orangatang1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On 11 Mar, 06:38, "Andy F." <never.m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> <orangata...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>>
news:0f3eac6e-9743-4cf7-aab1-1b00445b04e1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 9 Mar, 07:23, "Andy F." <never.m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> <orangata...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>
news:a90ebdc2-e123-42c3-8fea-b8773a04c5e0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> On 8 Mar, 04:57, Straydog <arthu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> visualseep...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>>> Banks continue to scam the public by taking ridiculous risks,
>>>>> I have a lot of respect for banks even though I don't like
everything
>>>>> they do. If banks did not exist, we would likely still be back in
the
>>>>> caveman days.
>>>> i strongly disagree. fractional reserve banking takes money away from
>>>> profitable companies and puts it in the hands of the banks. they do
>>>> this by devaluing the money.
>>>> (seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking).
>>>> if you have a hundred bucks this year, next year it is only worth 95.
>>>> If you don't like fractional reserve banking you don't have to do
it.You
>>>> can
>>>> go to any bank and get a deposit box.Put your money or gold or
whatever
>>>> in
>>>> the box and it stays there.
>>>> That's 100% reserve banking, just like in the good old days.
>>> do you believe gold is legal tender?
>> Do you believe fractional reserve bank credit is legal tender?
>>
>
> no, it is not. and i would like to see it made fractional reserve
> banking made illegal.
>
>> there's a legal minimum reserve requirement for banks. There's no
>> legalmaximum. If anyone wants to set up a 100% reserve bank, there's
nothing
>> to stop them. The only reason 100% reserve banking doesn't happen is
because
>> there's no demand for it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> yes a bank could not choose to lend nine times as much money as it has
> in reserves, (collecting interest as a bonus). i don't know any that
> do, though.
>
> --------------------
>
> "I am myself persuaded, on the basis of extensive study of the
> historical evidence, that... the severity of each of the contractions
> - 1920-21, 1929-33, and 1937-38 - is directly attributable to acts of
> commission and omission by the Reserve authorities and would not have
> occurred under earlier monetary and banking arrangements."
>
> Milton Friedman
>
>
>
1) People do not all buy the Friedman explanation. I do.
2) He was really talking about too *little* money
being brought into main circulation, not too much.
--
Les Cargill
|
