Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Simple Fractional Reserve/loan Default Question


Recommended Posts

Richard Branson has more in his bank account than has ever been printed.

There are £50bn (roughly) in notes and coing and trillions in debts and accounts. if you go to a bank and ask for a withdrawl they might tell you that those funds are not available and you have to come back in a few days. At the same time, they will be lending someone else many times that in another cubicle.

No, it isn't. it's just paper with numbers on it. however, if you offer them to people and they refuse, they lose access to the court system and you don't have to pay them anything.

They are not valuable. People can refuse them and when they do, banks go bust.

They have contractual arrangements that require them to do so.

Wrong. In the real world there are no countries. They are a fiction, a nonsense, entirely imaginary. This is just a fact. Countries do not now, never have and never will exist.

I've answered this many times. I prefer analogy and real objects because people see "money" and the confusion that has been long propogated by the banksters gets in the way. I'm just going to pay you in the same substance that the banks do and hope you get it -

£1,000,000

Spend it wisely.

You are curious.

If i ask for my 50P from your bank with no money you tell me that legal tender is different to the digits held in the bank.

But you also mock me for suggesting (that according to you) that I see a major difference. A promise is a promise is a promise.

You seem to totally want to disregard the financial cost of counting cash and of moving it around. You seem to want to believe that holding accounts as digits in a bank is fradulent rather than seeing it as a way to have less staff and be able to do things faster and cut down delays on money reentering the banking system.

And peculiarly you want to believe that every single bank on the planet is the same bank and that every single bank that is managed by living breathing people dont know the balances of their local bank where they work and the truths of the inputs and outputs even when they are totally inside the organisation.

You use accounting to illustrate how your fraud begins but your fraud ****begins with a fraud which makes the accounting impossible to be certified***** No money can be legally deposited in your account if the loan to you is not **due** to you **already** by the action of creating the promise you have agreed to where money **is** given to you and you agree to return it. These actions do not happen simultaneously if the accounting is correct. Instead the lending procedure is initiated and when completed there is then money available **to you** for your loan and it **then** goes to your account.

You use accounting to prove your case but your accounting is impossible. Your deposit cannot be made in advance of the loan being made **to you**. That part triggers the ok to move the funds to your account.

If you are correct you dont need accounts and all of the people involved in bank accounting are aware of a fraud.

I mean to say "hello?"

This is supposedly a sophisticated fraud being run by the masters of the universe!

Think about it please.

If i dont give you 100 then i do not have an assett created by the promise of the money i did not give to you.

No accountant will allow a none transfer to you to be counted as an assett.

But you want this to happen simultaneously.

You expect the accountant to allow you to be not given any money that is marked in your account as money you can have.

And you expect the accountant to allow money that was not given to you that *is* now recorded in your banks phoney books to be taken from this account and moved elsewhere even though the deposits existance in the *only* reason the none existant loan to you was possible in your private universe.

Your example is impossible to begin and impossible to work once began if you are using certified accountancy from the real world.

And yet we are to believe that an army of accountants pouring over the books is complicit with this amazing fraud that the **entire** world is taking part in to the extent that there is not one single country but one vast conspiracy that **few** people know about.

But each time a person attempts to reason with you then we just get total stone walling and more confusion involving apples and banks that can not lend 50P

You keep offering me one million. I keep showing it to my estate agent and he keeps saying it has Zero credibility

What is the point of your one million that has no credibility created by a bank with no money and no credibility???

It has no power at all.

And your replies about the power of my money is just more evidence of your total disregard for what is real.

You really are living in a fools paradise which actually is a pretty horrible and fearful place to be living in.

I think it is a little better out here in the real world where most people have some sense of integrity even if it is misguided. Your example has to relyon vast armies of corrupt accountants and people who work in banks and who administer our world

It really is not so terribly bad as that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 483
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bankers just print it or type it. To them it's only value is as a vehicle to acquire real stuff and real labour. They have infinite amounts of money.

