Liberal Forum

and as far as the concern you guys have about the us 'fiat currency'...this explains what backs the US dollar: http://faculty.georgetown.edu/imo3/petrod/define.htm

charles.thompson » 18 Dec 2017 10:52 am » wrote:The us has a very messy currency system...and it is designed to give maximum control over the us economy. I can understand why you are confused by it.

The federal reserve LOANS money to private banks. The interest they charge sets the federal interest rate. Banks that want to make a profit are obviously forced to charge a higher interest on their loans than the federal rate.

The federal reserve also does not print the actual money. Us engraving and printing does.

The federal reserve is sort of private...but the pres appoints the chair...the house sets the salary...and the profit of the federal reserve is taxed by the federal government at a rate around 96%

...i'm 'confused'?! ...ummm, YOU are spouting the same surface level rubbish they teach in econ 101...i sounded just like you 25 years ago when i was a republicrat blitherer...[although you're waaaaay ahead of rk and termin8tor...those guys are really ****.. ]

...AGAIN, THE VAST MAJORITY OF 'DOLLARS' ARE CREATED BY PRIVATE COMMERCIAL BANKSTERS NOT 'THE [NOT] FEDERAL, [NO] RESERVE'...you have a lot of honest learning to do charles...read 'out of debt, out of danger' by voorhis...deezer says he read it and i've noticed he's not as much of republican-radio-leveler anymore...BTW, WHERE IS DEEZER?!...AND WHERE IS TRUMPWONHAHA?!...trumpwonhaha is by far the smartest republican at this site and i was hoping he could rub-off on the squirmy stinky cedar dildo roadkill coalition of republican-radio-level dumbasses around here...

....but i digress...BACK TO CHARLES...YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ARSE, CHARLES...steve zarlenga, ellen brown, bill still, merrill jenkins, byron dale, etc.. and of course, the magnificent peepee!..

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/monetizethis.php

"...For the government, the difference between borrowing credit created with accounting entries from a private bank and borrowing the same sort of credit from the Federal Reserve is that borrowing from the Fed is nearly interest-free. That is true today, but it has not always been true. Congressman Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, wrote in a 1964 treatise called A Primer on Money:
“The Federal Reserve Banks create money out of thin air to buy Government Bonds from the U.S. Treasury . . . [creating] out of nothing a . . . debt which the American people are obliged to pay with interest.”
Patman was outraged at the inequity of this practice and boldly agitated for Congress to nationalize the privately-owned Federal Reserve, a move that would have allowed the government to issue the national money supply directly. Needless to say, however, this proposal met with strong opposition. Nationalization did not happen, but the Fed did have to compromise. According to Jerry Voorhis:
“As a direct result of logical and relentless agitation by members of Congress, led by Congressman Wright Patman as well as by other competent monetary experts, the Federal Reserve began to pay to the U.S. Treasury a considerable part of its earnings from interest on government securities. This was done without public notice and few people, even today, know that it is being done. It was done, quite obviously, as acknowledgment that the Federal Reserve Banks were acting on the one hand as a national bank of issue, creating the nation’s money, but on the other hand charging the nation interest on its own credit – which no true national bank of issue could conceivably, or with any show of justice, dare to do.”
Voorhis went on, “But this is only part of the story. And the less discouraging part, at that. For where the commercial banks are concerned, there is no such repayment of the people’s money.” Commercial banks, he explained, do not rebate the interest, although they also “‘buy’ the bonds with newly created demand deposit entries on their books – nothing more.”6
Voorhis noted that the Constitution provides, “Congress shall have the power to coin money [and] regulate the value thereof.” Whether “to coin money” means “to issue money” has been debated; but as President Andrew Jackson observed, if anyone was given the power to issue money, it was Congress, not a private banking elite. For a full century before the American Revolution, the colonists funded a period of unprecedented prosperity and productive enterprise with paper money issued directly by their own local governments or government-owned banks. According to Benjamin Franklin, it was chiefly to get that power back after King George halted the practice that the colonists fought the Revolution.7 They won the war but lost the money-creating power to a private banking cartel...

peepee » 18 Dec 2017 2:08 pm » wrote:

charles.thompson » 18 Dec 2017 10:52 am » wrote:The us has a very messy currency system...and it is designed to give maximum control over the us economy. I can understand why you are confused by it.

