Lets re link all of these again, i think you are doing something wrong, not a single comic in all these links NOT A SINGLE ONE!!!!
---------
Nope no comics there. Just more evidence that what I say is true. Is there anyone who sees comics? I don't, does anyone else see comics? Or is it just you?
Here you go:
The following is taken from Federal Reserve Banking System Publications.
Question 1: Do Banks create money when making a loan? Answer: Yes: "Commercial banks, however, lend in a different way. They create new checkbook dollars and add them to a borrower's checking account. Because commercial banks create almost all new dollars, they play a special role in our financial system."
"The Story of Banks," Federal Reserve Bank of New York, page 4.
Question 2: Do the commercial banks create money in the form of loans? Answer: "One institution, the commercial bank, creates new money, checkbook money, when it lends producers and workers borrowing from commercial banks. The banks put this new money into circulation."
"The Story of Money," Federal Reserve Bank of New York, page 4.
There were some from books I did not find, and the rest were from that horrid 60's publication that I already said was bad, but doesn't prove your point.
Banks don't PRINT the money , they use CHECKBOOK money, what part of this don't you understand? When we talk about printing money we aren't really talking about running a printing press, were mostly talking about putting numbers in accounts. When you get a check direct deposited to your account a guy doesn't show up with cash and put it in the bank for you, its CHECKBOOK MONEY!!! The bank does not lend other peoples deposits, the FED has said so many many times, just read the links provided, the FED Emphatically says they CREDIT the persons account!
I thought that you have taken accounting classes. And understand the ancient practice of T-accounts.
When a bank makes a loan, it is from all of the banks available funds (which is their deposits minus the amount they have loaned out and the amount that they have to hold as a reserve). The Fed does not say that they do not lend peoples deposits unless it is someone that has worked their in the past that does not have a clue what they are talking about or they are assuming they are being taken out of context(gasp someone that is mistaken and/or taken out of context! that never happens right).
Why must someone physically move a pile of cash for the transaction to be made? I don't get this premise you keep using. If I have cash I can go to the bank and deposit it right? Now I go to a different branch of the same bank in a different area, can I not pull out that cash? Or if I have a huge check and I want the cash for it, aside from a clearing waiting period, so that the bank can verify that it is legit, do I not have the option of carrying it in cash? Of course I do.
And again you should know when you are accounting, as a company you debit cash to increase it, and credit it to decrease it, but the bank is just the opposite end because a credit for them is an increase in the account and a debit is a decrease in the accounts. Look up double entry book keeping it should all be there for you. It is just a way to make sure that the books all line up.
Oh and money isn't worth anything, its just a worthless piece of paper, it would be worth more if it hadn't been printed on. The only reason the system works is becasue people have faith in the system and have been indoctrinated to put a value on a dollar bill.
One of my friends has a Masters in business finance, the one holding a PHD is in chemistry. These aren't people who took art classes or history teachers who can't find a job.
Oh and hey just so you know Keynes came out with his theories 13 years before the great depression started, so that kinda blows your whole premise that everyone was economically stupid right out of the water. I really find it funny that you believe that economics was a dark secret art that no one understood until after the GD.
They may not be able to find the jobs they want where they want, but the jobs are out there. And with more people having the top level skills that your friends have it would mean that more businesses could rely on that skill base being there and would be more jobs available due to not having to worry if I spend all this money to open up my company will there always be a steady stream of people that I can rely on to work in it.
And that does not blow anything out of the water. If anything it is funny that you somehow think that you made a relevant point.
What happened about 13 years before the Great Depression that would cause someone to try to re-examine the economic models of the time? Maybe they were doing it due to the 1907 depression? Or maybe it was all the calls for a better banking system and economists were working hard on it. Or that global trade was starting to pick up, and there was far more data becoming available to look at. How about the simple fact that there were several economists out there working on different theories at the time.
And guess what there was stuff that Keynes got wrong, and has been dismissed over the years. Because this is not a religion, this is a science. It is methodical, nobody has a perfect system because there is not enough data constantly coming in to be able to figure out the exact system, but we are far closer than we were before the GD, the 80's and even the 90's. This is still a young science, and getting better everyday.
And eventually I am sure that what you feel has to be called Keynesian economics will one day just be a footnote in the overall economic system, like everything else the parts that are proven are kept, and the ones that are dis-proven are dropped.
If we just exchanged the words "Economics" for "Evolution" you are arguing intelligent design, and I am arguing for evolution. You would say that there is not a unified belief and that most scientists disagree on how we evolved, and I would say not really just people are examining the data differently. Check this out, from the Austrian economics (laugh) website:
The central questions of economics have concerned the greatest thinkers since ancient Greece. And today, economic thinking is broken into many schools of thought: the Keynesians, the Post Keynesians, the New-Keynesians, the Classicals, the New Classicals (or Rational Expectations School), the Monetarists, the Chicago Public Choicers, the Virginia Public Choicers, the Experimentalists, the Game Theorists, the varying branches of Supply Sideism, and on and on it goes.
The Austrian School
Also part of this mix, but in many ways apart from and above it, is the Austrian School. It is not a field within economics, but an alternative way of looking at the entire science. Whereas other schools rely primarily on idealized mathematical models of the economy, and suggest ways the government can make the world conform, Austrian theory is more realistic and thus more socially scientific.
Austrians view economics as a tool for understanding how people both cooperate and compete in the process of meeting needs, allocating resources, and discovering ways of building a prosperous social order. Austrians view entrepreneurship as a critical force in economic development, private property as essential to an efficient use of resources, and government intervention in the market process as always and everywhere destructive.
The Austrian School is in a major upswing today. In academia, this is due to a backlash against mathematization, the resurgence of verbal logic as a methodological tool, and the search for a theoretically stable tradition in the madhouse of macroeconomic theorizing.
That is retarded. Math is so horrible right.
But it sounds a lot like same argument that intelligent designers talk about:
In recent decades, however,
new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world.
Basically they are both the same, Austrian economics and Intelligent design are both belief structures mascarading as a science, that somehow "Is very much Above" what the general conclusion of the facts are. And claim the 'schools of thought' are so against eachother because they are wrong. It just gets old.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"Because of 'fractional' reserve system, banks, as a whole, can expand our money supply several times, by making loans and investments." "Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower's IOU." - Federal Reserve Bank, New York[/FONT]
Notice it says a loan, so there is someone borrowing and agreeing to forfeit future wages for the loan. And it does not say that they do not use the pool of deposits at their disposal to make this loan.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"The actual process of money creation takes place in commercial banks. As noted earlier, demand liabilities of commercial banks are money.."Confidence in these forms of money also seems to be tied in some way to the fact that assets exist on the books of the government and the banks equal to the amount of money outstanding, even though most of the assets themselves are no more than pieces of paper--.", P.3."Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower's IOU.", p. 19. "The 12 regional reserve banks aren't government institutions, but corporations nominally 'owned' by member commercial banks.",
p. 27.- Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago[/FONT]
Can you guess what a demand liability for a bank is? Maybe you did, it is a deposit account or Demand Deposits because people can demand their money back at any point and is considered a liability for a bank. This is the money that the banks use to create the loan that a person has agreed to forfeit their future wages to pay back.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it (p15). The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled." - John Kenneth Galbraith, Money: Whence it came, where it went - 1975, p29.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT]
Much like you are demonstrating. You seem to refuse to see the importance of the role we play as the ones taking out the loans, and that we do not need to take them out. It is a very simple thing to understand. Banks hold our money, there is so much of it that we do not usually need it all and they can use the unused portion to make loans. Simple.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is, perhaps, the most, astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banks can in fact inflate, mint, and un-mint the modern ledger-entry currency". Major L. L. B. Angus[/FONT]
Angas, Major L. L. B. (Lawrence Lee Bazley) (
1937).
Yup outdated.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment, out of nothing." - Ralph M. Hawtery (Former Secretary of the British Treasury)[/FONT]
What do you think that the rest of the speech was about? And seeing as though he was born in 1879, and became a partner of Keynes, I wonder how he felt about this?
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
"While economic textbooks claim that people and corporations are competing for markets and resources, I claim that in reality they are competing for money - using markets and resources to do so. Greed and fear of scarcity are being continuously created and amplified as a direct result of the kind of money we are using. For example, we can produce more than enough food to feed everybody, and there is definitely not enough work for everybody in the world, but there is clearly not enough money to pay for it all. In fact, the job of central banks is to create and maintain that currency scarcity. Money is created when banks lend it into existence When a bank provides you with a $100,000 mortgage, it creates only the principal, which you spend and which then circulates in the economy. The bank expects you to pay back $200,000 over the next 20 years, but it doesn't create the second $100,000 - the interest. Instead, the bank sends you out into the tough world to battle against everybody else to bring back the second $100,000."- Bernard Lietaer, Former Central Banker[/FONT]
I actually like this guy. And he has a point, after the banks give you the original loan from the deposits they are holding, the battle for the extra money is on the person who is paying it back. But I don't think that it is as grim as that, but it is a good take on it.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"I have never seen more senators express discontent with their jobs. ... I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices to doing something terrible and unforgivable to this wonderful country. Deep down in our hearts, we know that we have bankrupted America and that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. .. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected." -John Danforth, Republican senator from Missouri, reported in the Arizona Republic of April 21, 1992 [/FONT]
A senator making a talking point about our children.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders... The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and... manipulates the credit of the United States." -Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) [/FONT]
A false statement from a senator, what a shock. The Fed is actually audited every year by a third party.
