@baughshreddz what you fail to realize is it dose not matter what backs the money system. As long as DEBT is not the vehicle of money creation the money system will be sustainable.
Gold has limited supply and inherent value and thus kept the money system stable.
Fiat currency can do the same if not created from debt.
The money only has value because we all accept it and use it. You and I give money it's value as do we give gold it's value.
@patbarkley Only if you do not match the loan periods. A demand deposit (continuously renewing zero-term loan to the bank) and a 10 year loan to a customer causes the fractional reserve situation. A 1 year term deposit and a 1 year loan to a customer does not cause the fractional reserve situation.
@patbarkley What is documented as being the 'money supply' by authorities is irrelevant to whether or not fractional reserve banking has occurred. A $100 1yr time deposit is a loan to the bank for 1 yr. The depositor relinquishes the right to withdraw the money for a year. The bank then credits the $100 it to a debtor for 1 yr, thereby giving the debtor the right to withdraw the money on demand. The reserves are $100, the demand claims on the reserves are $100.
@patbarkley No, the depositor no longer owns the money, he will only own it in 1 year. The reserve is 100%. A now has the rights to $0, B has the rights to $100. In 1 yr, B repays: A now has the rights to $100, and B has the rights to $0. Even your 0% makes no sense - if it were a demand deposit the reserve would be 50%. Can you do maths?
Your FrRB definition is incomplete and wrong. By your logic lending $50 to a friend is 'fractional reserve banking'.
@patbarkley What more can I say, but you are wrong? If a man redefines things to suit what he wishes them to mean, what recourse is there. One can only say he is insane. I can only go so far - when someone is insistent that, for instance, "A credit card is a type of shoe", what is the point? You do not define common terms yourself, you inherit them from those who invented them.
I am going to keep this argument up until you declare outright that you believe 2+2=5.
@patbarkley Define 'put in the bank'. This is meaningless term. If you leave your wallet on a desk in the bank, you have 'put money in the bank'.
As the example is 'a 1 year term deposit', the statement does not say you have a claim to $100. You have loaned it to the bank, you no longer own the $100, it is the banks property, yes or no? The bank in 1 yr will then return the ownership of the $100 to you, yes or no?
@patbarkley After term deposit has occurred, yes the bank then 'lends out' the $100. This happens one of two ways. 1 - the debtor is issued with a claim for the $100, which is located in the bank, and which he can collect any time. The claims on the bank are $100, $100 is in the bank : HENCE 100% reserve.
2 - the debtor collects the $100. The debtor now has $100 in his pocket, and no claims on the bank. Bank claims are now $0, $0 is in the bank, hence still 100% reserve.
@patbarkley OK then, so when the depositor loans his $100 to the bank, who owns it? Only one person can fully own a particular item at any one instance of time, correct?
And for what irrational reason would you say, in spite of the deposit contract saying "the bank will only return the $100 to you in ONE YEAR", that the depositor has a DEMAND claim on the $100?
I already get it, I'm seeing if its possible for you to.
@patbarkley Firstly, no one on youtube quotes like they are on a forum. Secondly, 'money supply' is a meaningless statement. Every country has its own dif. definition of various levels of money supply, as your educated self will of course already know.
If you are saying that any FUTURE claims on a bank should be counted as being current claims, you are still saying A is not A. So called fractional reserves refer to current-time demand claims only. Do you reject this well understood fact?
@patbarkley M0, M1, M2, M3. Like I say 'Money supply' is a vague and meaningless statement. No, you're still wrong because you won't accept time distinctions. A time-deposit is a fancy way of saying 'loan to the bank for term T'. Whilst you will not accept this distinction, the rest of the world, including me does.
My last comment to you will be a copy of the definition of fractional banking from reference . com.
@patbarkley 'Fractional-reserve banking is the banking practice in which banks keep only a fraction of the value of their bank notes and demand deposits in reserve and invest the balance in interest earning assets while maintaining the obligation to redeem all bank notes and demand deposits upon demand. This practice is universal in modern banking'.
You have your opinion, and the rest of us will be right.
@rebelq1 I see you're American. In the recent QE, the fed created money electronically out of thin air, it then purchases assets with this new money from banks and other private businesses. The hope is that these businesses with their new liquid money invest it to stimulate the economy, such as making more mortgages available etc.
@rebelq1 There is also fractional reserve banking that allows banks to lend out more money than they have (through loans etc). This inflates the money supply, but ultimately sucks it back out with added interest. It's well worth a google.
Good post Keelan. Hopefully Carswell can make an impact. I like his localism agenda too, a far more genuine project than this 'Big Society' nonsense. Both solutions in the vid seem more like end points: the question is what do we do in the here & now?
In an age of corrupt & captured politicians I wouldn't trust the State with debt free money. Taking savings out of fiat & into precious metals is not just a sensible precautionary move, it's a political statement & a vote of no-confidence.
@westwaytv It's definitely a tough one. Violence aside I can only envisage real change after some kind of mass revolt. None of the LibLabCon are anywhere close to considering debt free money, or even ending illegal wars.
buy silver..then you will have debt free money and you will your own free independent private bank..and you may even be instrumental in the down fall of criminal bankers JP Morgan....Google crash JP Morgan..
We have suffered a period where banks crated too much credit, that is true. It was done on purpose and most likely done to aide the destruction of Capitalism to plan.
But what he proposes is to stop credit expansion. The effect would be profound. The folk at the bottom would starve, freezing on the streets because the credit would bot be available for social spending.
It might be a good idea if you belive the Georgia Guide Stones are right.
@ccharlie100 No what he proposes is to stop careless fishing line credit expansion, that causes artificial booms and very poor people when it comes crashing down, as it always does. There will still be credit for the average person, just not insane bubble creating amounts. And no it's not perfect...perhaps it would be better if they just use a tighter reserve ratio, or if they just stop the use of dereivatives, or if there's a bank tax.....but these ARE the things we need to be talking about.
@woden20 It's not what I'd personally do - I'd sooner do the things in the video, I'm just whittling things off, but my understanding is that it would be a tax on bonuses and profits. But as you say, it would probably hit us anyway.
@ccharlie100 You have fundamentally misunderstood, there would be MORE money for social spending.
The current system has nearly all our tax money being removed from the countrie to go to privately owned banks in order to pay for the interest on the money they invented out of thin air then lent to the Government.
Have you not noticed all the cuts on social spending such as increased student fees?
@ccharlie100 utter rubbish, what about the tally stick system worked for England for 726 years the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system.
@ccharlie100 utter rubbish, what about the tally stick system worked for England for 726 years the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system.
Please read a bit more about the history of money
I would start by googling the money masters and watching it
in short, we must live the fraudulent Monetary System, and replace it with the Credit System, meaning, that the State , gets to issue it's own ,debt free money, of course ! Mr Lindon Larouche can explane in detail , how this can be done, since Thats more or less , what hes an Expert on, like no other .
Yeah you are exactly right man. Check my article on how the fed works, just like the Bank of England. My article is one of the meanest anti-POCB articles around. It also explains exactly how to solve the problem. I have that article listed in the Descr if my video entitled "Revolution coming in America "
@baughshreddz what you fail to realize is it dose not matter what backs the money system. As long as DEBT is not the vehicle of money creation the money system will be sustainable.
Gold has limited supply and inherent value and thus kept the money system stable.
Fiat currency can do the same if not created from debt.
The money only has value because we all accept it and use it. You and I give money it's value as do we give gold it's value.
ryanburbridge 2 months ago
This is THE SOLUTION, as it seems to all of the problems the world has been protesting on through 2011. it sure seems like it to me!
The public lacks an honest money system, serving society, by the people not this bullshit debt fraud structure. .
PUBLICLY CREATED DEBT FREE MONEY. brilliant :)
is it really so simple?
is this the secret meme to 2012?
Ha!
this solves everything.
superdiza 2 months ago
You guys need to go down to occupy London and do a presentation cause this whether they know it or not is what they are protesting about
mattfm101 4 months ago
end frackin fractional reserve banking and central banking i want my money to have value
88roro11 5 months ago
Comment removed
baughshreddz 6 months ago
great video
TheFreedebt 7 months ago
Excellent vid. Thanks for the upload.
etzel33 7 months ago
Ending fractional reserve banking means ending banking.
