Debunking fractional reserve conspiracies

[ngc6205]

Hate to complain, the quoted stuff was too long to read for my tastes. I understand now why everyone here writes such cursory responses.

As for the one balance sheet, I myself said 5 because I wanted to capture the states of both banks at all times. Technically, since there are two banks, unless one is looking at the balance sheet of the banking system as a whole, it should be two balance sheets, both changing over time.

Yes, everyone seems to agree about the specifics. This is good, because now we can all get down to consequences if desired.

...

Ok. In my example, I am only discussing one bank. For two separate banks, not two branches of the same bank, there will be two balance sheets. One for each separate entity. Typically, an entity will only have one balance sheet. However, balance sheets are reported as of a date. That means the balances are current as of the date listed on the top of the balance sheet. The next day, week, month, etc., the balance sheet is updated with the current information and reported as of that date. There is only one balance sheet, it is just updated.

So, it isn't five balance sheets, it is two balance sheets, one for each of two banks. You want to look at how each of the two balance sheets changes over time as the transactions are processed. That is essentially what you said, it was just that your terminology was a little wrong which caused some confusion.

 

[tensordyne]

Ok. In my example, I am only discussing one bank. For two separate banks, not two branches of the same bank, there will be two balance sheets. One for each separate entity. Typically, an entity will only have one balance sheet. However, balance sheets are reported as of a date. That means the balances are current as of the date listed on the top of the balance sheet. The next day, week, month, etc., the balance sheet is updated with the current information and reported as of that date. There is only one balance sheet, it is just updated.

So, it isn't five balance sheets, it is two balance sheets, one for each of two banks. You want to look at how each of the two balance sheets changes over time as the transactions are processed. That is essentially what you said, it was just that your terminology was a little wrong which caused some confusion.

Yep, we are on the same sheet of music.

 

[se7ensnakes]

Why answer to an obvious flawed "DEBUNKING"?

As soon as the so-called "Debunker" starts out with the 10% reserve requirement explanation he looses all credibility as a FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING DEBUNKER. Obviously he has no clue how the system works or what is going on.

 

[se7ensnakes]

Also your so-called Conspiracy, is actually an open secret...just that it is not reported by the media because they dont want to disturb the sleeping public. The only people that will even begin to listen to you are your little NWO friends here who have no mind of their own and are defending a system that is causing havoc in our economic lives.

 

[tensordyne]

As soon as the so-called "Debunker" starts out with the 10% reserve requirement explanation he looses all credibility as a FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING DEBUNKER. Obviously he has no clue how the system works or what is going on.

Just curious, who are you talking about se7ensnakes? For my part, I have the general feeling, not completely borne out enough to my own satisfaction, that FRB, as it currently exists, is not stable.

 

[3point14]

So the question you must answer is - what gives the government the "divine right" to force people to accept its currency at a point of a gun?

The gun and the election. But mainly the gun. They have more and bigger guns than you.

I mean, I'm glad they do. I'm glad they use force or the threat of force to bring order to an otherwise anarchistic world, in my country and in yours, but ultimately, the government has the ability (and, by some constructs, the ability gives the right) to dump your arse in jail if you try to pass fake coins.

U:ltimately we live in a society, and if getting some lunatics to conform in order that we can all get on with living life, then I'm all for that. Even if it means putting a gun in your face.

 

[psionl0]

I'm glad they use force or the threat of force to bring order to an otherwise anarchistic world

If it was simply about bringing order then the government could achieve this by simply saying that you can only pay your taxes with the currency issued by the government.

The main reason for forcing people to use government issued currency is that it makes it easier for the government to spy on your spending habits.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

The main reason for forcing people to use government issued currency is that it makes it easier for the government to spy on your spending habits.

Wow.

 

[3point14]

If it was simply about bringing order then the government could achieve this by simply saying that you can only pay your taxes with the currency issued by the government.

The main reason for forcing people to use government issued currency is that it makes it easier for the government to spy on your spending habits.

Do you have any evidence for that?

 

[psionl0]

Do you have any evidence for that?

Maybe I should have said "advantage" instead of "reason". It is not clear why the government stole the peoples' gold in the 1930s but it left the public with no choice but to use the government's fiat currency.

The ability to spy on bank account use has come about because of the increasing use of electronic banking plus the politicians' ability to convince the public that this is all about the "war on drugs" or "war on terror". Either way, politicians don't want the public using currency that the government can't keep tabs on.

 

[3point14]

Maybe I should have said "advantage" instead of "reason". It is not clear why the government stole the peoples' gold in the 1930s but it left the public with no choice but to use the government's fiat currency.

The ability to spy on bank account use has come about because of the increasing use of electronic banking plus the politicians' ability to convince the public that this is all about the "war on drugs" or "war on terror". Either way, politicians don't want the public using currency that the government can't keep tabs on.

Yes, but do you have any evidence of that?

 

[tensordyne]

Evidence of motivation and intent?, ability?, or, something else? Proving intent is always the most difficult thing to prove. Proving capability is a whole lot easier. Then again, legislation such as the U. S. A. P. A. T. R. I. O. T. { Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism } Act of 2001 kind of sends it's own message. A, "We the responsible ones in charge, do not trust you", kind of message.

Given the whole-sale looting going on in Wallstreet, can not say as I can blame them. A politician's main contingency is mostly likely to be some form of corporate thieve, of one kind or another. If I was trying to reduce modern society back to a feudel model I would want some good serveillance legislation as well. All those uppity peasants have a way of getting the pitchforks out, as they currently are, surprise, surprise. The pitchforks mostly come out in response to robber barons having their proxy sock-puppet politicians say that everyone else has to live in austerity when the barons themselves have record profits. Yeah, the jig is up. We see you!

GO ICELAND! Screw you, drug running CIA. Go to hell, Central Banks. Go bitcoin. Go Soveriegn Credit, Pennsylvannia Banking, Freedom. Decentralization. Hemp!

My rant is done. You either get parts of it because you have read about these things, or you do not. Best of luck to us all!

 

[3point14]

Evidence of motivation and intent?, ability?, or, something else? Proving intent is always the most difficult thing to prove. Proving capability is a whole lot easier. Then again, legislation such as the U. S. A. P. A. T. R. I. O. T. { Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism } Act of 2001 kind of sends it's own message. A, "We the responsible ones in charge, do not trust you", kind of message.

Given the whole-sale looting going on in Wallstreet, can not say as I can blame them. A politician's main contingency is mostly likely to be some form of corporate thieve, of one kind or another. If I was trying to reduce modern society back to a feudel model I would want some good serveillance legislation as well. All those uppity peasants have a way of getting the pitchforks out, as they currently are, surprise, surprise. The pitchforks mostly come out in response to robber barons having their proxy sock-puppet politicians say that everyone else has to live in austerity when the barons themselves have record profits. Yeah, the jig is up. We see you!

GO ICELAND! Screw you, drug running CIA. Go to hell, Central Banks. Go bitcoin. Go Soveriegn Credit, Pennsylvannia Banking, Freedom. Decentralization. Hemp!

My rant is done. You either get parts of it because you have read about these things, or you do not. Best of luck to us all!

Forgive my lack of understanding, but...

That's a 'no', right?



I can happily prove that the United States Navy has the capability to reduce any city on the face of the planet to finely grained dust given about a weeks notice. That doesn't prove that they intend to demolish London and then move onto Paris now, does it?

 

[Tippit]

If it was simply about bringing order then the government could achieve this by simply saying that you can only pay your taxes with the currency issued by the government.

The main reason for forcing people to use government issued currency is that it makes it easier for the government to spy on your spending habits.

Wow. No it isn't. The main reason is so they can profit by debasing it. I'm shocked that you don't grasp this yet. Truly shocked!

 

[tensordyne]

Forgive my lack of understanding, but...

That's a 'no', right?

I can happily prove that the United States Navy has the capability to reduce any city on the face of the planet to finely grained dust given about a weeks notice. That doesn't prove that they intend to demolish London and then move onto Paris now, does it?

I am not here to defend anyone else's position. So you are looking for evidence of intent, it seems. I take it then that ability is pretty much a given then? Well, intent is the hardest to prove. I can only paint a picture based on various historical facts.

By the way, a week? Try 6-7 hours, tops.

Whatever, this whole discussion is neither here nor there. There are some seriously screwed up aspects to how the world is currently run, and you can either be an apologist for it, or wake up and smell the rot. The information is all out there, even in mainstream sources. I am just tired of people who act like know-it-all 16 year olds who come on this forum and take the easiest of stances.

So, money and many other aspects of your life they track, trace and database. Is it all 'bad'. Probably not. Is it all benevolent, probably not, even asuming it is for making a profit, that is not exactly benevolent bahavior. Decide for your self. Whatever you decide, please do not act like alot of these punks who come on this forum though. That is just boring.

 

[Tippit]

Maybe I should have said "advantage" instead of "reason". It is not clear why the government stole the peoples' gold in the 1930s but it left the public with no choice but to use the government's fiat currency.

The ability to spy on bank account use has come about because of the increasing use of electronic banking plus the politicians' ability to convince the public that this is all about the "war on drugs" or "war on terror". Either way, politicians don't want the public using currency that the government can't keep tabs on.

The reason why governments herd people into banks is to increase financial transparency with the express purpose of taxing you more. Call it the cashless control grid.

 

[Tippit]

I can happily prove that the United States Navy has the capability to reduce any city on the face of the planet to finely grained dust given about a weeks notice. That doesn't prove that they intend to demolish London and then move onto Paris now, does it?

