| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: Compound Interest? | | Date: | Wednesday, June 1, 2005 11:05:10 (+0100) | | From: | Timothy Carpenter <timbeau_hk @........uk>
|
Bill,
I have not seen anyone argue with 'loans create deposits', that regulatory
requirements can change or any of the statements you have put out below.
Surely the issue is NOT "loans create deposits" but does, and if so how
does, a deposit permit a loan and in what proportion.
Tim
On 31/5/05 8:14 pm, "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Which, Tim, if you had bothered to read, does not
> refer to some fundamental principle of money and
> credit, but the regulatory requirement. The
> regulatory requirement can be changed, eliminated or
> ignored. The regulatory requirement does not infer
> that deposits are lent.
>
> The theorem that Douglas enunciated in his second book
> is: loans create deposits.
>
> That requires the recognition that deposits function
> as money in the modern economy. Moreover, in the
> modern economy they are practically the only money.
>
> The way they currently come into existence is not
> written in stone.
>
>
>
> --- Timothy Carpenter <timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 31/5/05 5:26 pm, "William B. Ryan"
>> <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not only have you not done your homework, Tim, you
>>> don't bother to read. Where have I ever said that
>>> banks can only lend deposits? I continually argue
>> the
>>> opposite. Banks lend by creating deposits.
>>> -
>>
>> You appear to be just arguing semantics while
>> insulting people along the way
>> and conveniently hauling the argument off into blind
>> alleys. Still, I am
>> glad you don't think that banks just can only lend
>> deposits, even though you
>> gave a very good impression below:
>>
>> On 26/5/05 5:10 pm, "William B. Ryan"
>> <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In the specific example above:
>>>>>
>>>>> The bank was assumed to be at its regulatory
>> limit
>>>>> just before the $1000 was deposited in that it
>> has
>>>>> zero "excess" reserves. With the $1000 deposit,
>>>>> assuming a minimum required ten percent reserves
>> to
>>>>> deposit ratio, its excess reserves are now $900.
>> If,
>>>>> hypothetically, the bank lends $900, and by some
>>>>> chance the $900 remains on deposit in its
>> entirety
>>>>> within the very same bank, though perhaps
>> transferred
>>>>> by check by the borrower to another depositor's
>>>>> account in payment for something, the bank is
>> again at
>>>>> the limit of its regulatory requirement with
>> zero
>>>>> excess reserves. It could not grant even one
>> dollar
>>>>> in an additional loan without running afoul of
>> the
>>>>> regulatory requirement. If even a single dollar
>> is
>>>>> transferred to another bank, the bank is afoul
>> of the
>>>>> regulatory requirement.
>>>>> -
>>
>>>
>>> [Carpenter, who doesn't bother to read} "The issue
>> of
>>> compound interest is not the RATE per se, but that
>> it
>>> enshrines the fact that entities, and for me it is
>> 3rd
>>> world governments in particular, can be charged
>>> interest upon unpaid interest for fiat money."
>>> ------------------
>>> -------------------
>>> The point is factually incorrect. And nonsense,
>> for
>>> god's sake. What if the rate were ZERO? "Not the
>>> rate per se" indeed! Can't you see the
>> contradiction
>>> in the absurdity?
>>
>> Bill, it is you who is not reading and your response
>> is not really helpful.
>> You quoted various rates earlier and explained the
>> effective rate ( not that
>> it was really necessary, but typical of you to go
>> into such patronising
>> detail...which is in fact the only absurdity around
>> here) If interest is
>> unpaid but not compounding, there is a huge
>> difference in the effect. Not
>> having to pay interest on unpaid interest ON FIAT
>> MONEY you clearly feel is
>> trivial. I do not. I do not say it must be
>> eradicated but I put that
>> specific point forward IN THE CONTEXT OF WALLY'S
>> CHRISTIAN STANDPOINT and
>> the discussion of debt, something you seem to have
>> conveniently ignored in
>> your pursuit of any hook to demonise and discredit.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>>
>>> International debt is continually being marked
>> down
>>> and/or written off. The reason why it has to be
>>> continually marked down and/or written off is
>> fully
>>> explainable through A+B, not the crank theory of
>>> "compound interest."
>>> -
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Timothy Carpenter <timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>> Bill,
>>>>
>>>> You avoid so many other issues and just jump in
>>>> where it suits to scream
>>>> 'money crank' and, for some reason 'pond scum' so
>> as
>>>> to divert the
>>>> discussion away from issues you repeatedly seem
>>>> reluctant to discuss and try
>>>> to discredit people for any pretext.
>>>>
>>>> Your rather condescending note misses the point
>>>> rather. The issue of
>>>> compound interest is not the RATE per se, but
>> that
>>>> it enshrines the fact
>>>> that entities, and for me it is 3rd world
>>>> governments in particular, can be
>>>> charged interest upon unpaid interest for fiat
>>>> money.
>>>>
>>>> You also appear to continue to push the idea that
>>>> banks can only lend
>>>> deposits, so I suppose this is your basis for
>> your
>>>> position. If indeed,
>>>> banks can only lend out deposits, surely consumer
>>>> credit can only be a
>>>> fraction of savings and investments. Many people
>> are
>>>> out there presenting a
>>>> very different view - what say you to this? If it
>> is
>>>> actually that banks
>>>> never lend fiat money, then I am very happy to
>>>> correct my stance.
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>> On 31/5/05 3:48 pm, "William B. Ryan"
>>>> <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [Tim Carpenter, pretending to be someone who has
>>>> done
>>>>> his homework] "Wally. I am sure you must also
>>>> accept
>>>>> the fact that SC may also be yet another example
>>>> of a
>>>>> flawed system. SC does not remove compound
>>>> interest,
>>>>> which is a far more important issue to deal with
>>>> IMHO.
>>>>> It appears to advise against personal savings
>> and
>>>>> investment in favour of bank credit. It creates
>>>> money
>>>>> to be destroyed yet does not seem to recognise
>>>>> (judging by explanations here) it may just be
>>>> taking
>>>>> the place of money ?held up? in the system
>> which,
>>>> when
>>>>> released, will need to be dealt with (even if
>> that
>>>>> ?dealing with? is to do nothing on that
>>>> occasion)."
>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>> ----------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no objective reality to compound
>>>> interest, as
>>>>> if it could be the cause of an effect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Etc etc etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> You're subscribed to this list with the email timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message