Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Simple Fractional Reserve/loan Default Question


Recommended Posts

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.

For the last ******ing time that is not money you ******ing idiot that is at all valueable to anybody at all unless you actually have money that you have promised to me!!!!!

Money can move the ******ing world!!!

Your money is ******ing worthless.

There is nothing to think about!!

Your idea is just wrong.

Misguided

Fraudulent

Idiotic.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

No, I am demonstrating how you can offer to pay them back in kind. If you did get legal tender, then this is a different issue.

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*

The ability of banks to give numbers out is inherent in peoples confidence in the banks, not in the bank credit that they hand out. There is no factual difference between my money and their money, but people act as if there is.

Why they do this is interesting, but not relevent to the factual nature of my money versus bank credit money.

What the bankers would like, of course, is to work backwards from peoples varying acceptance of the same object depending on who is offering it and make that a property of what is being offered, which is nonsense. It's different when a banker offers numbers on a screen to when I do it because of belief in the ones being offered and this arose from a freak historical accident, it's different because of irrationality and misguided thinking.

In short, it isn't different in any evidential or factual sense, yet the system actually works day to day and so some explanation has to be offered by those who benefit from or have fallen for the delusion other than "these things happen but it's basically ********."

Force of habit and momentum is keeping the whole thing going. This is the esence of the madness of crowds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For the last ******ing time that is not money you ******ing idiot that is at all valueable to anybody at all unless you actually have money that you have promised to me!!!!!

Money can move the ******ing world!!!

Your money is ******ing worthless.

There is nothing to think about!!

Your idea is just wrong.

Misguided

Fraudulent

Idiotic.

Factually, what's the difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

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

how are you defining tangible?

Google [Define: tangible]

-------------------

perceptible by the senses especially the sense of touch; "skin with a tangible roughness"

real: capable of being treated as fact; "tangible evidence"; "his brief time as Prime Minister brought few real benefits to the poor"

(of especially business assets) having physical substance and intrinsic monetary value ; "tangible property like real estate"; "tangible assets such as machinery"

palpable: capable of being perceived; especially capable of being handled or touched or felt; "a barely palpable dust"; "felt sudden anger in a palpable wave"; "the air was warm and close--palpable as cotton"; "a palpable lie"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In law, tangibility is the attribute of being detectable with the senses

-----------------------

If B's Bank knows to put money into his account that he can spend then by my definition it received something that is tangible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
how are you defining tangible?

Google [Define: tangible]

-------------------

perceptible by the senses especially the sense of touch; "skin with a tangible roughness"

real: capable of being treated as fact; "tangible evidence"; "his brief time as Prime Minister brought few real benefits to the poor"

(of especially business assets) having physical substance and intrinsic monetary value ; "tangible property like real estate"; "tangible assets such as machinery"

palpable: capable of being perceived; especially capable of being handled or touched or felt; "a barely palpable dust"; "felt sudden anger in a palpable wave"; "the air was warm and close--palpable as cotton"; "a palpable lie"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In law, tangibility is the attribute of being detectable with the senses

-----------------------

If B's Bank knows to put money into his account that he can spend then by my definition it received something that is tangible.

No, it isn't.

In law - tangible means "has physical presence." Evidence means "that which is seen."

And FYI - law doesn't decide anything, it's just the realm of opinion. Reality is superior to law on every occasion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it isn't.

In law - tangible means "has physical presence." Evidence means "that which is seen."

And FYI - law doesn't decide anything, it's just the realm of opinion. Reality is superior to law on every occasion.

You agree the law is not relevant here to describe the meaning of the word tangible.

By my definition if a banks physical computer can be operated to record a physically present detectable record of transfer that the bank acts on then it is tangible and not some vapourware or illusion or any other tortorous conceptualisation of the meaning of ownership that requires some court procedure to decide if the said computer detection could be described as evidence of the monetary assett or whatever the ****** the recorded money is described as.

If the bank puts it in B's account then something happened to notify them of that. They must therefore believe they have an assett equivalent in form to the deposit they make.

Your illusion requires that all descriptions and meanings are made false.

Your opinion here is not relevant. What is relevant is what happens when an electronic transfer is made and money appears in a persons account.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your opinion here is not relevant. What is relevant is what happens when an electronic transfer is made and money appears in a persons account.

What happens is this -

£1,000,000

And it's exactly the same as the above. Just numbers on a screen, that's all they are.

If you know of a factual difference, lets hear it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Factually, what's the difference?

Your money can do no work

Bank created money in a country where bank created money is seen as being valueable can do work.

The BOE money has value because it can do work.

Your argument is based on the BOE money having no value.

But it has value

But you say it has not.

So i say your money has no value and you are perceptually unable to see that your money is different to BOE money.

Your unpleasant perception of the world depends on BOE money being of no value.

You cannnot see the difference because all you can see is your perceptions

All any of us can see is our perception.

But change your perception and you can see differently.

In the bigger picture sense your perceptions maybe accurate.

But in the detail they are clearly wrong.

Even crap BOE devalued shite money can do work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your money can do no work

Bank created money in a country where bank created money is seen as being valueable can do work.

The BOE money has value because it can do work.

Your argument is based on the BOE money having no value.

But it has value

But you say it has not.

So i say your money has no value and you are perceptually unable to see that your money is different to BOE money.

Your unpleasant perception of the world depends on BOE money being of no value.

You cannnot see the difference because all you can see is your perceptions

All any of us can see is our perception.

But change your perception and you can see differently.

In the bigger picture sense your perceptions maybe accurate.

But in the detail they are clearly wrong.

Even crap BOE devalued shite money can do work.

I asked for factual differences.

Got any?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What happens is this -

£1,000,000

And it's exactly the same as the above. Just numbers on a screen, that's all they are.

If you know of a factual difference, lets hear it.

if you now type numbers on a screen, that is a different process than when you access a computer system where those numbers were created by some process that can be precisely defined and traced and reconstructed.

But you have said accounting does not exist so you are not interested in that explanation

Your argument progressively removes all method whereby you can learn what is true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
if you now type numbers on a screen, that is a different process than when you access a computer system where those numbers were created by some process that can be precisely defined and traced and reconstructed.

But you have said accounting does not exist so you are not interested in that explanation

Your argument progressively removes all method whereby you can learn what is true.

Any factual differences yet, matey?

Try the scientific method if you are stuck for a way to determine differences, it works great.

ps.. I didn't say that accounting doesn't exist, I said it was an inaccurate model of the world, which it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Any factual differences yet, matey?

Try the scientific method if you are stuck for a way to determine differences, it works great.

ps.. I didn't say that accounting doesn't exist, I said it was an inaccurate model of the world, which it is.

Injin

How about a different approach here?

Everybody else on this forum is working with the idea that the central bank deposits 1000,000 of out of thin air money into the commercial banks account that enables the loan of one million to be made in a legal amount via deposits.

But you are saying the commercial bank does not require the central bank and i dont think anybody on this forum agrees with you.

We can agree that capital requirements not withstanding that million can be lent out via every bank in the world *if* it becomes deposited there.

Can you let me know why it is that you need this commercial bank idea of infinite created money at every single bank rather than the almost identical example of central bank created money.

Your way is too obviously fraudulent and involves vast armies of coconspirators. I think we can reason that the masters of the universe are operating at a harder to detect level if they are operating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the factual difference?

Sorry what is the question here?

And what do you mean factual difference

Can you give me a real world example by what you mean by factual difference?

My answer is that your million does not do anything. But the banks money does do something. So a clear factual difference in my terms.

What are your terms here so that i can answer the question in your terms?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Injin

How about a different approach here?

Everybody else on this forum is working with the idea that the central bank deposits 1000,000 of out of thin air money into the commercial banks account that enables the loan of one million to be made in a legal amount via deposits.

But you are saying the commercial bank does not require the central bank and i dont think anybody on this forum agrees with you.

We can agree that capital requirements not withstanding that million can be lent out via every bank in the world *if* it becomes deposited there.

Can you let me know why it is that you need this commercial bank idea of infinite created money at every single bank rather than the almost identical example of central bank created money.

Your way is too obviously fraudulent and involves vast armies of coconspirators. I think we can reason that the masters of the universe are operating at a harder to detect level if they are operating.

No factual differences yet?

Scientific method is fine mate, if it's as easy as your histronics are maing out, you should have it done in no time at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No factual differences yet?

Scientific method is fine mate, if it's as easy as your histronics are maing out, you should have it done in no time at all.

Well it appears easy to me but you wont accept my answer.

As a scientific method if i show a person your money then they laugth at you.

But when i show them my money they respect me or want to work for me or want me to buy things from them or invest with them

So that is a detectable difference

But you refuse to accept the possibility that my science is a valid experiment.

However we also know that i am not the only person to doubt your sanity. So you have that evidence too.

Edit: replace method with money

Edited by aliveandkicking
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry what is the question here?

And what do you mean factual difference

Can you give me a real world example by what you mean by factual difference?

John is 6 feet tall, Bill is 5 feet tall. This is a factual difference between them.

My answer is that your million does not do anything. But the banks money does do something. So a clear factual difference in my terms.

John is 6 feet tall. Bill is 6 feet tall. They are twins. Annie preferes Bill to John to go out with, What's the factual difference - why does Annie prefer one over the other?

What are your terms here so that i can answer the question in your terms?

Dead simple - describe the factual differences between a PC screen with numbers on it in your bedroom and one in a bank.

If I give you £1,000,000 - why is that different than if..say Mervyn king gives it to you?

What's the difference in the £1,000,000?

I can't see one. Can you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it appears easy to me but you wont accept my answer.

As a scientific method if i show a person your money then they laugth at you.

But when i show them my money they respect me or want to work for me or want me to buy things from them or invest with them

So that is a detectable difference

But you refuse to accept the possibility that my science is a valid experiment.

However we also know that i am not the only person to doubt your sanity. So you have that evidence too.

Edit: replace method with money

That's not a factual difference or objective test to do with the numbers on a screen, it's to do with who is offering them.

That people perceptions do not match reality isn't relevent to the facts.

£1,000,000 on the screen in front of you is exactly the same as £1,000,000 on the PC screen at a central bank. people believe it to be different and they are all mistaken. There are no facts to back up their opinions.

I accept that peopel believe, I reject the idea that this is rational or due to some objective criteria and Iam completely correct to do so because there is no difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
John is 6 feet tall, Bill is 5 feet tall. This is a factual difference between them.

John is 6 feet tall. Bill is 6 feet tall. They are twins. Annie preferes Bill to John to go out with, What's the factual difference - why does Annie prefer one over the other?

Dead simple - describe the factual differences between a PC screen with numbers on it in your bedroom and one in a bank.

If I give you £1,000,000 - why is that different than if..say Mervyn king gives it to you?

What's the difference in the £1,000,000?

I can't see one. Can you?

I can see a difference.

You are looking at a single detail which is the number on the screen.

But there are other details which you can also see but you are refusing to acknowledge you can see them *even* though you have described those details to me.

If you see Merv as a total idiot/criminal/fraudster then you cant see he has the authority to give you money.

So it is your perceptions that narrow down your vision so you only see the single tiny detail on the screen which is only a tiny part of the whole picture.

We could though make this simpler i think?

If you rob a bank and place 1000,000 on your table in front of your web cam

And i go to my bank and get out one million and place it on my table and show it on my web cam

we both have the same thing on our tables.

But you in law would be a crook and i would be a millionaire having the ability to raise one million in cash.

And so it is with your money on your screen.

It is not money but just your opinion that it represents money. It is fraudulent to say it is money

But my money in my bank is real money belonging to me and i can say that without being a fraud.

The two sets of identical numbers like the two sets of seemingly identical piles of notes were placed there by different means and mean different things.

You are claiming they are the same thing.

And others are concluding you are mentally ill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see a difference.

You are looking at a single detail which is the number on the screen.

But there are other details which you can also see but you are refusing to acknowledge you can see them *even* though you have described those details to me.

If you see Merv as a total idiot/criminal/fraudster then you cant see he has the authority to give you money.

This is your probloem. You believe in authority.

There is none. Just facts.

So it is your perceptions that narrow down your vision so you only see the single tiny detail on the screen which is only a tiny part of the whole picture.

We could though make this simpler i think?

Simpler than a tiny detail?

If you rob a bank and place 1000,000 on your table in front of your web cam

And i go to my bank and get out one million and place it on my table and show it on my web cam

we both have the same thing on our tables.

I have never stolen in my life. What do you think I am? A banker?

But you in law would be a crook and i would be a millionaire having the ability to raise one million in cash.

And so it is with your money on your screen.

no, it isn't. I printed the money out on the PC screen I bought, using electricity I paid for. I produced it fair and square. Amusigly, the Boe stole it's PC and paid it's emplyees with stolen resources so you are wrong on that as well.

It is not money but just your opinion that it represents money. It is fraudulent to say it is money

But my money in my bank is real money belonging to me and i can say that without being a fraud.

You can't have it both ways, either numbers on a screen are or aren't money. If they are, they both are, if they are not, they both are not.

The two sets of identical numbers like the two sets of seemingly identical piles of notes were placed there by different means and mean different things.

You are claiming they are the same thing.

No, I am just pointing out that factually they ARE the same thing. This is 100% accurate. It's just true.

And others are concluding you are mentally ill.

Which isn't relevent to the facts of the matter. I could be a webbot or a monkey punching the typewriter and my statements are either true or false, measured against reality.

I am totally correct, factually.

Edited by Injin
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is your probloem. You believe in authority.

There is none. Just facts.

Simpler than a tiny detail?

I have never stolen in my life. What do you think I am? A banker?

no, it isn't. I printed the money out on the PC screen I bought, using electricity I paid for. I produced it fair and square. Amusigly, the Boe stole it's PC and paid it's emplyees with stolen resources so you are wrong on that as well.

You can't have it both ways, either numbers on a screen are or aren't money. If they are, they both are, if they are not, they both are not.

No, I am just pointing out that factually they ARE the same thing. This is 100% accurate. It's just true.

Which isn't relevent to the facts of the matter. I could be a webbot or a monkey punching the typewriter and my statements are either true or false, measured against reality.

I am totally correct, factually.

You are unable to realise that the numbers on the screen are meaningless unless they are genuinely traceable back to the original deposit.

But you have already decided there was no original deposit so keep concluding they are meaningless.

I think i have exausted this conversation from my point of view. Either way i feel exhausted from this as neither of are going to change our minds. All this is happening for me is that i am putting more and more information together to support my own beliefs.

Some of your ideas did throw me but i then realised they were unworkable in practice.

Money works for me even it does not work for you.

All i am doing here is waiting and attempting to predict possibilities based on what i am learning so i am better able to proceed when the time feels right.

I admit i have learnt some useful things here from you and others in this conversation.

So i am greatful for that.

And i am sorry if i have created offence where none was really intended. I cant understand you and that causes me a frustration that i dont really understand and find hard to control.

JustYield was able to be calm and exit once he reached the point that to me created painful frustration.

Obviously i have no power to influence here and that seems the reality i am going to accept.

Regards to you and goodluck

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't have it both ways, either numbers on a screen are or aren't money. If they are, they both are, if they are not, they both are not.

No, that is not a fact. You can't just ignore things (like authority) that you don't happen to like or agree with.

Try writing "£10" on a 3" x 5" piece of paper and take it down the corner shop. Tell them it's money. They will not believe you. Fact.

Edit to add:

My twin brother is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.

Genetically, we are identical.

Am I or am I not the CEO of a Fortune 500 company?

Edited by benj
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, that is not a fact. You can't just ignore things (like authority) that you don't happen to like or agree with.

Try writing "£10" on a 3" x 5" piece of paper and take it down the corner shop. Tell them it's money. They will not believe you. Fact.

I know, I never said they would. What I said was they have no rational basis for doing so, no objective basis for treating my piece of paper as different to the bankers piece of paper.

Me waving my hands over unleavened bread doesn't do anything, neither does anything happen when a priest waves his hands over a piece of unleavened bread - but a believer thinks that it has been transmogrified when the priest does it and hasn't been when I do it.

This means people are irrational, not that the bread is special when the priest is handwafting.

Edit to add:

My twin brother is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.

Genetically, we are identical.

Am I or am I not the CEO of a Fortune 500 company?

If you perform exactly the same actions that he does, then yes, you are.

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.