Stupid World

[Brian d marge]

Any new money put into circulation with no connection to a realisable asset is inflation on a stick. In terms of the overall size of the economy it's tiny, and it's sole use is to heat up a sluggish economy, it's the opposite to tightening lending criteria.

This is where mushbrains gets his "money from fresh air" fixation. If there was any unsecured loans available I'm pretty sure I'd be in the queue.

In the real world if there was no fractional reserve system the quantity of existing deposits would be the only money available to lend, just 17% of what's currently available. Almost all of that 83% extra are mortgages.

Yup and this is why some disagree with fractional

While iagree with mashy . . I diifer in that i would like ti see a non debt based money

Zero interest


But thats for another day

[bogan]

Yes to all , if it wasnt limited I would be wallpapering my house with Barundi dinar


but the very nature of fractional reserve creates , up to a limit , due to that required reserve a money multiplier effect is created and that money is NEW money , not backed by anything , but created by the movement or the energy of money . As is the interest charged on the newly created money

now the interest , I know is the cost of money based upon risk

but it introduce interest and the money supply becomes an open system , a system not in equilibrium and I THINK open to the laws of entropy , where as the system expands , internal energy tends towards zero , ie the energy , purchasing power of money declines until it worthless .

Finally MOST people use the shorthand that money is printed , out of thin air . but its created by the use of a service ....( commercial banks )

either way the result is the same and its all just a big wealth transference scheme all the above is IMHO

fkers

Stephen

The movement is the backing though, any 'new' money asset is backed by its corresponding debt as the money moves about. The interest on that is kind of like RUC, not taxing the existence, but taxing the movement; and like trucks, a new one is not made every time it is moved.

Yeh that entropy is inflation, but like debt, inflation can be healthy in the right amount. And also like debt, it can be avoided if you so chose (put your money in gold etc).

[mashman]

Seems you've run to the end of your tether, I can hope you'll learn from this as you did from the anti-semitism lecture you got a while ago, but I shall not hold my breath; still, seems like a few others did learn some things so all is not a waste.

Will leave you with this though, despite being able to lend out so much more, banks in US chose to keep the M0-M1 money multiplier below 1 after the GFC. Seems like the actions of those worried about their liquid reserves, doesn't seem like the actions of those who could pull liquid reserves out of thin air any time they chose.

I've shown the mechanism, I've shown its working, I've show the historical data; all you've shown is your bias. Game, set, match; mashy.

bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa... it was the only answer needed.

Thanks for the link and I hope you won't be offended that I don't read it.

And yet you still deny that money is created out of nothing. You're right, you win.

[Ocean1]

Yup and this is why some disagree with fractional

Because they don't think other people should borrow so much? None of their business I'd have thought.

Seems far more likely they just can't see past the idea that banks are getting money "for nothing", which is fiscal gibberish.

While iagree with mashy . . I diifer in that i would like ti see a non debt based money

Zero interest

I'm sure most people with mortgages would agree, just not if it meant having to live in a house worth 87% less than their current one. Those with savings would probably be less happy.

Which I guess is the real point, the tinfoil hat brigade rant about the evel banks "printing money" but the driver of all that debt is average kiwis, happy to borrow as much as they have based on their own confidence in their ability to service that debt. Who the fuck else has the right to tell them they shouldn't do so?

[mashman]

This is where mushbrains gets his "money from fresh air" fixation.

No he doesn't. Try again... but alas, as you are unfamiliar with what money actually is, as you are limited by the definition you are taught, I don't hold out hope that you'll come even remotely close to understanding where I get my "money from fresh air" fixation from.

[Ocean1]

No he doesn't. Try again... but alas, as you are unfamiliar with what money actually is, as you are limited by the definition you are taught, I don't hold out hope that you'll come even remotely close to understanding where I get my "money from fresh air" fixation from.

'Praps you could explain again how there's no link between resources/assets and money, that's bound to be more entertaining than corro st.

