complex in implementation with risk weighted assets etc, but follows the same general trend I think; ie, FRB is primer level, capital requirement is beginner level... and so on.

Interest on money lent is payment for a service, return on investment etc; same way that the $1 worth of gear can be sold for $2 as a product/service.

Yes
I was just doing some sums using the 80 cent addin compound interest
Future value = （principle x fractional reserve rate say 5) x( 1+%rate) ^ number of years

That 80 cents gets raped

What ur saying is the lending will always be limited by the reserve

But the reserve is growing at a compound rate methinks