Silly idea.
patbarkley 1 year ago
@patbarkley It means ending irresponsible, bubble creating, debt enslaving, monoply banking...yes. In that sense I think it's a good idea.
wideshutuk 1 year ago 7
@wideshutuk
Anytime you accept a deposit and loan out a portion, you've committed fractional reserve banking.
patbarkley 1 year ago
@patbarkley Only if you do not match the loan periods. A demand deposit (continuously renewing zero-term loan to the bank) and a 10 year loan to a customer causes the fractional reserve situation. A 1 year term deposit and a 1 year loan to a customer does not cause the fractional reserve situation.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01
"A demand deposit (continuously renewing zero-term loan to the bank) and a 10 year loan to a customer causes the fractional reserve situation"
Your demand deposit is part of M1. Which is part of M2. A loan from your deposit increases the money supply.
" A 1 year term deposit and a 1 year loan to a customer does not cause the fractional reserve situation"
Your time deposit is part of M2. A loan from your deposit increases the money supply.
Both are fractional reserve banking.
patbarkley 1 year ago
@patbarkley What is documented as being the 'money supply' by authorities is irrelevant to whether or not fractional reserve banking has occurred. A $100 1yr time deposit is a loan to the bank for 1 yr. The depositor relinquishes the right to withdraw the money for a year. The bank then credits the $100 it to a debtor for 1 yr, thereby giving the debtor the right to withdraw the money on demand. The reserves are $100, the demand claims on the reserves are $100.
Still say fractional reserve?
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01
"A $100 1yr time deposit is a loan to the bank for 1 yr. The depositor relinquishes the right to withdraw the money for a year"
The loan of the $100 adds $100 to the money supply.
" The reserves are $100, the demand claims on the reserves are $100"
LOL! With a time deposit, the reserves are zero.
"Still say fractional reserve?"
Technically, demand deposits have a 10% reserve, time deposits 0%.
Yes, both are fractional (as opposed to full) reserve banking.
patbarkley 1 year ago
@patbarkley US central bank reserve -requirements- are not relevant. What is the reserve ratio in my example? What is fractional reserve banking?
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01
" What is the reserve ratio in my example?"
0%. If the money supply before the deposit and loan was $100, after, the money supply is $200.
You've doubled the money supply.
"What is fractional reserve banking?"
When a bank holds less than 100% of a deposit as a reserve.
patbarkley 1 year ago
@patbarkley No, the depositor no longer owns the money, he will only own it in 1 year. The reserve is 100%. A now has the rights to $0, B has the rights to $100. In 1 yr, B repays: A now has the rights to $100, and B has the rights to $0. Even your 0% makes no sense - if it were a demand deposit the reserve would be 50%. Can you do maths?
Your FrRB definition is incomplete and wrong. By your logic lending $50 to a friend is 'fractional reserve banking'.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01
"No, the depositor no longer owns the money, he will only own it in 1 year"
I put $100 in the bank, I have a statement that says I have $100.
"The reserve is 100%"
With a CD, the bank lent out the entire $100. There is $0 in the vault, reserve is 0%.
With a demand deposit, the bank keeps $10 in the vault, reserve is 10%.
"Can you do maths?"
Better than you.
"By your logic lending $50 to a friend is 'fractional reserve banking'."
If his IOU is considered money it is FRB.
patbarkley 1 year ago
@patbarkley What more can I say, but you are wrong? If a man redefines things to suit what he wishes them to mean, what recourse is there. One can only say he is insane. I can only go so far - when someone is insistent that, for instance, "A credit card is a type of shoe", what is the point? You do not define common terms yourself, you inherit them from those who invented them.
I am going to keep this argument up until you declare outright that you believe 2+2=5.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@patbarkley Define 'put in the bank'. This is meaningless term. If you leave your wallet on a desk in the bank, you have 'put money in the bank'.
As the example is 'a 1 year term deposit', the statement does not say you have a claim to $100. You have loaned it to the bank, you no longer own the $100, it is the banks property, yes or no? The bank in 1 yr will then return the ownership of the $100 to you, yes or no?
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01
"As the example is 'a 1 year term deposit', the statement does not say you have a claim to $100"
Yes, he still has a claim to $100.
patbarkley 1 year ago
@patbarkley After term deposit has occurred, yes the bank then 'lends out' the $100. This happens one of two ways. 1 - the debtor is issued with a claim for the $100, which is located in the bank, and which he can collect any time. The claims on the bank are $100, $100 is in the bank : HENCE 100% reserve.
2 - the debtor collects the $100. The debtor now has $100 in his pocket, and no claims on the bank. Bank claims are now $0, $0 is in the bank, hence still 100% reserve.
You are CLEARLY wrong.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 "After term deposit has occurred, yes the bank then 'lends out' the $100."
Yes. And the reserve is 0%.
"The claims on the bank are $100, $100 is in the bank"
The original depositor has a claim for $100 and the borrower now has an account with $100.
Two claims totalling $200.
"Bank claims are now $0"
Hate to break it to you, but the depositor has a claim of $100.
Keep trying, maybe you'll get it soon.
patbarkley 1 year ago
@patbarkley OK then, so when the depositor loans his $100 to the bank, who owns it? Only one person can fully own a particular item at any one instance of time, correct?
And for what irrational reason would you say, in spite of the deposit contract saying "the bank will only return the $100 to you in ONE YEAR", that the depositor has a DEMAND claim on the $100?
I already get it, I'm seeing if its possible for you to.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 The depositor owns an asset of $100.
The bank has an asset, say 10 ten dollar bills, and a liability of $100 owed to the depositor.
So the money supply is $100. When the bank loans the tens, the money supply increases.
"that the depositor has a DEMAND claim on the $100?"
Never said that. Nice try.
If the real definition of money supply is wrong, please share your imaginary definition.
patbarkley 1 year ago
@patbarkley Firstly, no one on youtube quotes like they are on a forum. Secondly, 'money supply' is a meaningless statement. Every country has its own dif. definition of various levels of money supply, as your educated self will of course already know.
If you are saying that any FUTURE claims on a bank should be counted as being current claims, you are still saying A is not A. So called fractional reserves refer to current-time demand claims only. Do you reject this well understood fact?
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01
Fine, forget the real definitions of money supply and use your own.
Whenever a bank accepts a deposit and loans out any of it, that is fractional reserve banking.
They only have a fraction of the deposits in the vault or in their account at the Fed.
Demand or time deposit, doesn't matter.
Unless they keep every single dollar in the vault, it is fractional reserve.
patbarkley 1 year ago
@patbarkley M0, M1, M2, M3. Like I say 'Money supply' is a vague and meaningless statement. No, you're still wrong because you won't accept time distinctions. A time-deposit is a fancy way of saying 'loan to the bank for term T'. Whilst you will not accept this distinction, the rest of the world, including me does.
My last comment to you will be a copy of the definition of fractional banking from reference . com.
Time deposits are loans, not demand deposits.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@patbarkley 'Fractional-reserve banking is the banking practice in which banks keep only a fraction of the value of their bank notes and demand deposits in reserve and invest the balance in interest earning assets while maintaining the obligation to redeem all bank notes and demand deposits upon demand. This practice is universal in modern banking'.
You have your opinion, and the rest of us will be right.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01
And loans made from time deposits have zero reserve.
I guess you could make a case that 0% reserve is better than 10% reserve.
The practice is universal, that's why I said ending fractional reserve banking means ending banking.
patbarkley 1 year ago
@wideshutuk
Can you explain to me how money that's printed from a central bank ends up in people's hands?
rebelq1 7 months ago
@rebelq1 I see you're American. In the recent QE, the fed created money electronically out of thin air, it then purchases assets with this new money from banks and other private businesses. The hope is that these businesses with their new liquid money invest it to stimulate the economy, such as making more mortgages available etc.
wideshutuk 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wideshutuk
I think I got it! And, no! I'm not American!
rebelq1 7 months ago
@wideshutuk
By the way, is that the only way that fiat money gets circulating in the market?
rebelq1 7 months ago
@rebelq1 There is also fractional reserve banking that allows banks to lend out more money than they have (through loans etc). This inflates the money supply, but ultimately sucks it back out with added interest. It's well worth a google.
wideshutuk 7 months ago
Comment removed
westwaytv 1 year ago
Comment removed
westwaytv 1 year ago
Good post Keelan. Hopefully Carswell can make an impact. I like his localism agenda too, a far more genuine project than this 'Big Society' nonsense. Both solutions in the vid seem more like end points: the question is what do we do in the here & now?