You cannot talk about this subject as an authority as i believe JustYield can do unless you can clearly separate out :

1. Banking as legitimate commerce regulated by law and administered by an army of book keepers and bank examiners

from

2. Central banking which requires no certified internal procedures at all and is only visibly sound via the results of the money that it administers

Instead you blurr the whole shibang into an unreal creation of your own.

People here want to find out answers for themselves and all you are doing is making the concept impossible to understand

Perhaps it is you who works for central banking and the masters of the universe?

You seem to have an exstraordinary ability to reduce to absurdity any discussion on the subject of banking and money.

On the other hand if you are legit the place to start is to learn the real world accountancy realities of commercial banking and *then* you can talk with authority about what is happening today.

Edited. Yieldin to JustYield

Edited by aliveandkicking
Link to post
Share on other sites
You cannot talk about this subject as an authority as i believe JustYield can do unless you can clearly separate out :

1. Banking as legitimate commerce regulated by law and administered by an army of book keepers and bank examiners

from

2. Central banking which requires no certified internal procedures at all and is only visibly sound via the results of the money that it administers

Instead you blurr the whole shibang into an unreal creation of your own.

It is one entity. The idea that the different bank names mean they are functionally different entities is a myth.

People here want to find out answers for themselves and all you are doing is making the concept impossible to understand

Perhaps it is you who works for central banking and the masters of the universe?

You seem to have an exstraordinary ability to reduce to absurdity any discussion on the subject of banking and money.

On the other hand if you are legit the place to start is to learn the real world accountancy realities of commercial banking and *then* you can talk with authority about what is happening today.

Edited. Yieldin to JustYield

Commercial banks are just subsidaries of the central bank. They are NOT sepereate entities.

Accounting is also not a reality, it is a fantasy, in the same way that maps are not territories.

The trouble is that too many are mistaking the map for the territory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are curious.

If i ask for my 50P from your bank with no money you tell me that legal tender is different to the digits held in the bank.

But you also mock me for suggesting (that according to you) that I see a major difference. A promise is a promise is a promise.

You seem to totally want to disregard the financial cost of counting cash and of moving it around. You seem to want to believe that holding accounts as digits in a bank is fradulent rather than seeing it as a way to have less staff and be able to do things faster and cut down delays on money reentering the banking system.

Go and ask a straw poll of people on the high street what they think of as money - they will tell you legal tender. Ask them what happens in a abnk and they will tell you "moving legal tender around." if they didn't think this, the banking empire could not function.

And peculiarly you want to believe that every single bank on the planet is the same bank and that every single bank that is managed by living breathing people dont know the balances of their local bank where they work and the truths of the inputs and outputs even when they are totally inside the organisation.

nope. Each area has it's own closed loop system - the bank of england, the bank of japan etc inside those territories they have front organisations to give the illusion of competition to their cartel.

You use accounting to illustrate how your fraud begins but your fraud ****begins with a fraud which makes the accounting impossible to be certified***** No money can be legally deposited in your account if the loan to you is not **due** to you **already** by the action of creating the promise you have agreed to where money **is** given to you and you agree to return it. These actions do not happen simultaneously if the accounting is correct. Instead the lending procedure is initiated and when completed there is then money available **to you** for your loan and it **then** goes to your account.

it's legal because the government doesn't prosecute it. it's fraud because fraud doesn't depend on law, it depends on actions in reality matching the definition of fraud. it's both legal and fraud, in the same way that when a soldier shoots you it's both murder and legal.

You use accounting to prove your case but your accounting is impossible. Your deposit cannot be made in advance of the loan being made **to you**. That part triggers the ok to move the funds to your account.

no funds are moved. They are created by your loan form being treated as a deposit.

If you are correct you dont need accounts and all of the people involved in bank accounting are aware of a fraud.

I mean to say "hello?"

This is supposedly a sophisticated fraud being run by the masters of the universe!

