As a cultural invention, economics seems to have risen in three separate cultures: in China among the Legalists, during the European Enlightenment among the Physiocrats and crystallized in the work of Adam Smith, and in Japan at exactly the same time among Confucian scholars, such as Miura Baien, and the kokugakushu .
Most borrowing from Goldsmiths was not in the form of gold, but in the form of a warehouse receipt that traded just like gold did. The receipt could be turned in at anytime by the bearer for the amount of its face value. Since most people never actually came to get the gold the goldsmith realized he could just make up receipts and loan them out for interest and that is exactly how the banking system works today. Your using paper receipts that up until 1913 could be turned into the treasury for gold but now can only be traded for more paper.Think about why time matters.
Before Adam Smith, economics was not something that was consistent. It was more 'life lessons'. And our real life insight, is exclusively one sided.
So the idea that I can walk to a goldsmith and tell him I need a loan for a new ox, and he reaches into his vault and pulls out the gold I need, it looks wonderful, and I think he is pulling it out of thin air. I don't realize that he is keeping some of the gold on hand for his depositors daily needs. I just see him lending me more than I could make in a year and helping me triple my work value, and I only have to pay him 10% more after I sell my goods for the next 5 years.
Not sure if you mean me or not, but I thought I would say no, is it nice out there?WSU eh? Go Cougars!! Lived In Couer d' Alene myself. Worked in Spokane.
Then it is a good thing I said economics and not the economy.Now Han, just because there was no Formal Economics 101 studies being done, does not mean there was no economy.
They don't give you cash, they give you a check drawn upon the account they just made up. You haven't ever bought a new car or a house have you? Ever use a debit or credit card? Think thats cash coming out on the other end?You are not right.
When I go to a bank and get a $2000 loan from them, they have to pull out $2000 and give it to me, they also have to hold 10% of that amount for the reserve requirements.
How else would I get that cash to go buy a computer for my business? The bank does not have a printing press, they have to give me cash that is in their vaults for it, because I cannot just tell dell it's cool the bank said that I have $2000 for it, you actually need the money to buy what you need to.
So it is impossible for them to give out loans based on only having the deposits be 10%. We need the full amount we borrow when we take out a loan, and due to the constraints of reality, it cannot possibly work your way.
They have to have the cash to lend it, what you have explained again is impossible, it would lead to infinite growth in just a few steps.
Now instead lets say I put that $2000 into another bank account (bank 2). They can now lend that money out - 10%. Because they physically have the cash for it.
How is this so hard to understand?
Then it is a good thing I said economics and not the economy.
I mean for Gods sake RIGHT HERE in this graph its showing you how they do it, but your blind and can't see it. The original deposit is only $10,000, but add up all the money that was lent out on that original deposit and you get nearly 100,000! How can you have 1 deposit of 10k and then allows for a $9,090 loan whuich in turn allows for a $8263 loan which in turn allows for a $7500 loan and on and on until you have a zero sum, add all those numbers up, hell just add the first 3 and you come up with 9,090+8263+7500 =$ 24,853. In just the first 3 loans you have accumulated the equivalent of almost $25,000 in loans off the original deposit of 10k. In essence 15k was "Created".Here is how it works in reality:
So bank 2 is fine when the carpenter that built my home gives them a check that they know is worth nothing (because it is a loan from my bank that I took out to pay for the services I received), and that they just give all the other companies that don't receive cash money for their accounts, which means nothing, and we just keep working and producing, oh wait, see we are right back to building true wealth again, as soon as we go back to us working, it is being built.They don't give you cash, they give you a check drawn upon the account they just made up. You haven't ever bought a new car or a house have you? Ever use a debit or credit card? Think thats cash coming out on the other end?
You clearly demonstrate your complete misunderstanding of the subject every time you post. You won't make it as an economist, might wanna rethink that history thing, although I think perhaps digging ditches may be in your future.That is retarded, if anything what you have just described is one person moving his money 10 times, not one bank doing it.
.......................................
It all comes back to us working off our debts. And when we save it is good, but when we spend it works too (as long as we get to a place we can live well when we no longer want to work).
First you were going into History,But you figured that would be boring, so then you were going to be an economist, this week your going into insurance. I don't think you've been honest with anyone, are you even a real student?There it is, you prove you lost and have given up because you know it by getting angry. You have not once been right about this.
You have not done one example or shown one law, I have done it over and over again. , your big swing and a miss was a flipping youtube cartoon. I have very clearly laid out exactly how monetary growth works, and shown you how a deposit can grow if you keep moving it from bank to bank, by about 10x with a 10% RR.
And you refuse to actually think about the math, because it is becoming apparent that you cannot or you will not.
I will be more than happy to continue with my actuarial degree, because guess what, if I only have to worry about people like you in the field as my job competition, there is a very big market for me.
What you should be doing is actually realizing your argument means you are pissed off at people from taking out their money in loans. And if you take away the ability of people to take out their own money from banks. Well then your the biggest fascist of them all right?
Actuarial economics:First you were going into History,But you figured that would be boring, so then you were going to be an economist, this week your going into insurance. I don't think you've been honest with anyone, are you even a real student?
So the only link of mine you bothered to check out was the one with a cartoon eh? Are you sure your 30 years old? My 10 year old likes cartoons too.
Go ahead and check my math, even your very own posts and info you got off of wiki reinforces what Im saying, its just over your head to grasp the concept of money in the USA.
Just because I am not going for the easy economics degree before going on to grad school does not mean that it is not economics.Actuarial science includes a number of interrelating subjects, including probability and statistics, finance, and economics.
Reserve Requirements and Money Creation
Reserve requirements affect the potential of the banking system to create transaction deposits. If the reserve requirement is 10%, for example, a bank that receives a $100 deposit may lend out $90 of that deposit. If the borrower then writes a check to someone who deposits the $90, the bank receiving that deposit can lend out $81. As the process continues, the banking system can expand the initial deposit of $100 into a maximum of $1,000 of money ($100+$90+81+$72.90+...=$1,000). In contrast, with a 20% reserve requirement, the banking system would be able to expand the initial $100 deposit into a maximum of $500 ($100+$80+$64+$51.20+...=$500). Thus, higher reserve requirements should result in reduced money creation and, in turn, in reduced economic activity.
But your understanding is ass backwards. You are saying a bank can get your $100 and keep that as 10% and loan out $1,000. You are wrong.You know, the first time my econ teacher in college showed me how the banking system worked all those years ago I flipped out. The process is truly mind repelling in its simplicity but utterly soul destroying when you find out the implications of it all.
My link is 100% legit. IT COMES FROM THE FED!! IT WAS MADE BY THE FED!! Do a little checking and research if you want, you will see i am 100% correct.But in the meantime I thought I would actually get you a link from a actual Fed website:
http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed45.html (go to the main page of both websites, and tell me which looks legit, incase you cannot find your post right above here is your link: http://www.rayservers.com/images/Mod...yMechanics.pdf)
This is from the actual Fed website:
But your understanding is ass backwards. You are saying a bank can get your $100 and keep that as 10% and loan out $1,000. You are wrong.