In an age of corrupt & captured politicians I wouldn't trust the State with debt free money. Taking savings out of fiat & into precious metals is not just a sensible precautionary move, it's a political statement & a vote of no-confidence.
westwaytv 1 year ago
@westwaytv It's definitely a tough one. Violence aside I can only envisage real change after some kind of mass revolt. None of the LibLabCon are anywhere close to considering debt free money, or even ending illegal wars.
wideshutuk 1 year ago
buy silver..then you will have debt free money and you will your own free independent private bank..and you may even be instrumental in the down fall of criminal bankers JP Morgan....Google crash JP Morgan..
beefreee 1 year ago
I love your show mate. Its nice to hear a good british radio show that covers real issues. thanks again
61shirley 1 year ago
There will be no debt free money. It goes against the agenda and even if it happened, which it wont, it wouldnt last very long.
stitches815 1 year ago
@stitches815 Exactly, and I'm against their agenda...have faith.
wideshutuk 1 year ago
The MP is an idiot.
We have suffered a period where banks crated too much credit, that is true. It was done on purpose and most likely done to aide the destruction of Capitalism to plan.
But what he proposes is to stop credit expansion. The effect would be profound. The folk at the bottom would starve, freezing on the streets because the credit would bot be available for social spending.
It might be a good idea if you belive the Georgia Guide Stones are right.
Otherwise - bollocks.
ccharlie100 1 year ago
@ccharlie100 incorrect.
arcanekrusader 1 year ago
@ccharlie100 No what he proposes is to stop careless fishing line credit expansion, that causes artificial booms and very poor people when it comes crashing down, as it always does. There will still be credit for the average person, just not insane bubble creating amounts. And no it's not perfect...perhaps it would be better if they just use a tighter reserve ratio, or if they just stop the use of dereivatives, or if there's a bank tax.....but these ARE the things we need to be talking about.
wideshutuk 1 year ago
@wideshutuk Taxing banks !!!!! so where do the banks get their money to pay this tax ?
You tax any big corporation and we end up paying with higher prices.
woden20 1 year ago
@woden20 It's not what I'd personally do - I'd sooner do the things in the video, I'm just whittling things off, but my understanding is that it would be a tax on bonuses and profits. But as you say, it would probably hit us anyway.
wideshutuk 1 year ago
@ccharlie100 You have fundamentally misunderstood, there would be MORE money for social spending.
The current system has nearly all our tax money being removed from the countrie to go to privately owned banks in order to pay for the interest on the money they invented out of thin air then lent to the Government.
Have you not noticed all the cuts on social spending such as increased student fees?
darrenwolboldtalk2 1 year ago
@ccharlie100
darrenwolboldtalk2 1 year ago
@ccharlie100 utter rubbish, what about the tally stick system worked for England for 726 years the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system.
Please read a bit more about the history of money
I would start hear
darrenwolboldtalk2 1 year ago
@ccharlie100 utter rubbish, what about the tally stick system worked for England for 726 years the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system.
Please read a bit more about the history of money
I would start by googling the money masters and watching it
darrenwolboldtalk2 1 year ago
in short, we must live the fraudulent Monetary System, and replace it with the Credit System, meaning, that the State , gets to issue it's own ,debt free money, of course ! Mr Lindon Larouche can explane in detail , how this can be done, since Thats more or less , what hes an Expert on, like no other .
tepstolog 1 year ago
@tepstolog cool post, btw...
tepstolog 1 year ago
Yeah you are exactly right man. Check my article on how the fed works, just like the Bank of England. My article is one of the meanest anti-POCB articles around. It also explains exactly how to solve the problem. I have that article listed in the Descr if my video entitled "Revolution coming in America "
Rockguitarnow 1 year ago