Think about it please.

If i dont give you 100 then i do not have an assett created by the promise of the money i did not give to you.

No accountant will allow a none transfer to you to be counted as an assett.

But you want this to happen simultaneously.

You expect the accountant to allow you to be not given any money that is marked in your account as money you can have.

And you expect the accountant to allow money that was not given to you that *is* now recorded in your banks phoney books to be taken from this account and moved elsewhere even though the deposits existance in the *only* reason the none existant loan to you was possible in your private universe.

Your example is impossible to begin and impossible to work once began if you are using certified accountancy from the real world.

And yet we are to believe that an army of accountants pouring over the books is complicit with this amazing fraud that the **entire** world is taking part in to the extent that there is not one single country but one vast conspiracy that **few** people know about.

But each time a person attempts to reason with you then we just get total stone walling and more confusion involving apples and banks that can not lend 50P

You keep offering me one million. I keep showing it to my estate agent and he keeps saying it has Zero credibility

So what? It's exactly the same substance as the banks offer. The fact that the estate agent mistakes it for legal tender is just one more reason why all banking is fraud.

What is the point of your one million that has no credibility created by a bank with no money and no credibility???

It has no power at all.

And your replies about the power of my money is just more evidence of your total disregard for what is real.

You really are living in a fools paradise which actually is a pretty horrible and fearful place to be living in.

I think it is a little better out here in the real world where most people have some sense of integrity even if it is misguided. Your example has to relyon vast armies of corrupt accountants and people who work in banks and who administer our world

It really is not so terribly bad as that.

It's legal and fraud. The accounting for a bank works differently than the accounting for all other institutions, as you should already know. You seem to be of the opinion that opinions change reality. They don't.

You still owe me an apology and a retraction, by the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Commercial banks are just subsidaries of the central bank. They are NOT seperate entities.

I wish I could read this sentence without being plagued by an image of your avatar screaming it over and over again at the top of her lungs while being dragged down a corridor with bright light at one end by a pair of Roswell-esque aliens with gold watches and big eyebrows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
no funds are moved. They are created by your loan form being treated as a deposit.

You misunderstanding what i mean when i say funds are moved.

Your example depends on the deposit created by the loan being the source of the loan because your example relies on bookkeeping.

For example you create 100 as a loan from only my promise to pay 100 and 100 then appears in my account.

You have book keeping for that of deposit and loan being equal.

But how do i reduce the amount in my deposit? If i reduce the deposit then the loan has to be reduced. If i have zero balance you cant have the loan since the loan creation requires the deposit to exist in full

so as i spend the money the promise is reduced to zero? *or*

the loan money available to me is an endless source of money in my account.

Your system cannot work in the real world via accounting.

Your system depends on all banks expanding their lending and creating spending and deposits simultaneously but you have not one single time mentioned that as being part of the necessary system that all banks have identical loan amounts or total lending and are identical in size. In any case your example never did rely on the availablity of deposits to generate lending.

And it also seems to support the idea that everybody applies for loans at the same time for identical amounts and that all banks have the identical number of customers

Again the real world does not support this observation.

You have claimed we are all one country and now you seem to be claiming we are all one person present identically in all banks. This sounds more like the Jewish mystic religion of Kabalah where outside of ourselves nothing actually exists.

I have asked you many times now for a practical demonstration of your method.

You seem to want to rely on real world principals like accountancy which are fradulently administered but so far even with fraud you have not shown how your method works as a practical example working in the real world

Meanwhile to you cash has no power.

And your digits on paper created by you do have spending power presumably if i can imagine they are powerful? It is just like kabbalah. And the jews of course understand money.

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
One day people start asking for apples instead of pictures and you run out of them by dinnertime. You are now bankrupt.

Ok, totally follow all that, but people asking for apples is not the same as people defaulting on loans surely. What I'm asking is, is it right to infer from your position that banks make loans out of nothing, that banks do not care if you default?

Just to add, that scenario you described... Like someone else said, with Northern Rock, people werent lining up to get legal tender, or were they?

I'm strongly of the understanding that legal tender, ie physical cash as you've said, is just a medium of representation and as much as is required is in the system? IF there were a shortage of cash because some old fashioned people really wanted to keep lots of it, the BoE would just print up more?

Is there for example no difference between my debit card and a credit card?

Edited by Fraccy
Link to post
Share on other sites
You misunderstanding what i mean when i say funds are moved.

Your example depends on the deposit created by the loan being the source of the loan because your example relies on bookkeeping.

For example you create 100 as a loan from only my promise to pay 100 and 100 then appears in my account.

You have book keeping for that of deposit and loan being equal.

But how do i reduce the amount in my deposit? If i reduce the deposit then the loan has to be reduced. If i have zero balance you cant have the loan since the loan creation requires the deposit to exist in full

Which it does. What's so hard to understand?

banks add £100, then when you withdraw banks lose £100. They are back where they were before you walked in through the door and you are as well. £100 has been added to the total of the system and the value of everyone elses money has dropped but so what?

You have claimed we are all one country and now you seem to be claiming we are all one person present identically in all banks. This sounds more like the Jewish mystic religion of Kabalah where outside of ourselves nothing actually exists.

Tell you what. You provide me some proof, evidence for the existence of countries and I'll concede the point.

Good luck with that because there isn't any.

I have asked you many times now for a practical demonstration of your method.

And i told you to go to the bank, where they do what I say all day every day. off you pop then.

You seem to want to rely on real world principals like accountancy which are fradulently administered but so far even with fraud you have not shown how your method works as a practical example working in the real world

Meanwhile to you cash has no power.

And your digits on paper created by you do have spending power presumably if i can imagine they are powerful? It is just like kabbalah. And the jews of course understand money.

:lol:

It doesn't have any power, it's all perception. While people are thinking poorly it works, At some point they will wake up and stop being fooled.

And then it's goodbye bankers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, totally follow all that, but people asking for apples is not the same as people defaulting on loans surely. What I'm asking is, is it right to infer from your position that banks make loans out of nothing, that banks do not care if you default?

of course not, why would they?

The benefit to the bankers is that you work for the paper,that you provide assets when you fail to repay the imagined loans and that they get to direct almost all trade in a command economy stylee.

Just to add, that scenario you described... Like someone else said, with Northern Rock, people werent lining up to get legal tender, or were they?

Lots of themwill have been, others will have demanded that their legal tender was transferred. people are kinda dim when it coems to money, as important as they find it.

I'm strongly of the understanding that legal tender, ie physical cash as you've said, is just a medium of representation and as much as is required is in the system? IF there were a shortage of cash because some old fashioned people really wanted to keep lots of it, the BoE would just print up more?

Yes. The key difference is the legal status of legal tender versus bank credit. Bank credit can be refused with impunity by anyone and everyone. Legal tender cannot. Also, this has conequences for the BOE which is why they don't want ot do it. hyperinflation usually isn't good, even for bankers.

Is there for example no difference between my debit card and a credit card?

Not really, no. There are lots of names for the same half dozen frauds. Different APR, some other minor contractual difference that don't really amount to much because the contracts are invalid anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Or maybe goodbye thinking if the bankers have their way. :(

Yes.

They've expended a hell of a lot of effort and energy making sure that the general population are kept stupid and in the dark. What surprises me most is that nature of some of their projects - they last generations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to add, that scenario you described... Like someone else said, with Northern Rock, people werent lining up to get legal tender, or were they?

They were lining up to get their money out of the bank.

They have basically two options - ask them for hard cash to carry out right then and there, or ask them to transfer the money to some other institution. In both cases, the bank (NR) is being asked to pay someone the money it owes them. In practical terms, both cases are identical.

