|
It wasn't worldwide John. It was the economic rationalist
mantra, yes, and probably pushed by the IMF too, but China and other
countries maintained regulation of their banks' reserve lending ratios, and
appear to be better placed now, as a result.
Interesting times we are living in,
cheers
Graeme T
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:23
AM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Finance:
Credit "Crisis" and "Depression"
That is correct here too. I guess worldwide it was decided to
abasndon what our Monetary Commission referred to as a "blunt instrument" for
controlling the money supply in favour of controlling the "willing borrower"
aspect by varying the price, i.e. interest rates. But that doesn't alter
the fact that the banking system needs reserves for interbank transactions,
and in the present situation, to shore up payments for withdrawals of
deposits. In effect, this is what the "bailout" is trying to
do. Amazing how governments are required to keep out of banking,
except when the banks need help! Regards.
John R.
From: wmklinck@shaw.ca To: socialcredit@elistas.com Date: Mon, 24 Nov
2008 01:03:21 -0700 Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Finance: Credit "Crisis"
and "Depression"
My understanding is that in Canada reserve ratio
requirements were discontinued some time ago for banks operating under Federal
Charter--and that only certain capital requirements remain.
Wally
On 23-Nov-08, at 6:42 PM, John G Rawson wrote:
Sorry. It is
standard for banking anywhere. They can not lend their liabilities.
That applies to savings banks too, but it seems most of them draw on
commercial banks to back them. Money supply M1 (or M2 or higher)
includes, as its major component "demand deposits with the financial
institutions". That is where the money paid into a bank goes. The only ways
banks could lend "money paid in to them" would be if the deposits were
reduced when this happened (they are not) or if by some way the money
magically doubled as it was paid in to the bank. That is not the point at
which it is considered to be multiplied. Every new bank loan results in a
creation of that amount of new money 'out of nothing'. But, of course,
banks need reserves to guard their deposits. And also, under fractional
reserve banking, any bank that suffers complete loss of confidence by the
public must go broke. That is where the relevance of the reserve/deposit
ratio comes in. Regards. John R
From: telergy@bigpond.comTo: socialcredit@elistas.comDate:
Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:19:07 +1100 Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Finance:
Credit "Crisis" and "Depression"
Well John R
it differs in different Nation States. In the US, I
think Clinton removed the seperation of lending banks and investment
banks,so that they can do both.
Australia's bank regulators kept ratios to about 10%,
quite healthy compared to US and Europe.
George Jr and Greenspan don't believe in
regulation.
The best overview I get is from following
speeches at BIS (Bank of International Settlements) where central bankers
they openly talkabout increasing liquidity by lowering the ratios for their
banks.
My easy english version goes
"Imagine a money lender around AD 10. He has a bag of
gold, and people want to borrow some. More people want a loan than the
amount of gold he has. He realises that, by issuing tokens, he can extend
credit to all who want some, assuming that the debtors are a good risk, and
will be paying it back on time."
cheers
Graeme Taylor
ps Whatever has happened to all that gold in Fort
Knox?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 7:36
AM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Finance:
Credit "Crisis" and "Depression"
It is also a totally wrong explanation, and a not uncommon
error. 2% reserve ratio means $100 of loans for every £2 of RESERVES.
Since loans create deposits, that ratio could never be attained under any
circumstances where deposits are concerned. The writer forgot that bank
deposits are their liabilities, and can never be lent. Regards.
John R.
From: wmklinck@shaw.ca To: socialcredit@elistas.com Date:
Sun, 23 Nov 2008 00:08:02 -0700 Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Finance:
Credit "Crisis" and "Depression"
This not really an alternate
explanation. It is simply the false explanation which has been
promulgated from establishment sources. We are well aware that every
imaginable artifice involving the extension of debt has been devised to
make the economy function under a fundamentally and fatally defective and
unworkable financial system. What do you mean by saying that you are
"pretty well over the soc red concept"? Do you mean that you
possess a good understanding of it?--or that you hold little or no hope of
it being an effective solution to financial and economic problems of the
industrialized world? Social Crediters intend to make it relevant
and we cannot afford to heed defeatist opinions. We are currently
provided with an almost unprecedented opportunity to advance our cause and
we must press on with increasing intensity. So--down with hesitation
and doubt and on with the job! I would not hold out much hope from
Barak Obama's term of office. Already he has declared his intent to
provide "jobs" for the population--hardly a Social Credit policy.
Wally
On 21-Nov-08, at 8:47 PM, Graeme Taylor wrote:
Herewith an alternate
explanation
Because Green spam believed in the market
and self-correction of itself, he saw no need to regulate the lending
(reserve) ratios of the banks. Thus, it went below 2%.
That is, for every two dollars deposit, a
hundred in loans.
Europe's banks, attempting to maintain
market share, dropped their ratios down to 4 or 5%. Easy money for
borrowing, and a race to the bottom.
The CHinese Banks, in August began by
dropping their ratio for their Rural Bank to below 17% so as to increase
liquidity in the hope that rual incomes could start to catch up to urban
ones.
Now, I guess, they have dropped
their Infrastructure Bank's ratios as an economic stimulus
package.
Gordon Brown thought the best thing to do
is to invest in the banks. Yep. More money in the coffers helps raise
the lending ratios of their banks.
With a 2% ratio, (fractional reserve money
backed by virtually nothing), only a small proportion of debtors going
bankrupt sends the bank belly up.
I do hope that Barack gets better advice
than George Jr got.
I'm pretty over the soc cred concept.
Seriously, with up to 20% of the economy being illicit (drugs,
extortion), no perfect formula is gonna work, same as with people going
bankrupt.
cheers
Graeme Taylor
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 21,
2008 10:12 PM
Subject: [socialcredit]
Finance: Credit "Crisis" and "Depression"
This message has been sent to all Members of the Canadian House
of Commons:
I am forwarding a document outlining the basic and
underlying, as opposed to superficial, causes of the current
disastrous and ruinous credit "crisis" and the primary essential
remedial measures required to effect an honest and stable financial
system with it corollary, a viable producing and consuming economic
system. Also attached is a short PDF showing how the Keynesian
equations can be modified to achieve these ends. (Not included in
this posting.)
Yours sincerely Wallace M.
Klinck
FINANCE, DEBT AND
DEPRESSION
The
so-called economic and financial "experts" are apparently totally
oblivious to the fact that the financial price-system is fundamentally
and increasingly non- self-liquidating. Consequently, they blame the
credit "meltdown" and ensuing economic collapse on excessive extension
of loans (debt) issued primarily without adequate regulatory
legislation. The essential problem is that while the convention is
that industry, in order to remain viable, must recover its financial
costs in final prices, the existing financial system makes this a
mathematical impossibility.
Final
price appears at the retail level. Consumers, being at the end of the
economic process, are required through expenditure of their income, to
liquidate all the financial costs of production. That is a perfectly
reasonable and accepted accountancy convention. The crux of the
liquidity failure is that, primarily due to the need for industry to
add to retail prices certain increasing allocated charges in respect
of capital, which do not constitute payment of income in the same
cycle of production, consumers are increasingly short of income by
which to meet the total retail prices necessarily charged by
industry.
Obviously,
if nothing intervened the economy would shut down. Of course, what
happens is that the consumer is evermore under necessity of borrowing
(contracting debt obligations) from the banking system, that creates
out of nothing the money that it lends as a repayable debt. Eventually
the debt overload so erodes the liquidity of the financial system and
the ability of consumers to contract and service debt that consumers
can no longer keep borrowing and/or lenders cease to provide loans (in
preparation for a "clean out" by foreclosure upon the assets of the
people who have laboured to produce and acquire real
wealth).
There
is nothing new about this confiscatory process. It has been
characteristic of the credit system for hundreds of years—going back
before creation of
the Bank of England in 1694. It can only be a deliberate policy on the
part of the few who are insiders "in the know" to confiscate property
and centralize both ownership of property and political
power.
If
the "experts" advice were followed and lending was simply restricted,
this would just slow down the development of economic activity in
spite of the national real capacity to conduct and expand that
activity. This would intensify the problem of providing "jobs" with
which they seem to be so strangely concerned—showing again a complete
confusion of mind about the purpose of production—which purpose is not
to provide work for humanity but to provide desired goods and services
with maximum efficiency—which process involves minimization of all
costs, including that of labour. The purpose of production is
consumption—not the creation of work.
The
unfathomable fact is that so-called orthodox "economists" and public
policy makers think first of financial factors and last of real,
physical factors— and mindlessly accept the financial system as a
determinant of physical activity. Money is simply a unit of account
and should merely reflect, and never control, our physical
activity. The whole
thing, being a complete departure from reality, is quite
psychotic.
We
are told by our “expert” advisers that we are being cast into an
economic recession or slow down in actual physical production. Have we
suddenly lost our energy resources (our gas, petroleum and electrical
power), our mines and minerals, our information and transportation
services, our forests, our cultural heritage of know-how and
production expertise, etc.? Have our citizens suddenly decided to sit
down on their posteriors and not do anything any more—has everyone
suddenly become divested of motivation, intelligence and capability?
Our course not. On a physical level everything remains essentially
unchanged with an already astonishing technological efficiency and
productivity only increasing exponentially over time. Yet, we are
informed by the “experts” that we are slipping inevitably into a
recession involving the slow down of real production. Anybody who
believes this to be unavoidable, as though some consequence natural
law, and is so perverse as to continue to believe it in the face of
actual facts, probably fully deserves the consequences of their
stupidity.
As,
William Aberhart, Social Credit Premier of the Province of Alberta
said years ago, "If the people haven't suffered enough, it is their
God-given right to suffer some more." I think people are guilt-ridden,
because of sedulously inculcated false moral imperatives, such as the
adulation of work for it’s own sake. Consequently they are
masochistic, and therefore welcome misery as a penance and cathartic
for their induced artificial and misguided feelings of guilt. The
whole thing is quite mad.
The
physical cost of production is fully met when goods arrive completed
at retail. There is no need whatsoever for consumer debt. What is
required before all else is a secondary flow of consumer credits
injected extraneously into the price-system without debt as Consumer
Dividends and to effect Compensated (lowered) Retail Prices at point
of sale in order to permit consumers full, immediate and dynamic
access to all retail goods—and to balance the price-system, so
allowing business to recover its financial costs so that it can
continue to serve the community if consumers so desire.
As
C. H. Douglas, founder of the Social Credit movement who offered the
only realistic alternative to currently accepted and destructive
Keynesian debt finance, said, "society is hypnotized and only a
drastic dehypnotization can save it." How much abuse does it take to
arouse a placid and somnolent public?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 telergy@bigpond.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
No virus
found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175
/ Virus Database: 270.9.9/1804 - Release Date: 11/21/2008 6:24
PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 wmklinck@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Download today! Free Windows Live software. Chat, search,
share pics and more.---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 telergy@bigpond.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
No
virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus
Database: 270.9.9/1807 - Release Date: 11/23/2008 10:59
AM ---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Start searching now Rental
properties galore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 wmklinck@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Start searching now Rental properties galore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 telergy@bigpond.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG -
http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1810 -
Release Date: 11/24/2008 2:36 PM
|