The federal reserve LOANS money to private banks. The interest they charge sets the federal interest rate. Banks that want to make a profit are obviously forced to charge a higher interest on their loans than the federal rate.

The federal reserve also does not print the actual money. Us engraving and printing does.

The federal reserve is sort of private...but the pres appoints the chair...the house sets the salary...and the profit of the federal reserve is taxed by the federal government at a rate around 96%

...i'm 'confused'?! ...ummm, YOU are spouting the same surface level rubbish they teach in econ 101...i sounded just like you 25 years ago when i was a republicrat blitherer...[although you're waaaaay ahead of rk and termin8tor...those guys are really ****.. ]

...AGAIN, THE VAST MAJORITY OF 'DOLLARS' ARE CREATED BY PRIVATE COMMERCIAL BANKSTERS NOT 'THE [NOT] FEDERAL, [NO] RESERVE'...you have a lot of honest learning to do charles...read 'out of debt, out of danger' by voorhis...deezer says he read it and i've noticed he's not as much of republican-radio-leveler anymore...BTW, WHERE IS DEEZER?!...AND WHERE IS TRUMPWONHAHA?!...trumpwonhaha is by far the smartest republican at this site and i was hoping he could rub-off on the squirmy stinky cedar dildo roadkill coalition of republican-radio-level dumbasses around here...

....but i digress...BACK TO CHARLES...YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ARSE, CHARLES...steve zarlenga, ellen brown, bill still, merrill jenkins, byron dale, etc.. and of course, the magnificent peepee!..

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/monetizethis.php

"...For the government, the difference between borrowing credit created with accounting entries from a private bank and borrowing the same sort of credit from the Federal Reserve is that borrowing from the Fed is nearly interest-free. That is true today, but it has not always been true. Congressman Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, wrote in a 1964 treatise called A Primer on Money:
“The Federal Reserve Banks create money out of thin air to buy Government Bonds from the U.S. Treasury . . . [creating] out of nothing a . . . debt which the American people are obliged to pay with interest.”
Patman was outraged at the inequity of this practice and boldly agitated for Congress to nationalize the privately-owned Federal Reserve, a move that would have allowed the government to issue the national money supply directly. Needless to say, however, this proposal met with strong opposition. Nationalization did not happen, but the Fed did have to compromise. According to Jerry Voorhis:
“As a direct result of logical and relentless agitation by members of Congress, led by Congressman Wright Patman as well as by other competent monetary experts, the Federal Reserve began to pay to the U.S. Treasury a considerable part of its earnings from interest on government securities. This was done without public notice and few people, even today, know that it is being done. It was done, quite obviously, as acknowledgment that the Federal Reserve Banks were acting on the one hand as a national bank of issue, creating the nation’s money, but on the other hand charging the nation interest on its own credit – which no true national bank of issue could conceivably, or with any show of justice, dare to do.”
Voorhis went on, “But this is only part of the story. And the less discouraging part, at that. For where the commercial banks are concerned, there is no such repayment of the people’s money.” Commercial banks, he explained, do not rebate the interest, although they also “‘buy’ the bonds with newly created demand deposit entries on their books – nothing more.”6
Voorhis noted that the Constitution provides, “Congress shall have the power to coin money [and] regulate the value thereof.” Whether “to coin money” means “to issue money” has been debated; but as President Andrew Jackson observed, if anyone was given the power to issue money, it was Congress, not a private banking elite. For a full century before the American Revolution, the colonists funded a period of unprecedented prosperity and productive enterprise with paper money issued directly by their own local governments or government-owned banks. According to Benjamin Franklin, it was chiefly to get that power back after King George halted the practice that the colonists fought the Revolution.7 They won the war but lost the money-creating power to a private banking cartel...

So basically you are admitting that anyone who took an econ 101 class knows that private banks cannot simply print money to pay their debt. I agree.

What is all this other irrelevant nonsense?

I mean did you study SO MUCH ECON that you lost the ability to make a point? Because I see you making more claims about conservative radio than economics.

peepee » 18 Dec 2017 2:08 pm » wrote:

charles.thompson » 18 Dec 2017 10:52 am » wrote:The us has a very messy currency system...and it is designed to give maximum control over the us economy. I can understand why you are confused by it.

The federal reserve LOANS money to private banks. The interest they charge sets the federal interest rate. Banks that want to make a profit are obviously forced to charge a higher interest on their loans than the federal rate.

