Thanks, John Herman. I will answer that with an oblique question which
is
also a genuine request for information.
Am I right in assuming that a bank can only go "bust" if it lends too much and
too unwisely, so that its assets (its loans and the secutiries they are based on)
are faulty, so that it owes to other banks with which the deposits resulting have
been lodged more than it has available in reserves?
This seems to be a meaning of the information I am citing.
Regards. John R.
From: John Hermann <hermann@picknowl.com.au>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject:
[socialcredit] Re:Re: [socialcredit] fascism
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:45:52
+0930
>
>I neglected to mention that in Australia statutory requirements
>exist
for the volume of prime assets held by banks and other
>depositories. The prime
assets are required for liquidity and
>risk-management reasons, but may also be
thought of as secondary
>"reserves". Presumably similar regulations exist in
other countries.
>
>-- John
Hermann
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Some
introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are
>at
>http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
>You're subscribed to this
list with the email
>johngrawson@hotmail.com
>For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