Say you went in and said "please move this £10,000 in my account to this account at Lloyds". They would note down your request and enter it into the clearing system along with everyone else's. Lloyds would receive the request and do two things: credit the receiving account with £10,000, and also go and ask NR for £10,000. In ordinary circumstances they won't want that debt settled with cash, because it's impractical to do it like that. Instead, they will accept payment through something like CHAPS. That means NR's balance at the central bank would be drawn down by £10,000 and Lloyds's balance would be credited with £10,000. The (electronic) balances in the banks' clearing accounts are entirely created out of thin air by the Bank of England - so to all intents and purposes they are the same as banknotes. They are a "risk-free" settlement.

The problem for NR is that they do not have enough banknotes NOR enough central-bank funds in CHAPS to pay out if all their depositors demand their money to be transfered somewhere else. Even though "hard cash" might be something of an anacronism, the risk that a bank runs out of money and its depositors are left penniless is still very real. Why else would the government have taken the unprecedented step of guaranteeing savers' deposits during the NR crisis? If there were a 100% correspondence between central-bank-issued money of some sort and the balances in people's bank accounts, no such guarantee would ever be necessary - because the bank would always be able to pay out. In such a system, bank runs would never occur.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Say you went in and said "please move this £10,000 in my account to this account at Lloyds". They would note down your request and enter it into the clearing system along with everyone else's. Lloyds would receive the request and do two things: credit the receiving account with £10,000, and also go and ask NR for £10,000. In ordinary circumstances they won't want that debt settled with cash, because it's impractical to do it like that. Instead, they will accept payment through something like CHAPS. That means NR's balance at the central bank would be drawn down by £10,000 and Lloyds's balance would be credited with £10,000. The (electronic) balances in the banks' clearing accounts are entirely created out of thin air by the Bank of England - so to all intents and purposes they are the same as banknotes. They are a "risk-free" settlement.

thankyou I found that very useful and clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. The key difference is the legal status of legal tender versus bank credit. Bank credit can be refused with impunity by anyone and everyone. Legal tender cannot. Also, this has conequences for the BOE which is why they don't want ot do it. hyperinflation usually isn't good, even for bankers.

.....

Not really, no. There are lots of names for the same half dozen frauds. Different APR, some other minor contractual difference that don't really amount to much because the contracts are invalid anyway.

The last bit conflicts, I believe, with what benj just expressed. Could you resolve what you mean here in the terms he used?

If I'm following this right, and I believe I now am (after some months going round in circles lol), the bank credit of course *can* be refused with impunity, but largely is not. If their credit is refused, they can't loan to you. Now, the key thing, is not when you take the loan, but when you spend it and money must leave that bank? The banks surely then has to make a payment in the way benj described, and is left with your promise to pay them back?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure what you are saying

you say:

"At this point A’s assets have increased by £100 and B’s liabilities have increased by £100."

For some reason when B receives an assett you describe this as only a liability.

but surely B receives something tangible which is an assett which it is liable for to Joe?

Banks deposits are things they are liable to return but they also got something (before they lose it) to cover that liability.

I think what you are getting at is that the interest differentials between the lending and borrowing will never balance?. B having the deposit is liable for the interest it pays Joe. But has no interest as an assett to cover that liablity.

In my post #408 I assume that all transfers are electronic, e.g. CHAPS

Such an electronic transfer of Joe's positive bank balance is a transfer from A to B of the banking system's liability to Joe

If Joe takes away his £100 as physical cash from A then A's books still balance immediately afterwards

The physical cash is an asset to whomever holds it, bank or Joe

Similarly when Joes deposits the £100 physical cash B's books still balance immediately afterwards

No end of business inter-bank lending is necessary in this case

Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (aliveandkicking @ Sep 3 2008, 02:12 PM)

You misunderstanding what i mean when i say funds are moved.

Your example depends on the deposit created by the loan being the source of the loan because your example relies on bookkeeping.