'Cause that'd fix all of the world's problems, eh? Just print enough money to pay for anything anyone wants. But only for shit you approve of, eh?

Fuck you're a loser, just accept that you've been shown to be a financially illiterate blowhard, (again), focus on managing your own cash to the best of your pitiable ability and let everyone else worry about theirs, eh?

[bogan]

And yet you still deny that money is created out of nothing. You're right, you win.

Point of order, I deny that money is created out of nothing by commercial banks. The rest of that is correct though.

[mashman]

'Praps you could explain again how there's no link between resources/assets and money, that's bound to be more entertaining than corro st.

'Cause that'd fix all of the world's problems, eh? Just print enough money to pay for anything anyone wants. But only for shit you approve of, eh?

Fuck you're a loser, just accept that you've been shown to be a financially illiterate blowhard, (again), focus on managing your own cash to the best of your pitiable ability and let everyone else worry about theirs, eh?

... the fact that you say there is a link is enough for there to be a link.

Nope. No need for money to address wants and what will be produced will not be a decision for me to make... unless of course I choose to use my time and be productive.

bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa... keep clingin to them security blanket definitions scared old white man, coz they ain't gonna be there forever as "my" guys are on the way to show you just how retarded you are.

Point of order, I deny that money is created out of nothing by commercial banks. The rest is correct though.

If you say.

[mashman]

Point of order, I deny that money is created out of nothing by commercial banks. The rest of that is correct though.

I know I shouldn't, but there's no lulz at the moment:

Herman Daly:

Something that Mr D'Marge will likely agree with:

"Is there not a better away? Yes, there is. We need not go back to the gold standard. Keep fiat money, but move from fractional reserve banking to a system of 100% reserve requirements. The change need not be abrupt—we could gradually raise the reserve requirement to 100%. Already the Fed has the authority to change reserve requirements but seldom uses it. This would put control of the money supply and seigniorage entirely with the government rather than largely with private banks. Banks would no longer be able to live the alchemist’s dream by creating money out of nothing and lending it at interest. All quasi-bank financial institutions should be brought under this rule, regulated as commercial banks subject to 100% reserve requirements."

And just to underline the above in regards to commercial banks for sage bogan:

"In the 1920s the leading academic economists, Frank Knight of Chicago and Irving Fisher of Yale, along with others including underground economist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, Frederick Soddy, strongly advocated a policy of 100% reserves for commercial banks. Why did this suggestion for financial reform disappear from discussion? The best answer I have received is that the great depression and subsequent Keynesian emphasis on growth swept it aside because limiting bank lending to actual savings was too restrictive on growth, which became the big panacea. Also there is the obvious vested interest of commercial banks in retaining the privilege of creating money and lending it at interest."

[Akzle]

all money is debt. Fuck that jew shit.

[bogan]

I know I shouldn't, but there's no lulz at the moment:

Herman Daly:

Something that Mr D'Marge will likely agree with:

"Is there not a better away? Yes, there is. We need not go back to the gold standard. Keep fiat money, but move from fractional reserve banking to a system of 100% reserve requirements. The change need not be abrupt—we could gradually raise the reserve requirement to 100%. Already the Fed has the authority to change reserve requirements but seldom uses it. This would put control of the money supply and seigniorage entirely with the government rather than largely with private banks. Banks would no longer be able to live the alchemist’s dream by creating money out of nothing and lending it at interest. All quasi-bank financial institutions should be brought under this rule, regulated as commercial banks subject to 100% reserve requirements."

And just to underline the above in regards to commercial banks for sage bogan:

"In the 1920s the leading academic economists, Frank Knight of Chicago and Irving Fisher of Yale, along with others including underground economist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, Frederick Soddy, strongly advocated a policy of 100% reserves for commercial banks. Why did this suggestion for financial reform disappear from discussion? The best answer I have received is that the great depression and subsequent Keynesian emphasis on growth swept it aside because limiting bank lending to actual savings was too restrictive on growth, which became the big panacea. Also there is the obvious vested interest of commercial banks in retaining the privilege of creating money and lending it at interest."

If commercial banks could create money out of nothing, how would raising the reserve requirement up to 100% stop them?

[Brian d marge]

If commercial banks could create money out of nothing, how would raising the reserve requirement up to 100% stop them?

Ya money multiplier would be . . .1

[mashman]

If commercial banks could create money out of nothing, how would raising the reserve requirement up to 100% stop them?

Damned fine question... aaaaaaaaaaand the answer is, drum roll please, doing so in accordance with "specified" guidelines is a courtesy, not a requirement. It's all confidence/perspective. If you, not just you, are confident that banks stick to the "rules", then your perception is that banks stick to the rules and no matter who states otherwise, you know better. That's not a dig as I can level the exact same statement at myself. If money has to be created then the laws/rules/regulations etc... don't matter, because a reason will be found as always. If anything the recent bank scandals have proven just that, and that's just the scandals we know about. In regards to the bank bailout due to the GFC, it was a PR exercise (not the GFC, but the need for the bailout) to underline confidence/perspective in the laws/rules/regulations, coz they really don't have to given that they hold all of the keys to all of the doors so to speak (the ability to make or break any country, let alone individual). Ludicrous explanation eh? yet I see it as quite obvious given the economic commentary on money creation.

[Brian d marge]

I know I shouldn't, but there's no lulz at the moment:

Herman Daly:

Something that Mr D'Marge will likely agree with:

"Is there not a better away? Yes, there is. We need not go back to the gold standard. Keep fiat money, but move from fractional reserve banking to a system of 100% reserve requirements. The change need not be abrupt—we could gradually raise the reserve requirement to 100%. Already the Fed has the authority to change reserve requirements but seldom uses it. This would put control of the money supply and seigniorage entirely with the government rather than largely with private banks. Banks would no longer be able to live the alchemist’s dream by creating money out of nothing and lending it at interest. All quasi-bank financial institutions should be brought under this rule, regulated as commercial banks subject to 100% reserve requirements."

And just to underline the above in regards to commercial banks for sage bogan:

"In the 1920s the leading academic economists, Frank Knight of Chicago and Irving Fisher of Yale, along with others including underground economist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, Frederick Soddy, strongly advocated a policy of 100% reserves for commercial banks. Why did this suggestion for financial reform disappear from discussion? The best answer I have received is that the great depression and subsequent Keynesian emphasis on growth swept it aside because limiting bank lending to actual savings was too restrictive on growth, which became the big panacea. Also there is the obvious vested interest of commercial banks in retaining the privilege of creating money and lending it at interest."

It would be a start but gold is debt

The system i would like tosee would be debt free

Bitcoin????? A tally stick

2 rocks at differing distances from the village

[bogan]

Ya moneymultiplierwould be . . .1

Yeh but a monmey multiplier only applies when you are creating money out of other money; ie, you need something to multiply, he is talking about creating it out of nothing.

Damned fine question... aaaaaaaaaaand the answer is, drum roll please, doing so in accordance with "specified" guidelines is a courtesy, not a requirement. It's all confidence/perspective. If you, not just you, are confident that banks stick to the "rules", then your perception is that banks stick to the rules and no matter who states otherwise, you know better. That's not a dig as I can level the exact same statement at myself. If money has to be created then the laws/rules/regulations etc... don't matter. If anything the recent bank scandals have proven just that, and that's just the scandals we know about. In regards to the bank bailout due to the GFC, it was a PR exercise (not the GFC, but the need for the bailout) to underline confidence/perspective in the laws/rules/regulations, coz they really don't have to given that they hold all of the keys to all of the doors so to speak (the ability to make or break any country, let alone individual). Ludicrous explanation eh? yet I see it as quite obvious given the economic commentary on money creation.

So, what you're saying is it would make no change in that regard.