$15 Trillion in 5 Days

Well I am NOT the one who makes the claim that all the dollars held in deposit by banks are FRNs - that is you, fatima. Yet you contradict this very claim in your response to my post. In fact you have contradicted yourself in response to every one of my posts. I am the one that takes the position that all FRNs are US Dollars but all US Dollars are not FRNs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I simply have not said that all USD are FRNs. I recommend re-reading This Post.

If you wish to discuss the contradiction I will be glad to explain it further if you can point it out. If it is a matter that you simply won't believe it no matter what I say, then I can accept that as well.

 

Following is just a small list of your statements from this thread

“#171 - Maybe you guys simply don't realize that FRN is a nickname for all dollars issued by the Federal Reserve. This includes all dollars sitting in electronic form in bank accounts.
#181 - It's exactly the same currency. There is only one USD. Unless you can produce some proof there is more than one type of USD currently in circulation, you are only expressing an opinion, and an incorrect one at that.

#181 - Posted above. It's via the Federal Reserve Fedwire system using Federal Reserve dollars. Fedwire only processes FRNs. All of the primary dealers are either Federal Reserve banks or foriegn banks with direct access to the Federal Reserve. It's the Federal Reserve that holds the auctions.


#187 FRNs represent almost 100% of it. Provide some proof if you are so sure of it.

BTW, it's the Federal Reserve that controls money supply. LOL Maybe you didn't realize this is one of the aspects of "monetary policy", which the Fed has complete control over.

#217 - One more time, FRN is simply a nickname to refer to dollars created by the Federal Reserve. It's not limited to the printed form. You are spending USD and since 1971, the only USD in circulation are federal reserve dollars.

#217 - The difference of printed dollars vs ledge dollars is irrelevant to this topic. They are all dollars created by the Federal Reserve.

#223 - Furthermore. You consistently ignore the most damning item on your arguments about there being more than one type of USD. That is this direct quote from multiple websites of the the Federal Reserve.

#228 - That would be counterfeiting if I understand it correctly. You can do better than the party you are referencing than making such an argument. I have never said that "all dollars are FRNs". I have said that all USD created since 1971 (except coinage) are Federal Reserve dollars. There is a huge difference. My logic is sound. “

 

So what is the contradiction? It looks pretty consistent to me even taken out of the context in which it was given.

 

Neither of you two understand what fractional reserve banking is.

 

Then please educate us.

 

Yes - educate us.

 

It's always nice to see people agree on something hahaha. Guano corrected a post of mine somewhere else about fractional reserve banking. I had asserted it was loaning out 90% of customer funds in a bank, but the correction was that they have 100% of the funds and loan out 900% of what they have. My understanding has been that only 10% of customer money is ever called upon so the other 90% is free to be wielded as the steward of the money pleases. However I do think I got confused in labelling this activity as fractional reserve banking, which has more to do with leveraging assets. I'm thinking they are 2 different things that have a similar effect. I'm really not sure how this can work though, as nobody in their right mind would accept fabricated collateral. Please educate me as well

 

".... but the correction was that they have 100% of the funds and loan out 900% of what they have...."

Yes, he is correct. If the reserve requirement is 10% then the bank loans out 9X what it has in deposits. If the requirement is 20% the bank will loan out 4X.


Edit: In thinking about this a little more, I'm not sure which definition is correct, however the end result is the same. i.e. In both cases the bank is only holding 10% of the money in reserve that it has lent out. I tend to believe that Guano is wrong.

 

This is only correct if you substitute the word "bank" with "banks." No individual bank loans out more than it takes in deposits, but the loan from one bank becomes a deposit to the next, and so on... So for a $100 deposit, bank one loans 90% or $90, bank two loans 90% of $90 or $81, bank three loans 90% of $81 or $73 and so on until it runs through the entire banking system. That's the nature of fractional reserve banking.

 

I forgot about this example. Your are correct. It is as I said then, Guano was wrong and InfleXion was correct.

 

Take 10 minets on the first link. and if you have a bunch of extra time the other links are good. For every deposit 9x can be created out of thin air.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWl7Mb49vSk


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

 

InfleXion was right, I was just taking it a step further than he was.

I 100% stand by

For every deposit 9x can be created out of thin air.




​

 

This definition is incorrect. A bank can loan out 9X it's reserves but not 9X the deposits in its accounts. There is a big difference. 9X its reserves means each subsequent loan on the base amount approaches $0. Money is created but it is limited. In your case, 9X deposits means that an infinite amount of money could be created by the deposit of just $1.

 

Fractional Banking Scam Explained

The attached link explains better than I can, the fractional banking system scam:

http://www.basicincome.com/basic_banks.htm

 

It can be from just $1, spend the 10 minutes and watch the first link

 

...or read rush2112's link

 

A bank won't be allowed to create an infinite amount of money based on the deposit of just $1.

 

Did you watch or read the links.?

 

No. If you can't explain it yourself, then it's not worth my time to to to someone else's website to get their opinion on the matter.