The federal reserve also does not print the actual money. Us engraving and printing does.

The federal reserve is sort of private...but the pres appoints the chair...the house sets the salary...and the profit of the federal reserve is taxed by the federal government at a rate around 96%

...i'm 'confused'?! ...ummm, YOU are spouting the same surface level rubbish they teach in econ 101...i sounded just like you 25 years ago when i was a republicrat blitherer...[although you're waaaaay ahead of rk and termin8tor...those guys are really ****.. ]

...AGAIN, THE VAST MAJORITY OF 'DOLLARS' ARE CREATED BY PRIVATE COMMERCIAL BANKSTERS NOT 'THE [NOT] FEDERAL, [NO] RESERVE'...you have a lot of honest learning to do charles...read 'out of debt, out of danger' by voorhis...deezer says he read it and i've noticed he's not as much of republican-radio-leveler anymore...BTW, WHERE IS DEEZER?!...AND WHERE IS TRUMPWONHAHA?!...trumpwonhaha is by far the smartest republican at this site and i was hoping he could rub-off on the squirmy stinky cedar dildo roadkill coalition of republican-radio-level dumbasses around here...

....but i digress...BACK TO CHARLES...YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ARSE, CHARLES...steve zarlenga, ellen brown, bill still, merrill jenkins, byron dale, etc.. and of course, the magnificent peepee!..

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/monetizethis.php

"...For the government, the difference between borrowing credit created with accounting entries from a private bank and borrowing the same sort of credit from the Federal Reserve is that borrowing from the Fed is nearly interest-free. That is true today, but it has not always been true. Congressman Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, wrote in a 1964 treatise called A Primer on Money:
“The Federal Reserve Banks create money out of thin air to buy Government Bonds from the U.S. Treasury . . . [creating] out of nothing a . . . debt which the American people are obliged to pay with interest.”
Patman was outraged at the inequity of this practice and boldly agitated for Congress to nationalize the privately-owned Federal Reserve, a move that would have allowed the government to issue the national money supply directly. Needless to say, however, this proposal met with strong opposition. Nationalization did not happen, but the Fed did have to compromise. According to Jerry Voorhis:
“As a direct result of logical and relentless agitation by members of Congress, led by Congressman Wright Patman as well as by other competent monetary experts, the Federal Reserve began to pay to the U.S. Treasury a considerable part of its earnings from interest on government securities. This was done without public notice and few people, even today, know that it is being done. It was done, quite obviously, as acknowledgment that the Federal Reserve Banks were acting on the one hand as a national bank of issue, creating the nation’s money, but on the other hand charging the nation interest on its own credit – which no true national bank of issue could conceivably, or with any show of justice, dare to do.”
Voorhis went on, “But this is only part of the story. And the less discouraging part, at that. For where the commercial banks are concerned, there is no such repayment of the people’s money.” Commercial banks, he explained, do not rebate the interest, although they also “‘buy’ the bonds with newly created demand deposit entries on their books – nothing more.”6
Voorhis noted that the Constitution provides, “Congress shall have the power to coin money [and] regulate the value thereof.” Whether “to coin money” means “to issue money” has been debated; but as President Andrew Jackson observed, if anyone was given the power to issue money, it was Congress, not a private banking elite. For a full century before the American Revolution, the colonists funded a period of unprecedented prosperity and productive enterprise with paper money issued directly by their own local governments or government-owned banks. According to Benjamin Franklin, it was chiefly to get that power back after King George halted the practice that the colonists fought the Revolution.7 They won the war but lost the money-creating power to a private banking cartel...

The central bank purchases and sells us bonds to control the dollar rate of inflation. THeir target for inflation is 2%, and it has been very close to their target for a very long time...so they seem to be doing a good job.

Banks purchase bonds to have greater security in their liquid assets. If they are ensuring customers x amount of their money to be available (fdic insured for example), they will back it with bonds. Because although that makes the bank less money than stocks (where indeed there may even be an intrinsic conflict of interest) or interest on loans, it is more secure. You actually want the banks to do that...

peepee » 18 Dec 2017 2:08 pm » wrote:

charles.thompson » 18 Dec 2017 10:52 am » wrote:The us has a very messy currency system...and it is designed to give maximum control over the us economy. I can understand why you are confused by it.

The federal reserve LOANS money to private banks. The interest they charge sets the federal interest rate. Banks that want to make a profit are obviously forced to charge a higher interest on their loans than the federal rate.

The federal reserve also does not print the actual money. Us engraving and printing does.

The federal reserve is sort of private...but the pres appoints the chair...the house sets the salary...and the profit of the federal reserve is taxed by the federal government at a rate around 96%

...i'm 'confused'?! ...ummm, YOU are spouting the same surface level rubbish they teach in econ 101...i sounded just like you 25 years ago when i was a republicrat blitherer...[although you're waaaaay ahead of rk and termin8tor...those guys are really ****.. ]

...AGAIN, THE VAST MAJORITY OF 'DOLLARS' ARE CREATED BY PRIVATE COMMERCIAL BANKSTERS NOT 'THE [NOT] FEDERAL, [NO] RESERVE'...you have a lot of honest learning to do charles...read 'out of debt, out of danger' by voorhis...deezer says he read it and i've noticed he's not as much of republican-radio-leveler anymore...BTW, WHERE IS DEEZER?!...AND WHERE IS TRUMPWONHAHA?!...trumpwonhaha is by far the smartest republican at this site and i was hoping he could rub-off on the squirmy stinky cedar dildo roadkill coalition of republican-radio-level dumbasses around here...

....but i digress...BACK TO CHARLES...YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ARSE, CHARLES...steve zarlenga, ellen brown, bill still, merrill jenkins, byron dale, etc.. and of course, the magnificent peepee!..

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/monetizethis.php

"...For the government, the difference between borrowing credit created with accounting entries from a private bank and borrowing the same sort of credit from the Federal Reserve is that borrowing from the Fed is nearly interest-free. That is true today, but it has not always been true. Congressman Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, wrote in a 1964 treatise called A Primer on Money:
“The Federal Reserve Banks create money out of thin air to buy Government Bonds from the U.S. Treasury . . . [creating] out of nothing a . . . debt which the American people are obliged to pay with interest.”
Patman was outraged at the inequity of this practice and boldly agitated for Congress to nationalize the privately-owned Federal Reserve, a move that would have allowed the government to issue the national money supply directly. Needless to say, however, this proposal met with strong opposition. Nationalization did not happen, but the Fed did have to compromise. According to Jerry Voorhis:
“As a direct result of logical and relentless agitation by members of Congress, led by Congressman Wright Patman as well as by other competent monetary experts, the Federal Reserve began to pay to the U.S. Treasury a considerable part of its earnings from interest on government securities. This was done without public notice and few people, even today, know that it is being done. It was done, quite obviously, as acknowledgment that the Federal Reserve Banks were acting on the one hand as a national bank of issue, creating the nation’s money, but on the other hand charging the nation interest on its own credit – which no true national bank of issue could conceivably, or with any show of justice, dare to do.”
Voorhis went on, “But this is only part of the story. And the less discouraging part, at that. For where the commercial banks are concerned, there is no such repayment of the people’s money.” Commercial banks, he explained, do not rebate the interest, although they also “‘buy’ the bonds with newly created demand deposit entries on their books – nothing more.”6
Voorhis noted that the Constitution provides, “Congress shall have the power to coin money [and] regulate the value thereof.” Whether “to coin money” means “to issue money” has been debated; but as President Andrew Jackson observed, if anyone was given the power to issue money, it was Congress, not a private banking elite. For a full century before the American Revolution, the colonists funded a period of unprecedented prosperity and productive enterprise with paper money issued directly by their own local governments or government-owned banks. According to Benjamin Franklin, it was chiefly to get that power back after King George halted the practice that the colonists fought the Revolution.7 They won the war but lost the money-creating power to a private banking cartel...

by the way...if you really believe that private banks purchasing bonds is some sort of devious scheme to do some cosmic shuffling and make money out of nothing...why don't you get in on the action? You can do the exact same damn thing. Go loan a bunch of money from some private bank then spend it all buying us bonds directly from the treasury. YOu can do that, you know. See if you make money out of nothing or if you wind up simply donating money to the bank. Before you spend your life savings I think I should warn you...it will be the latter.

charles.thompson » 18 Dec 2017 2:24 pm » wrote: So basically you are admitting that anyone who took an econ 101 class knows that private banks cannot simply print money to pay their debt. I agree.

What is all this other irrelevant nonsense?

I mean did you study SO MUCH ECON that you lost the ability to make a point? Because I see you making more claims about conservative radio than economics.

...charles, save yourself...little do you know but you're waaaaaaay out of your league with me...you're still stuck back in the 'printing of money' by 'the government' myth...ugh...[hint for other blow-dried phony 'economists' around here: most all money today is not the 'printed' green ragcloth paper rectangles emblazoned with dead republicrats...most/all money today is a number in a **** computer...and believe me, you republicrat money dummies would be shocked!! if you ever got it through your thick skulls how these number$ originate.....]

BTW, CHARLES!!...CAN YOU PROVIDE ANY LINKS TO BOLSTER YOUR "DON'T-KNOW-WHAT-A-DOLLAR-IS-BUT-I-LIKE-TO-WORK-MY-HOLE-ABOUT-THE-ILLION-DOLLAR-ECONOMY" OPINIONS?? CAN/WILL ANY OF YOU REPUBLICANS PROVIDE ANYTHING/ANYONE THAT YOU AGREE WITH?!.. [DIDN'T THINK SO]...YOUR HOLES ARE CONSTANTLY WRITING CHECK$ YOU CAN'T COVER....

http://www.rpoth.at/docs/modern_money_mechanics_us.htmlWho Creates Money?
Changes in the quantity of money may originate with actions of the Federal Reserve System (the central bank), depository institutions (principally commercial banks), or the public. The major control, however, rests with the central bank.
The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks.(1) As noted earlier, checkable liabilities of banks are money. These liabilities are customers' accounts. They increase when customers deposit currency and checks and when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrowers' accounts.
In the absence of legal reserve requirements, banks can build up deposits by increasing loans and investments so long as they keep enough currency on hand to redeem whatever amounts the holders of deposits want to convert into currency. This unique attribute of the banking business was discovered many centuries ago.
It started with goldsmiths. As early bankers, they initially provided safekeeping services, making a profit from vault storage fees for gold and coins deposited with them. People would redeem their "deposit receipts" whenever they needed gold or coins to purchase something, and physically take the gold or coins to the seller who, in turn, would deposit them for safekeeping, often with the same banker. Everyone soon found that it was a lot easier simply to use the deposit receipts directly as a means of payment. These receipts, which became known as notes, were acceptable as money since whoever held them could go to the banker and exchange them for metallic money.
Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment.
Transaction deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the borrowers in turn could "spend" by writing checks, thereby "printing" their own money..."


...
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.
John Kenneth Galbraith, Money: Whence it came, where it went (1975), p. 15.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 p. 29.The modern banking system manufactures “money” out of nothing; and the process is, perhaps, the most, astounding piece of “sleight of hand” that was ever invented. In fact, it was not invented. It merely “grew”. … Banks in fact are able to create (and cancel) modern “deposit money”, just as much as they were originally able to create, or call in, their own original forms of private notes. They can, in fact, inflate and deflate, i.e., mint, and un-mint the modern “ledger-entry” currency.
Angas, Major L. L. B. (Lawrence Lee Bazley) (1937). Slump ahead in bonds. Somerset Pub. Co.. pp. 20-21. OCLC 3506072.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...
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago; Nichols, Dorothy M (1961). Modern Money Mechanics; a workbook on deposits, currency and bank reserves.. p. 3. OCLC 510802.The 1992 revision of this booklet is available on wikisourceCommercial 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 of New York; Friedman, David H. (1977). I Bet You Thought.... p. 19. OCLC5356154.The 12 regional reserve banks aren't government institutions, but corporations nominally 'owned' by member commercial banks.

peepee » 18 Dec 2017 3:46 pm » wrote:

charles.thompson » 18 Dec 2017 2:24 pm » wrote: So basically you are admitting that anyone who took an econ 101 class knows that private banks cannot simply print money to pay their debt. I agree.

What is all this other irrelevant nonsense?

I mean did you study SO MUCH ECON that you lost the ability to make a point? Because I see you making more claims about conservative radio than economics.

...charles, save yourself...little do you know but you're waaaaaaay out of your league with me...you're still stuck back in the 'printing of money' by 'the government' myth...ugh...[hint for other blow-dried phony 'economists' around here: most all money today is not the 'printed' green ragcloth paper rectangles emblazoned with dead republicrats...most/all money today is a number in a **** computer...and believe me, you republicrat money dummies would be shocked!! if you ever got it through your thick skulls how these number$ originate.....]

BTW, CHARLES!!...CAN YOU PROVIDE ANY LINKS TO BOLSTER YOUR "DON'T-KNOW-WHAT-A-DOLLAR-IS-BUT-I-LIKE-TO-WORK-MY-HOLE-ABOUT-THE-ILLION-DOLLAR-ECONOMY" OPINIONS?? CAN/WILL ANY OF YOU REPUBLICANS PROVIDE ANYTHING/ANYONE THAT YOU AGREE WITH?!.. [DIDN'T THINK SO]...YOUR HOLES ARE CONSTANTLY WRITING CHECK$ YOU CAN'T COVER....

http://www.rpoth.at/docs/modern_money_mechanics_us.htmlWho Creates Money?
Changes in the quantity of money may originate with actions of the Federal Reserve System (the central bank), depository institutions (principally commercial banks), or the public. The major control, however, rests with the central bank.
The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks.(1) As noted earlier, checkable liabilities of banks are money. These liabilities are customers' accounts. They increase when customers deposit currency and checks and when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrowers' accounts.
In the absence of legal reserve requirements, banks can build up deposits by increasing loans and investments so long as they keep enough currency on hand to redeem whatever amounts the holders of deposits want to convert into currency. This unique attribute of the banking business was discovered many centuries ago.
It started with goldsmiths. As early bankers, they initially provided safekeeping services, making a profit from vault storage fees for gold and coins deposited with them. People would redeem their "deposit receipts" whenever they needed gold or coins to purchase something, and physically take the gold or coins to the seller who, in turn, would deposit them for safekeeping, often with the same banker. Everyone soon found that it was a lot easier simply to use the deposit receipts directly as a means of payment. These receipts, which became known as notes, were acceptable as money since whoever held them could go to the banker and exchange them for metallic money.
Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment.
Transaction deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the borrowers in turn could "spend" by writing checks, thereby "printing" their own money..."

...
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.
John Kenneth Galbraith, Money: Whence it came, where it went (1975), p. 15.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 p. 29.The modern banking system manufactures “money” out of nothing; and the process is, perhaps, the most, astounding piece of “sleight of hand” that was ever invented. In fact, it was not invented. It merely “grew”. … Banks in fact are able to create (and cancel) modern “deposit money”, just as much as they were originally able to create, or call in, their own original forms of private notes. They can, in fact, inflate and deflate, i.e., mint, and un-mint the modern “ledger-entry” currency.
Angas, Major L. L. B. (Lawrence Lee Bazley) (1937). Slump ahead in bonds. Somerset Pub. Co.. pp. 20-21. OCLC 3506072.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...
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago; Nichols, Dorothy M (1961). Modern Money Mechanics; a workbook on deposits, currency and bank reserves.. p. 3. OCLC 510802.The 1992 revision of this booklet is available on wikisourceCommercial 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 of New York; Friedman, David H. (1977). I Bet You Thought.... p. 19. OCLC5356154.The 12 regional reserve banks aren't government institutions, but corporations nominally 'owned' by member commercial banks.

Id hate to burst your bubble, but you are not in my league on this.

It seems like you are complaining about the banking reform that occurred in 1914, and the world had never seen it before. No, ancient goldsmiths did not consider the importance of keeping an insurance on x amount of liquid assets...that problem was realized when banks started actually running out of physical money. It is actually a function of the bank to provide security to the people who deposit their money in the bank...and that is a critical part of their function. You seem to be complaining about methods used by banks to fulfill that role. They are not making money from nothing, and they aren't even making a profit. In fact they are sacrificing a bit of potential profit to do their job. You seem to be playing with linguistics to pretend that commercial bank liquid asset insurance is some sort of conspiracy whereby commercial banks could bypass the federal reserve. That is actually absurd....and trust me the us government and the fed would not allow what you are pretending. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_liquidity

The federal reserve control over inflation or deflation is actually part of their job. You seem to think it is some sort of conspiracy.

I don't know what these sources are that you are using, but they seem to be intentionally trying to misinform and create alarm...and in your case, succeeded.

In fact there absolutely DOES seem to be conspiracies involving the central bank but you are looking in very much the wrong direction.

nuckin futz » 17 Dec 2017 10:37 pm » wrote:

Sgt Bilko » 17 Dec 2017 5:20 pm » wrote: Far leftwing progressive moonbat moron concepts. 6th grade economics!!!

DILDO, I was very worried about you! I thought you were at the ICU at the hospital from al the beatings you have had here!