For example you create 100 as a loan from only my promise to pay 100 and 100 then appears in my account.

You have book keeping for that of deposit and loan being equal.

But how do i reduce the amount in my deposit? If i reduce the deposit then the loan has to be reduced. If i have zero balance you cant have the loan since the loan creation requires the deposit to exist in full

ENDQUOTE

Which it does. What's so hard to understand?

banks add £100, then when you withdraw banks lose £100. They are back where they were before you walked in through the door and you are as well. £100 has been added to the total of the system and the value of everyone elses money has dropped but so what?

It is impossible to understand.

No inflationary money is created as you suggest by normal bank credit creation. The money only exists in the banks and no actual money is created that did not already exist. It is a myth.

I have endlessly explained this to you. You endlessly dont understand.

No persons money gets devalued if you deposit money in a bank and they lend it out immediately. The amount of money in the economy is exactly the same.

And you still have not explained how your example allows me to make a single penny withdrawal.

it is unreal

Does not exist in the real world

Your ability to defy reality is beyond my comprehension

You have to be doing this on purpose. No person can be so foolish without learning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The last bit conflicts, I believe, with what benj just expressed. Could you resolve what you mean here in the terms he used?

If I'm following this right, and I believe I now am (after some months going round in circles lol), the bank credit of course *can* be refused with impunity, but largely is not. If their credit is refused, they can't loan to you. Now, the key thing, is not when you take the loan, but when you spend it and money must leave that bank? The banks surely then has to make a payment in the way benj described, and is left with your promise to pay them back?

Banks have contractual arrangements to accept the numbers in lieu of legal tender.

No such arrangement exists between the banks and the general public.

The key thing is whether legal tender is actually involved anywhere along the line. In most bank transactions, it isn't. This is problematic for a bank chasing a "debt" if the customer knows this, because courts operate on facts and evidence.

There is no way to claim that my

£1,000,000

and a bankers

£1,000,000

are different in a courtroom.

And of course, the comical thing if legal tender was involved is simply that they probably got it back the same day and so can't be owed for that reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is impossible to understand.

No inflationary money is created as you suggest by normal bank credit creation. The money only exists in the banks and no actual money is created that did not already exist. It is a myth.

I have endlessly explained this to you. You endlessly dont understand.

No persons money gets devalued if you deposit money in a bank and they lend it out immediately. The amount of money in the economy is exactly the same.

And you still have not explained how your example allows me to make a single penny withdrawal.

it is unreal

Does not exist in the real world

Your ability to defy reality is beyond my comprehension

You have to be doing this on purpose. No person can be so foolish without learning.

Sigh.

Anyone can create money mate, it's not exactly hard to do. here you go -

£1,000,000

Go and think about ti some more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In my post #408 I assume that all transfers are electronic, e.g. CHAPS

Such an electronic transfer of Joe's positive bank balance is a transfer from A to B of the banking system's liability to Joe

If Joe takes away his £100 as physical cash from A then A's books still balance immediately afterwards

The physical cash is an asset to whomever holds it, bank or Joe

Similarly when Joes deposits the £100 physical cash B's books still balance immediately afterwards

No end of business inter-bank lending is necessary in this case

Did you not write all of this down to show that the banks books did not balance and had to be balanced later by the central bank? and did you not then have a discussion about that with another person??

At the start of business the books balance for both bank A and bank B.

Joe takes out a loan of £100 from A and deposits it in B.

At this point A’s assets have increased by £100 and B’s liabilities have increased by £100.

Neither individual bank’s books balance, though their combined books, the whole banking system in this simple model, do balance.

But now the books did add up?

Why did you write all of this down connected to my comment?? Did it have anythign to do with me at all??

Edit: Sorry I am getting a bit tired here.

In your electronic example no money can be deposited in B's account until all of the procedures have been completed so really your example also shows books balancing or not????

When i do swift it takes at least a full working day to appear in my account from when i am told it is verified the day i sent the money. Nothing appears until i can access it.

Edited by aliveandkicking
Link to post
Share on other sites
The key thing is whether legal tender is actually involved anywhere along the line. In most bank transactions, it isn't. This is problematic for a bank chasing a "debt" if the customer knows this, because courts operate on facts and evidence.

....

And of course, the comical thing if legal tender was involved is simply that they probably got it back the same day and so can't be owed for that reason.

But I thought we agreed legal tender was just representation of the same thing. I believe you're just describing how to rip them off. You can turn the loan into legal tender, can't you? Spend it?

Sigh.

Anyone can create money mate, it's not exactly hard to do. here you go -

£1,000,000

Go and think about ti some more.

You must see that your 1,000,000 there isn't money, because it can't be exchanged for anything? What am I missing ?! *pleads*

Link to post
Share on other sites
If I'm following this right, and I believe I now am (after some months going round in circles lol), the bank credit of course *can* be refused with impunity, but largely is not. If their credit is refused, they can't loan to you. Now, the key thing, is not when you take the loan, but when you spend it and money must leave that bank? The banks surely then has to make a payment in the way benj described, and is left with your promise to pay them back?

I think you've got the hang of it.

Of course in the real world there are many banks, all making loans and taking deposits at the same time. Provided that they are all considered as credit-worthy as each other, on average much of the payment flow is self-cancelling. So one day Bank A might make £1,000,010 of loans which are spent on purchases from businesses who bank with Bank B, and Bank B might also make £999,990 of loans which are spent on purchases from businesses who bank with bank A. At the end of the day, all that is required is for the cashier from Bank A to walk over to Bank B with a £20 note. This is how the banking system manages to get away with pyramiding such large quantities of credit on top of a relatively small amount of central-bank-created money. It's also why the whole thing can, from some angles, look like one big shady cartel.

edit: typo

Edited by benj
Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course in the real world there are many banks, all making loans and taking deposits at the same time. Provided that they are all considered as credit-worthy as each other, on average much of the payment flow is self-cancelling. So one day Bank A might make £1,000,010 of loans which are spent on purchases from businesses who bank with Bank B, and Bank B might also make £999,990 of loans which are spent on purchases from businesses who bank with bank A. At the end of the day, all that is required is for the cashier from Bank A to walk over to Bank B with a £20 note. This is how the banking system manages to get away with pyramiding such large quantities of credit on top of a relatively small amount of central-bank-created money. It's also why the whole thing can, from some angles, look like one big shady cartel.

I think thats such an important factor, perspective. Theres lots of different ones. From the BoE's, from individual commercial banks, from a member of the public interacting with the banks, or modelling the commercial banks as a big group, and that gets lost in a lot of these debates. I have absolutely no doubt they are collectively in a position of trust, and that that trust can quite easily get abused (and particularly has been over the last 5 years). But I'm also in no doubt that they're not all a bunch of fraudsters, nor that the most basic mechanisms are fundamentally fraudulent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But I thought we agreed legal tender was just representation of the same thing. I believe you're just describing how to rip them off. You can turn the loan into legal tender, can't you? Spend it?

You must see that your 1,000,000 there isn't money, because it can't be exchanged for anything? What am I missing ?! *pleads*

A straitjacket and medication

Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you not write all of this down to show that the banks books did not balance and had to be balanced later by the central bank? and did you not then have a discussion about that with another person??

But now the books did add up?

Why did you write all of this down connected to my comment?? Did it have anythign to do with me at all??

My post #408 was about electronic transfers and showed the necessity of end of business inter-bank lending in this case

In response your post #420 contained:

For some reason when B receives an assett you describe this as only a liability.

but surely B receives something tangible which is an assett which it is liable for to Joe?

These comments showed that you were thinking in terms of physical cash, e.g. "B receives an asset", "B receives something tangible"

My post #451 shows that in this cash case no end of business inter-bank lending is necessary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.