Limits of State Power
POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Sunday, December 14, 2025 21:53
VIEWED: 37205
PAGE 35 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
SHITizen
This isn't snark ? Dooood - you started it. Expect it back.
Fuck you.
SHITizen, how very original. Of course coming up with an insult your self is well beyond your proved meagre mental facilities.
Well fuck you too, you vapid waste of congealed excrement. Considering your one and only mode is that of monumental and unremitting cunt, considering that the closest you ever get to being even a little worthwhile is outright lies and insults, you're the last to judge. In essence, you and AURaptor really are the same person, the only difference is you're stuck up the arse of the Democrats, while he's up the Republicans.
As someone who constantly demands unreasonable amounts of supporting evidence, it really is amazing how you seldom provide anything even approaching evidence, just more vacuous RueFacts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Oh, BTW SHITizen
If you follow the references, like, for example, Modern Money Mechanics put out by the Chicago Federal Reserve, you will find quotes like this:
"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."
It goes further to explicitly state (in long-winded prose that I will not reproduce here) that BANKS CREATE MONEY by lending money out of thin air. But I suppose that's just the 'opinion' of the federal reserve bank, eh ?
Meanwhile, you STILL have nothing. And, you are wrong.
Fuck you.
And as usual you lie about your sources and prove you've never had a thought in your empty head. It's not in the least talking about what you claim.
What is truly amazing is that your tiny ignorant mind can't seem to process that I've already dealt with that, and also shown how it doesn't, in fact, support what you've claimed. That is I've already dealt with the Multiplier effect, and already shown that the process is nothing like what you claim. And in response all you've managed to do is drag up more quotes that you misrepresent and claim they prove things they don't.
Still not seeing anything that even begins to refute anything I've said, not that that is anything new. Truly you still have nothing, no matter how much you protest otherwise.
Oh and I wouldn't fuck your syphilitic arse with someone else's.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
go rue!
What, she promised you a freebie did she?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
go rue!
What, she promised you a freebie did she?
eewwwwwww!
SergeantX
"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CITIZEN: Okay, so on reflection this is what happens. Let's say that a bank gets a $100,0000 deposit. It has to keep a 10% reserve, but loans out $90,000 to Customer A.
For the sake of discussion, let's say that this Customer A redeposits his $90,000 in the same bank. The bank then loans it out again to Customer B up to its reserve limit, which is 90% of $90,000 or $81,000. Customer B redeposits his $81,000 in the bank, which loans it out again, this time to customer C, who gets a $73,000 loan. Customer C deposits in the bank, which loans it out again to Customer D, who gets a $65,000 loan.
Without doing the infinite loop to negligible amounts, the bank has just loaned out $309,000 of an original $100,000 deposit. Is that a "multiplier effect", or has the bank just created money? Or are the two concepts one and the same?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
CITIZEN: Okay, so on reflection this is what happens. Let's say that a bank gets a $100,0000 deposit. It has to keep a 10% reserve, but loans out $90,000 to Customer A.
For the sake of discussion, let's say that this Customer A redeposits his $90,000 in the same bank. The bank then loans it out again to Customer B up to its reserve limit, which is 90% of $90,000 or $81,000. Customer B redeposits his $81,000 in the bank, which loans it out again, this time to customer C, who gets a $73,000 loan. Customer C deposits in the bank, which loans it out again to Customer D, who gets a $65,000 loan.
Without doing the infinite loop to negligible amounts, the bank has just loaned out $309,000 of an original $100,000 deposit. Is that a "multiplier effect", or has the bank just created money? Or are the two concepts one and the same?
Ok, fair enough. Yeah that's the multiplier effect. It gives the appearance of money being created, but it hasn't been. When you deposit money in an account, it's a lot like an informal loan, you give the bank the money, they do with it as they please, but have to pay you interest and also return that money on demand. So Customer A has lent them $100,000, they lend $90,000 on, which gets lent back to them, which they then lend on, which gets lent back, ad infinitum.
But no money has been created. The apparent supply has increased, because the same dollar has been lent out and back and out again a number of times, but the literal amount of money in the system remains the same.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Alright then, we DO agree. It was a definitional issue. My point tho, and Rue's too I think, is that the EFFECT is as if money has been created. The apparent money supply has been increased, which stimulates demand and causes inflation. And that was the original point: Inflation has ALREADY happened. With the collapse of real estate and banking systems everywhere the net effect was a decrease in available capital (through deleveraging) which is deflation. Therefore, printing more dollars will cause inflation ONLY IF it more than replaces the money that was "lost".
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
printing more dollars will cause inflation ONLY IF it more than replaces the money that was "lost".
That seems reasonable. It would also indicate that the inflationary effects of the spending will be delayed until lending resumes, at which point we could expect them to kick in relative to the amount lending recovers. I guess we're assuming, or perhaps hoping, that lending won't rebound to the pre-crash levels.
SergeantX
"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Therefore, printing more dollars will cause inflation ONLY IF it more than replaces the money that was "lost".
It will cause inflation relative to the current position. The question would be, would that inflation, in the context of deflating wages, increasing unemployment and general economic milieu, when deflating prices are part of an economic process of equilibrium, cause more harm than good?
The multiplier effect doesn't increase or decrease the value of individual units of currency, certainly not the way printing more actual money will.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I also see that the conflict is there with private insurance as well, and the capacity to sue when things go wrong, hence laws get made to reduce the chances of payouts being made.
But private insurance companies don't have the ability to control people themselves. They can only do that by manipulating government - and we need to put a stop to that.
I disagree. Private insurance companies are there to make money, end of story. I am only speaking of where I live, but its quite common for private insurers to increase premiums for people who indulge in risky behaviours (ie smokers) or refuse insurance all together for people in high risk categories (ie sick or disabled). That's both controlling in nature, as well as once again being a system that is advantageous for those who are healthy and well off and sucks for the disadvantaged.
Quote:
Regardless of who pays (public monies vs private monies), people have become very poor at taking responsibility for their own decisions regarding their lives, and seek to blame and receive due compensation when things go wrong.
Quote:
Are you saying we should indulge this habit? Most of the safety net programs do just that. In response, we crank up the nanny-state to force them to behave responsibly (as the state defines it). Not only is the whole cycle unnecessary, but it trashes the concept of constitutionally limited government in the process.
The nanny state is also a response to people's private litigation, which can also be a response to lack of a safety net, rather than having one. How many people in the US sue because its the only way they can afford medical treatment?
Quote:
You and I have had this conversation many times before, serg. You are an idealist, I am not. I think the conflict exists but we can do the best we can, and sometimes it can work okay.
Quote:
Honestly, that assumption seems far more idealistic to me. The pragmatic reality is that such policies will expand caretaker government and diminish personal responsibility.
I dunno about that Serg. Have you seen any personal responsibility indexes lately? Do countries with more government programs have citizens who take less personal responsibility?
I'd probably say that people take less responsibility in western nations in general, regardless of how intervening governments are or not, simply because we are now fully ensconced in the 'cult of the individual' and individual rights. My 'rights' as often cited here in this thread, take precedence over all else and all others. The most important thing is 'my right' to do as I please.
Well in my experience, people having rights does not automatically translate into them taking responsibility.
My beef with your arguments, are that we are too interconnected and too populated to live the way you suggest. If it were the wild west again, maybe, but it doesn't work in the sophisticated, technological society, facing massive issues regarding resources, population and climate change that we have (for better or worse) created. Some decisions, some organisation of the way things get done, is better served by larger entities than 'the individual'. My preference is for that entity to at least be a democratically elected and accountable. And sometimes what the individual wants is just not possible.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME