Yes John, I have. A high reserve system based on deposits (can you point to anyone basing their idea otherwise?) will affect the bank receiving the deposit, not the lending bank.
Yes, I know "reserves follow deposits", i.e. a bank that lends a lot more than its competitors loses reserves to them, and can not continue too far thus.
Our Royal Commission pointed out that, if there were only one bank in the system, there would be no limit to the amount it could create, other than the need to find willing borrowers. It went on to concede that, if all competing banks acted in concert, the same would apply.
That is why they called the reserve system a "blunt instrument", and presumably why it was abandoned some time later.
A pity, because the job of a reserve system is to protect deposits.
Our present system, and, I presume, most others', relies on varying interest rates to handle the "willing borrower" angle instead.
I do believe that working from the deposits end of the cycle is an exercise in at least near-futility.
Did you read Martin's excellent suggestion for the problem, something like a year ago? It is the only one that makes sense to me.
Regards.
John R.
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 09:33:14 +0930
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
From: hermann@picknowl.com.au
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] 100 percent reserve system
At 06:03 PM 17/05/2009, John Rawson wrote:
Obviously, those who want a 100% reserve system are acting, consciously or not, on the assumption banks lend their deposits.
Completely wrong John. Read my most recent reply to Bill McGunnigle.
John H
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Find someone to light your fire this winter at Match.co.nz Brrr... its getting cold out there… |
RE: 100 percent re
Reply to this message
