| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: Compound Interest? | | Date: | Wednesday, June 1, 2005 06:51:55 (-0700) | | From: | William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 1617 (written by Timothy Carpenter) |
[Carpenter] Does, and if so how does, a deposit permit
a loan and in what proportion?
-------------------
--------------------
Deposits do not permit loans. Deposits are created by
loans.
You are mired down in the details of bank
administration which are irrelevant in the general
principles needed to understand the Douglas theory.
--- Timothy Carpenter <timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 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
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message