Maybe this site may help:
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty6.html
A Brief History of Federal Reserve Audits
Since its inception in 1913 the Federal Reserve System has been subjected to a variety of financial and performance audits by Congress, the executive branch, and private accounting firms, although responsibility for this task has shifted from time to time. From 1913 to 1921 the Board of Governors, then known as the Federal Reserve Board which sets monetary policy and regulates the activities of the Federal Reserve Banks, was audited annually by the U.S. Treasury Department. In 1921 Congress created the Government Accounting Office (GAO) and assigned it to audit the Board until 1933. In the Banking Act of 1933, Congress voted specifically to remove the Board from the GAO's jurisdiction. From 1933 to 1952 audit teams from the twelve Federal Reserve Banks performed the annual examination of the BOG's books. From 1952 to 1978, the Board, under authorization from Congress, decided to employ nationally recognize accounting firms to conduct the audits of itself to insure independent oversight. This provided an external evaluation of the adequacy and effectiveness of the examination procedures.
1
In 1978 Congress passed the Federal Banking Agency Audit Act (
31 USCA §714). It placed the Federal Reserve System back under the auditing authority of the GAO. The Act significantly increased the access of the GAO to the Federal Reserve Banks, the Board, and the Federal Open Market Committee (the FOMC). Since then, the GAO has conducted over 100 financial audits and performance audits of the three Federal Reserve bodies.
3
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Now are you gonna to try and argue that none of these people know what they are talking about, perhaps they are all stupid because economics wasn't known until yesterday? Mayhaps you are the only person who has a grasp on economics and all those Fed reserve Presidents, secretaries of the treasury and banking behemoths are all just dumb and haven't got a clue how money works.[/FONT]
Nope some good names on that list, shame that they didn't know that they would have their words twisted in ways that they never envisioned. Or their entire speeches read so that they could be in actual context.
We can go on and on, for every argument you make that has no factual backing I will link the facts that support me, but you will be unable to do so, because its not factually true that banks lend money from depositors accounts, therefore there is nothing for you to link because your argument has no basis in reality. None of the Stuff I link is taken out of context, its all there for anyone to read.
One day a light bulb will go off in your head and you will get it, until then you are a debt slave.
You fail to see that all the things that you have deemed proof are half quotes and misunderstandings on your part, or just plain people that don't have a clue.
I am fine being a consumption whore. But that doesn't mean debt slave, well unless somehow being paid in your mind is being a debt slave.
"[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower's deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else's deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It's new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower."
- Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the Treasury under Eisenhower, in an interview reported in the August 31, 1959 issue of U.S. News and World Report
Best yet:
"Anderson's career ended in personal suffering and disgrace. He was hospitalized several times for
alcoholism. He illegally operated the Commercial Exchange Bank of
Anguilla, British West Indies, which had an unlicensed New York branch office. Several investors lost their life savings in the mid 1980s. In 1987, Anderson pled guilty to criminal violations of the banking laws and to
tax evasion, and was sentenced to prison. The
Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division, in disbarring Anderson from the practice of law, called his
disbarment "a sad but we think necessary end to the legal career of one who has in times less beclouded by poor and corrupt judgment served his country in high office as
Secretary of Treasury, Deputy Secretary of the Navy and as Special Ambassador to
Panama during the
Panama Canal negotiations."
[1]
With what he said in your quote, it is easy to see how he ended up in jail eh?
“Do private banks issue money today? Yes. Although banks no longer have the right to issue bank notes, they can create money in the form of bank deposits when they lend money to businesses, or buy securities. . . . The important thing to remember is that when banks lend money they don’t necessarily take it from anyone else to lend. Thus they ‘create’ it.”
-Congressman Wright Patman, Money Facts (House Committee on Banking and Currency, 1964)
Again he is not wrong, any depositor who wants access to all their money has the right to pull it out, and in that sense he is right. But that doesn't mean that the banks are not lending an amount tied to the deposits they carry does it? It is the banks entire reserves (made up of all their deposits and money they have made in the past) and when they make loans it cannot surpass 90% of their total deposits. Why do you think 'create' is in ' '? Because it is not actually 'creating' it, but it is the easiest and fastest way to describe the process.
"Banks create money. That is what they are for. . . . The manufacturing process to make money consists of making an entry in a book. That is all. . . . Each and every time a Bank makes a loan . . . new Bank credit is created -- brand new money."
- Graham Towers, Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1935 to 1955.
We will ignore the years for this one. A credit (a entry on the t-account) is created, what preceeded that, or came after (cut out quote always makes it hard to know what is being actually said). If you have ever wondered what I mean by half quotes being used to make your argument, this is it.
But again look at the fact there is a loan, so a customer again has said that they will forfeit future wages to repay the loan with interest (that they have to fight for right), that money is from the pool of deposits they have (liabilities).
If this were not true, you would think that maybe the Fed would say so and you would be able to link me that evidence, but they (and you ) don't becasue money creation is a fact.
What is it that you need to see? That the money the banks can lend is up to 90% of their total deposits? That the money they have access to is the deposits that they have? Or that a person needs to take out a loan for money to be 'created'. Or that by 'created' it means that the bank is using excess funds to lend to a person who is planning on spending it in the short term. Or that the person is using his future wages to repay the loan?
I thought that you had actually understood these things.
So if I can ask, what is it that you actually could learn that would change your mind on how the system works? Because I know a few people that no matter how much I tried to show them about evolution, they would still refuse to believe it and say creationism is the reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_B._Anderson#cite_note-0
