Brandybuck wrote:Harvester wrote:Furthermore, when you borrow money, the bank doesn't loan you money it has, it creates new money based on your signature, your promise to pay.
Absolute rubbish! In the prior two sentences you were talking about factional reserve banking. Apparently you do not understand what that means! When you borrow money, the bank loans you money based on a system of
fractional reserves. Alfred deposits $10,000 in the bank, which lends $9,000 of it to Benjamin, keeping $1,000 in reserves. Benjamin then goes and pays $9,000 to Charlie for services, who deposits it in his bank, which then lends out $8,100 to David keeping $900 in reserves. And so and and so on. Eventually that $10,000 deposit becomes $100,000 of circulating money.
None of this money was created based on your signature! It was created based on your
deposit!
That is why I am here! That mode of denial and dissociation from reality. -
duplicity of mind, you hipocrites! You do not seem to understand that you confirm the point about creating currency when you argue against it. It is truly mind-boggling that you can continue to correctly parse out the Fed's version of creating money out of thin air, and continue to deny it is happening in the same breath:
The Story of Money.
Pottapaug1938 wrote:I remember reading a funny thing about United States Notes. In 1966, an issue of $100 USNs was printed (Series 1966), and some made it into circulation. I've seen more than a few. Howver, the vast majority of them remained in vaults, unissued; and some years later someone came up with the idea of moving the pallets of unissued notes from one part of the vault to another. The idea was for these notes to be thus considered to be "in circulation", although they were never issued.
I don't know if these USNs still exist; but if they do, the government could make a nice bundle of money by selling them to the general public.
Indeed. This is so that people do not wear the lawful money out and the Treasury will have to keep US notes in print as well as Fed notes. In January of 1971 the Treasury made that decision with no objection by Congress.
Legal Tender Faqs
United States notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing United States notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971.
silversopp wrote:CaptainKickback wrote:
These two reasons alone make it a given that there is going to be some sort of Federal Bank to handles these needs, even if you take away its role in monetary policy.
I think that most, if not all, anti FED folks aren't aware that it does things other than manipulate monetary policy. You might be able to privatize those other functions and bring competition into that market, but I've never seen any anti-FED folks describe what that would look like. It seems that they just want to get rid of the FED and replace it with nothing - which doesn't make much sense.
The absurdity contemplated to be reality as it occurred in 1976 would be to reconcile the IMF Trust Fund value ($42.22/troy ounce) for the gold with the SDR (Special Drawing Rights) value of over $1K/troy ounce.
Fed assets.
The 'system' actually contemplates gold coming back into the market to resume the fixed gold standard at that $42.22 value! So the absurdity you mock about anti-Fed patriots is really indeed there! It is in the Senate Report on the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements and right there in the footnotes of recent asset reports:
Brandybuck wrote:silversopp wrote:I think that most, if not all, anti FED folks aren't aware that it does things other than manipulate monetary policy. You might be able to privatize those other functions and bring competition into that market, but I've never seen any anti-FED folks describe what that would look like. It seems that they just want to get rid of the FED and replace it with nothing - which doesn't make much sense.
While is true that most most anti-Fed folks base their entire knowledge on the book "End the Fed", it is not true that they comprise the whole of anti-Fed folk. I happen to be an anti-Fed guy, but I try to stay away from the polemicists who are short on economics and long on anger. There are necessary functions the Fed provides, but I have seen no reason why they need to be centralized in the hands of a monopoly. I'm not arguing for an instant overnight change in systems (which of course would be disastrous), but sticking your head in the sand like there's nothing wrong with the Fed is silly.
I'm an advocate of free banking, and would chip away the Fed's centralized monopoly until we are left with a system of decentralized banks with only a level of regulation sufficient to protect the consumer against theft and fraud. I do realize, however, that I am advocating something that is very radical, and that nearly everyone else in the world disagrees.
That is the beautiful thing about the 1913 remedy codified today at Title 12 U.S.C. §411! It will only go into place at the speed of the constituency. Your protectionism of the false balances is what keeps some modicum of confidence in place so that the empty currency does not implode. It is your bonding it by endorsement that keeps that expanded money supply with its little but diminishing value.
That was 2007, Paulson's failed attempt to peg the renmindi to the dollar popped the subprime mortgage bubble and things have not been right ever since! Therefore your 'world' is dying and for the most part died with the Global Economic Crisis.
Demosthenes wrote:Why are you guys feeding the trolls?
Genuine confusion. JJ just cannot fathom how it is when I have been dumping you guys, body-slamming you all about reserve and fractional banking, that you continue to reveal to interested readers the truth!
Don't worry about it Lambkin.
P.S.
grixit wrote:Wouldn't it fall somewhere between what we have now and the days of the wildcat banks?
Just get rid of fractional lending.