It is obvious to the casual observer that you are not the only one who has the best experience in the world right up to the time of Moses and the world right up to five people in the same time as the greatest moral and artistic human achievement viewed through the eye of the beholder!!!

Sgt Bilko » 18 Dec 2017 8:10 pm » wrote: It is obvious to the casual observer that you are not the only one who has the best experience in the world right up to the time of Moses and the world right up to five people in the same time as the greatest moral and artistic human achievement viewed through the eye of the beholder!!!

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
friedrich_nietzsche_

charles.thompson » 18 Dec 2017 4:16 pm » wrote:Id hate to burst your bubble, but you are not in my league on this.

...thank god!!...because you're a little leaguer who doesn't even understand the money-creation process...BELOW IS SOME MORE EVIDENCE THAT 'OUR' MONEY IS CREATED IN THE PRIVATE COMMERCIAL BANKING SYSTEM THROUGH A FRAUD I CALL 'FRACTIONAL RESERVE DEPOSIT CREATION'...OBVIOUSLY YOU DISAGREE WITH ME ABOUT HOW MONEY IS CREATED, SO CAN/WILL YOU EXPLAIN HOW MONEY IS CREATED?!...I'VE PROVIDED A LOT OF EVIDENCE HERE AT THE FABULOUS 'PEEPEE ON MONEY' BUT I'VE SEEN NOTHING FROM YOU EXCEPT **** I HEAR FROM OTHER REPUBLICRAT MONETARY IGNORAMUSES...

...You have nothing but mouth, republicrat-level dummy...PLEASE CRITIQUE THE FOLLOWING VERY SHORT VIDEO FROM RESPECTED 'POSITIVE MONEY' WHICH EXPOSES YOU AGAIN AS AN IGNORAMUS ABOUT MONEY CREATION:...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01IusDeSPE4

“I am afraid that the ordinary citizen [esp. republicrat-level money dummies like charles] will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create and destroy money. And they who control the credit of a nation direct the policy of governments, and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people. (widely attributed to reginald mckenna)

charles.thompson » 18 Dec 2017 2:55 pm » wrote:Banks purchase bonds to have greater security in their liquid assets...You actually want the banks to do that...

...i don't mind 'banks' purchasing bonds...BUT NOT WITH MONEY THEY CONJURED USING THE FRACTIONAL RESERVE DEPOSIT CREATION FRAUD, REPUBLICAN-RADIO-LEVELER!...

[ slapping these republican-radio ignoramuses around is some wicked fun!...]

peepee » 18 Dec 2017 9:35 pm » wrote:

charles.thompson » 18 Dec 2017 4:16 pm » wrote:Id hate to burst your bubble, but you are not in my league on this.

...thank god!!...because you're a little leaguer who doesn't even understand the money-creation process...BELOW IS SOME MORE EVIDENCE THAT 'OUR' MONEY IS CREATED IN THE PRIVATE COMMERCIAL BANKING SYSTEM THROUGH A FRAUD I CALL 'FRACTIONAL RESERVE DEPOSIT CREATION'...OBVIOUSLY YOU DISAGREE WITH ME ABOUT HOW MONEY IS CREATED, SO CAN/WILL YOU EXPLAIN HOW MONEY IS CREATED?!...I'VE PROVIDED A LOT OF EVIDENCE HERE AT THE FABULOUS 'PEEPEE ON MONEY' BUT I'VE SEEN NOTHING FROM YOU EXCEPT **** I HEAR FROM OTHER REPUBLICRAT MONETARY IGNORAMUSES...

...You have nothing but mouth, republicrat-level dummy...PLEASE CRITIQUE THE FOLLOWING VERY SHORT VIDEO FROM RESPECTED 'POSITIVE MONEY' WHICH EXPOSES YOU AGAIN AS AN IGNORAMUS ABOUT MONEY CREATION:...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01IusDeSPE4

“I am afraid that the ordinary citizen [esp. republicrat-level money dummies like charles] will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create and destroy money. And they who control the credit of a nation direct the policy of governments, and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people. (widely attributed to reginald mckenna)

Money is produced by the central bank...in the US this is the federal reserve...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_market_operation

"In the United States, as of 2006[citation needed], the Federal Reserve sets an interest rate target for the Federal funds (overnight bank reserves) market. When the actual Federal funds rate is higher than the target, the New York Reserve Bank will usually increase the money supply via a repo (effectively borrowing from the dealers' perspective; lending for the Reserve Bank). When the actual Federal funds rate is less than the target, the Bank will usually decrease the money supply via a reverse repo(effectively lending from the dealers' perspective; borrowing for the Reserve Bank).
In the U.S., the Federal Reserve most commonly uses overnight repurchase agreements (repos) to temporarily create money, or reverse repos to temporarily destroy money, which offset temporary changes in the level of bank reserves.[4] The Federal Reserve also makes outright purchases and sales of securities through the System Open Market Account (SOMA) with its manager over the Trading Desk at the New York Reserve Bank. The trade of securities in the SOMA changes the balance of bank reserves, which also affects short-term interest rates. The SOMA manager is responsible for trades that result in a short-term interest rate near the target rate set by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), or create money by the outright purchase of securities.[5] More rarely will it permanently destroy money by the outright sale of securities. These trades are made with a group of about 22 banks and bond dealers called primary dealers.
Money is created or destroyed by changing the reserve account of the bank with the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has conducted open market operations in this manner since the 1920s, through the Open Market Desk at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee. The open market operation is also a means through which inflation can be controlled because when treasury bills are sold to commercial banks these banks can no longer give out loans to the public for the period and therefore money is being reduced from circulation."

charles.thompson » 18 Dec 2017 10:52 am » wrote:The us has a very messy currency system...and it is designed to give maximum control over the us economy.

Now, write like a big boy and tell us to whom this "control" is given, **** mouther.

Mistakes were made.

Cannonpointer » 18 Dec 2017 10:20 pm » wrote:

charles.thompson » 18 Dec 2017 10:52 am » wrote:The us has a very messy currency system...and it is designed to give maximum control over the us economy.

Now, write like a big boy and tell us to whom this "control" is given, **** mouther.

Mistakes were made.

Mainly the federal reserve

charles.thompson » 18 Dec 2017 10:52 am » wrote: The federal reserve is sort of private...but the pres appoints the chair...the house sets the salary...and the profit of the federal reserve is taxed by the federal government at a rate around 96%

You are a cum drunk sissy panty, boy. "Sort of private?"

How can an agency that has never been audited - that performs it's OWN audits - be taxed on "profits?"

Tell us what the COSTS of issuing currency are, so we can get an idea of the fed's "profits," kid. When you CREATE money, isn't that ALL "profit?"

charles.thompson » 18 Dec 2017 10:22 pm » wrote: Mainly the federal reserve

Which is sort of private.

Cannonpointer » 18 Dec 2017 10:22 pm » wrote:

charles.thompson » 18 Dec 2017 10:52 am » wrote: The federal reserve is sort of private...but the pres appoints the chair...the house sets the salary...and the profit of the federal reserve is taxed by the federal government at a rate around 96%

You are a cum drunk sissy panty, boy. "Sort of private?"

How can an agency that has never been audited - that performs it's OWN audits - be taxed on "profits?"

Tell us what the COSTS of issuing currency are, so we can get an idea of the fed's "profits," kid. When you CREATE money, isn't that ALL "profit?"

I don't think you know how it works, either. The federal reserve does make a profit because it loans its 'federal reserve notes' to banks, so banks pay the federal reserve. the US then taxes its profits at close to 100%

Cannonpointer » 18 Dec 2017 10:23 pm » wrote:

charles.thompson » 18 Dec 2017 10:22 pm » wrote: Mainly the federal reserve

Which is sort of private.

frankly, it is mostly government. The house determines the salary. The pres appoints chair, and the profits are massively taxed

charles.thompson » 18 Dec 2017 10:25 pm » wrote: I don't think you know how it works, either. The federal reserve does make a profit because it loans its 'federal reserve notes' to banks, so banks pay the federal reserve. the US then taxes its profits at close to 100%

I've never heard of a business that could be taxed at 96% and be worth bothering with.

But I guess if your business is **** currency, it could work - especially if the 96% tax on your profits was something some guy on the internet was merely mouth ****.

charles.thompson » 18 Dec 2017 10:26 pm » wrote: frankly, it is mostly government. The house determines the salary. The pres appoints chair, and the profits are massively taxed

Yeah, gosh - it's mostly public, the privately owned, closely (and secretly) held company.

It's MOSTLY public, PARTLY private, SORT of legal, and really, really easy to make **** up about.