World Bank whistleblower.
- Thread starter yast
- Start date
Justin Beiber gets arrested, that shit would be on top of CNN breaking news.
Believe that bitches.
Believe that bitches.
I don't disagree with you but I want to test a hypothesis I have.
Do you understand how fractional reserve banking works well enough to explain it to someone?
Dude, that is like, a conspiracy, and we all know that along with santa, that doesn't exists!
Money is like; money and it comes from the gov! And that is for the people by the people, so it is all goodness.
I don't understand it extremely well, but understand that they take in money and then loan out most of it.
This was one of the comments to this article, and I found it interesting. For what it's worth, here it is. Might be a whole new conspiracy thing, but without research on these things, you never know.
http://www.naturalnews.com/040484_Facebook_censorship_children_Monsanto_rally.html
Exclusive: Facebook censors pictures of children rallying against GMOs during global March Against Monsanto
Exclusive: Facebook censors pictures of children rallying against GMOs during global March Against Monsanto
That you're wrong.
They take in 100 and loan out 90, meaning the fractional reserve needed is 10. If people decide they want their money, then they only have 10, which is how bank runs bankrupt banks.
Of course, they could use that 100 as collateral to borrow more money, but that is gearing and not the same.
This at least, what has been told to me by a senior economist in a bank, but I'd like to prove him wrong, so please do.
What if I told you it is your signature that helps creates the 'money'. You see, your signature on that document is a contract of future payment which in itself has value.
guerilla is right. The bank may loan out $90 of the original $100, but the $90 ends up back in the banking system. The bank that receives that $90 will loan out $81 and keep $9 in reserve. This process would theoretically continue until the amount is ten times the original amount deposited. The only money that is real is the original $100. The rest is basically created through legalized fraud. That is how I understand it anyway.
It's actually even worse than ten times in some cases. I think there are lower thresholds in the US where a bank only needs 0% or 3% in reserve depending on the amount of their deposits.
Wrong.
$100 loans out $90 to another bank that then loans out $80 to consumer. No more money was created. Bank 1 has $10, Bank 2 has $10, consumer has $80.
The problem arises when banks use their claims to borrow against:
Bank 1 has only $10 but has claims on $90 so they borrow $90 against those. Bank 2 has only $10 but they have claims of $80 so they borrow $80 and use the claim as collateral.
Now if consumer defaults on his $80, the banking system loses not only $20 but $190 if the banks can't pay back those.
That is essentially what happened with the subprime crisis.
Again, I used to think like you about the whole fractional reserve thing, but I think I may have been wrong.
I read your posts and realized, I pretty much want to kill myself rather than respond to all of it.
No.
Please read a book.
This is essentially correct.
you're going to lose this argument. fractional reserve requirements aren't a matter of opinion. you either don't understand what you're reading or you're reading the wrong shit. cziffra explained it just fine, no need for guerilla to repeat it.
protip: when your source material talks about the % required for a bank to hold in reserves, they are only talking about one bank, not the banking system. the 90% bank one loans out becomes a new deposit at bank two. rinse & repeat until the original amount deposited at bank one grows to 10x in the banking system as a whole.