So you would happily murder millions of innocent people? Is the US military filled with sociopaths, or are you the exception? Should the "delusional" in your "Cull the delusional" sig apply to yourself? Rhetorical questions.

 

[3point14]

I am not here to defend anyone else's position. So you are looking for evidence of intent, it seems. I take it then that ability is pretty much a given then? Well, intent is the hardest to prove. I can only paint a picture based on various historical facts.

By the way, a week? Try 6-7 hours, tops.

I was guessing, it's irrelevant, the point still stands.

Whatever, this whole discussion is neither here nor there. There are some seriously screwed up aspects to how the world is currently run...

Not going to disagree with that

...and you can either be an apologist for it, or wake up and smell the rot. The information is all out there, even in mainstream sources. I am just tired of people who act like know-it-all 16 year olds who come on this forum and take the easiest of stances.

Now you know that's not how it works. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. 'The evidence is out there, go look for it' is a very weak argument. What evidence has brought yuo to this conclusion. If you're not going to present it, then I'm afraind I'm just not going to believe you and I'm going to dismiss your notions out of hand.

Oh, and are you accusing me of acting like a 'know it all 16 year old? for asking for evidence?

So, money and many other aspects of your life they track, trace and database. Is it all 'bad'. Probably not. Is it all benevolent, probably not, even asuming it is for making a profit, that is not exactly benevolent bahavior. Decide for your self. Whatever you decide, please do not act like alot of these punks who come on this forum though. That is just boring.

Have you finished patronising me?

Good.

Then I'll explain...

I really don't think there's that much of a plan, I'm afraid. I think the world has, as you say: "some seriously screwed up aspects to how the world is currently run", but I really don't think that's down to any sort of organised plan, it's just general greed, incompetence and corruption. If you think there's some sort of centralised plan surrounding currency, then you have to provide evidence to that effect. If you can't, then I'm afraid I may be forced to liken you to a know it all 16 year old taking the easist of stances by presenting assertions not evidence.

 

[3point14]

So you would happily murder millions of innocent people? Is the US military filled with sociopaths, or are you the exception? Should the "delusional" in your "Cull the delusional" sig apply to yourself? Rhetorical questions.

I really think you've missed my point, whether your comments are rhetorical or not.

Oh, and the signature is a joke. Do you think I should change it if people don't understand that? (not rhetorical)

 

[tensordyne]

Critiques and counter-critiques of Fractional Reserve Complaints.

Now you know that's not how it works. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. 'The evidence is out there, go look for it' is a very weak argument. What evidence has brought yuo to this conclusion. If you're not going to present it, then I'm afraind I'm just not going to believe you and I'm going to dismiss your notions out of hand.

Yes, I know all too well. It still does not change my general observation about some of the tactics and possible mind-sets of people on this forum. I guess I should provide evidence of this? Well, when I see it next, I will let you know. Other than that, I as always, am open for further criticism, reserve the right to change my mind about any position at any time given further evidence, so on and so forth...

Oh, and are you accusing me of acting like a 'know it all 16 year old? for asking for evidence?

Not at all, I was intimating that you might be, but intimating and outright accusing are two very different things. Given your last paragraph I can see you are willing to act like a normal human being instead of a know-it-all act like 16 Randi pseudo-sceptic. We all have our pet peeves. That one is mine.

Have you finished patronising me?

I patronise most people, unless that is, I am shown I am wrong, or given some other kind of insight by said person, I am generally disagreeable in this way. You are not special in this regard (ask psionl0 for proof and I am sure he will have at least something to say in this regard).

Then I'll explain...

I really don't think there's that much of a plan, I'm afraid. I think the world has, as you say: "some seriously screwed up aspects to how the world is currently run", but I really don't think that's down to any sort of organised plan, it's just general greed, incompetence and corruption. If you think there's some sort of centralised plan surrounding currency, then you have to provide evidence to that effect. If you can't, then I'm afraid I may be forced to liken you to a know it all 16 year old taking the easist of stances by presenting assertions not evidence.

Yes, this is interesting. Is it cult-like stupidity and greed, or some devious master planning? I will say this, it seems like to me that creating devious master plans is much harder to do. All over history people who commit the most horrendous atrocities, I am sure, think they are doing 'the right thing'. As a guess then, I, like you, am more inclined to the stupidity as cause of suffering, than the outright evil as cause of suffering, model.

On the other hand, I like to debate about things I think I can bring good arguments for or against. Stating your mindset every once in a while is a good thing, but as far as being resolvable, it is pretty hard. I did start this though, so, good to know. 3point14 does think the world is round.

Collusion versus conspiracy... Critique versus apologetics. I really do not like the title of this thread. In fact, why is it always debunking instead of critiquing? Here is my title:

Critiques and counter-critiques of Fractional Reserve Banking.

Yeah, that sounds too neutral and not scepticoid or truther propaganda enough.


All the best to you all!