Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (251480)	6/2/2010 1:43:25 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

if you lend out money, you have to have earned something of value first (added to society as a whole). Skeeter I give up. You are incapable of understanding that an IOU is tradeable and hence money. You think that because someone takes a loan from the bank, and the bank hands them currency cash (i.e. M0 money) that somehow this is different than taking a loan from an individual who hands them something of value. If you are that obtuse then do it this way: A signs a note for $x and gives it to B who also signs a note for $x and gives it to A in exchange. See, no premade goods are exchanged in this transaction. Both notes are tradeable because there is a market for such things. In this case, 2x money was created. Thats how much new money can circulate in the economy as a result of the actions. The money stays in circulation until the IOUs are redeemed. If instead, A signs a note for $x and gives it to B in exchange for real property which B already has, then 1x money was created in this transaction. It will pop out of existence when A is made to redeem the note to whoever holds it at the time of redemption. But in either case, all signed notes represent a commitment to pay when the holders demands payment. That is money. The primary difficult with this is that A's note and B's note depend on the individual fortunes of A and B going forward, and although they had equal value at creation, they might well not have equal value in the future. Thats the advantage of a central currency. Fractional reserve is simply one way of doing it. Charging interest is also one way of doing things. You can construct all sorts of system which might or might not have such particulars. But you can't even grasp what money is. No wonder you are clueless about why interest has utility. And please don't come arguing that A & B swapping equal IOUs is not a meaningful transaction and therefore won't happen. There are all sorts of reasons why such transactions would happen, and they are the same as why A might sign a note to a BANK who then hands A cash. Also note that all such transactions, even with the bank, generally require collateral.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (251480)	6/3/2010 7:11:59 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Re: a bank, OTOH, only has to have $20k on hand as reserves and then magically* creates $180k OUT OF NOTHING* That's not how it works. You don't understand fractional reserve lending. You're not even close. Fractional reserve lending isn't the problem, at least, it's not the problem here. The bank can only loan out a fraction of what it has. The reason it's often presented as a multiplier is that, as a total system, that turns into a multiplier because loans from one institution immediately become deposits, of which the bank can then load a fraction. We had fractional reserve lending all through the 50's and 60's, when there were no bubble or solvency issues. It's the "innovation" that's been killing us - CDOs, etc.