Limits of State Power
POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Sunday, December 14, 2025 21:53
VIEWED: 37205
PAGE 34 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ah, Rue, I see you beat me to the post.Quote:from How Stuff Works
Banks create money in the economy by making loans
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/banking/bank1.htm
All that's talking about is the Multiplier effect, which I've already dealt with and is a far cry from the purposeful and conscious decision to create any arbitrary amount of money that the bank wants on demand. The multiplier effect doesn't literally increase the money supply either, it gives the effect or appearance of an increase. But either way it's completely unlike what Rue is proposing, and has singularly failed to even begin to back up. It's interesting that Rue wants reams of statute books to refute, but accepts opinions if they support, shows the real level of Rue's discerning when it comes to evidence. I can't help it if Rue doesn't understand the subject matter, and is too arrogant to learn.
The fact I mentioned the multiplier effect by name, and it wasn't picked up on, the fact that I used examples that don't consider the multiplier effect, and no one said "but the money is created elsewhere", the fact that the multiplier effect is not the banks consciously loaning imaginary money that they've purposefully made up on the spot, as Rue is trying to claim, fairly proves that it wasn't the multiplier effect Rue was talking about. Bringing it up now (especially since I've already noted it) is nothing more than a Red Herring, but does fit in nicely with Rue's general dishonest posting style, so there's that I suppose. Perhaps Rue will pounce on the Multiplier effect now that you've brought it up, even though it's clearly not what Rue was talking about, it seems Rue thinks it's better to appear right, than to be honest.
Perhaps people have heard about the Multiplier effect, and have got the mechanism all backwards, can't blame me for that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Also, I would like to know what alternatives you propose.
Tell you what. I'm gonna start another thread about health insurance; trying to come up with requirements, and leaving the ideology out.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen, if I have $1 and apply the multiplier effect to it, I have the equivalent of $1 * X. Rue and I talked about this offline. She read through a pdf which talked SPECIFICALLY about how banks lend out MORE MONEY THAN THEY HAVE. This wasn't some sort of bogus wild-hair opinion, it was a historical document from (I think) the Eisenhower Administration which traced how all of this began (back to the day of gold scrip).
It would help if you wouldn't get so damn snarky, because even if you had a point (which I don't think you do) it gets lost in the muddle.
----------------------
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:I haven't thought that far ahead. I'll give it some thought and let you know.
You've also stated the desire to task the government with preventing "concentrations of power", so I'm interested how we detect a concentration of power and curtail it. I'm also interested in what you're definition of an unacceptable concentration of power is.
Quote:yes.
You seem to be talking about something more commonplace than an actual monopoly.
----------------------
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:
Citizen, if I have $1 and apply the multiplier effect to it, I have the equivalent of $1 * X.
I specifically spoke about the multiplier effect. It's not, in anyway shape or form what Rue was proposing. Neither is it creating money from nowhere, it's giving the effect of having more money in the system, not actually literally creating more money in the system, which again is what Rue claims.
The multiplier effect is a quirk of bank accounting that allows the effect of literal currency to be greater than it's supply would suggest. This gives the effect of having more money than there is, but in reality all that is happening is that the same unit of currency is being lent more than once. It is nothing more mysterious than lending money that has been lent to you, it's an amplification of the effect of literal funds, which is by no means the same thing as creating funds out of thin air.
That is a wholly different mechanism to what Rue is talking about, which is banks saying "we don't have enough money to cover this loan, just lend it anyway and say we did". And, as I said, I've mentioned the multiplier effect at least twice, and no one picked up on it, so going to that now smacks of nothing more than a red herring.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rue and I talked about this offline. She read through a pdf which talked SPECIFICALLY about how banks lend out MORE MONEY THAN THEY HAVE. This wasn't some sort of bogus wild-hair opinion, it was a historical document from (I think) the Eisenhower Administration which traced how all of this began (back to the day of gold scrip).
I'm glad you and Rue talked off line, but given how much misinterpreting of stuff Rue has done so far, I'll take what this PDF does or doesn't prove under my own advisement. Besides, I really can't be expected to know the contents of your private off line communications now can I? I can only comment on what has been presented here, and what has been presented here are a few opinions from various people, and what appears to be the misrepresentations of the multiplier effect.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It would help if you wouldn't get so damn snarky, because even if you had a point (which I don't think you do) it gets lost in the muddle.
Rue gets snarky, no problem, Rue gets it back big issue? Snark seems to be Rue's standard operating procedure, these days I see little need to converse with her in any other mode. I'll admit I give Rue little leeway, but I've frankly grown bored of the lies and misrepresentations, not too mention outright insults, that inevitably spring forth when one finds oneself in disagreement with Rue.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, then we agree.
the effect of literal currency to be greater than it's supply would suggest. This gives the effect of having more money than there is, but in reality all that is happening is that the same unit of currency is being lent more than once.
----------------------
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
SHITizen
"Must I explain it again?"
"Posting nonsense from other websites doesn't suddenly make it true."
"Ok, actually, I haven't got a clue what you're going on about. Sounds like you've taken "Capital Ratio" and "Reserve Requirements" and mashed them together."
This isn't snark ? Dooood - you started it. Expect it back.
Fuck you. 
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
go rue!
SergeantX
"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, then we agree.
Depends what we're agreeing on. That the multiplier effect exists and gives the effect of more money in the system, but doesn't in fact create money, then yes. That Banks can just at a whim decide to invent money, by lending more money than they have on their books for instance, then no.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME