Crowded elevators smell differently to little people.
MeanMrMustard
JoinedPosts by MeanMrMustard
-
59
Joke Sharing Thread
by Vanderhoven7 ingot a good joke or two?
why not share them.
here is a fun one.. retirement can be fun.
-
-
-
21
It would be nice if this forum went back to the basics
by nowwhat? innot to offend or impose my opinion.
but simply i would like to see just news and insights from the local congregation to the top organization level of: downsizing, closings, c.s.a.
personal experiences,unscriptural doctrines of the org.and direct commentary of the above.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Since the WTB&TS is a cult, and as such, the leadership, doctrine, norms, and language tend to set up perminant residence in a member’s head. Given that, don’t you think it would be beneficial to have topics that have nothing to do with the cult? The world is pretty big after all.
-
41
Cambridge professor just went full retard ...
by LoveUniHateExams inever heard of david runciman?.
he's a professor of politics at the university of cambridge, no less.. he's also a complete retard, for want of a better word.
according to prof. runciman, six year old children should get the vote, so as to counteract britain's aging population.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
So are they also eligible for the draft?
-
72
Did you know Banks create money out of thin air?
by TerryWalstrom inbanks create money “out of thin air.”empirical studies have been undertaken to prove this thesis and this is the conclusion:.
in the 5,000 year history of banking, banks have been thought of as “deposit taking institutions which lend money”.. 1. what is the legal reality?
banks don’t take deposits and don’t lend money.the public is under this false impression on purpose because the language of banks is not legal language.. so--what is a “deposit”?a deposit is not actually a deposit.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@_Morpheus:
Looks like you just left one cult only to eagerly join another... damn globalist
(Note: by “globalist” I am not implying what might be referred to as an “internationalist”. I mean a person that believes in the globe. Anyone ‘woke’ knows the earth is flat)
-
72
Did you know Banks create money out of thin air?
by TerryWalstrom inbanks create money “out of thin air.”empirical studies have been undertaken to prove this thesis and this is the conclusion:.
in the 5,000 year history of banking, banks have been thought of as “deposit taking institutions which lend money”.. 1. what is the legal reality?
banks don’t take deposits and don’t lend money.the public is under this false impression on purpose because the language of banks is not legal language.. so--what is a “deposit”?a deposit is not actually a deposit.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
But they can loan money that they don't actually have deposited....
Technically, they can only loan from the deposits, or possibly if the bank borrows from somewhere. If the bank has no deposits, it can’t loan. With fractional reserve banking, the banks loan out a certain percentage of deposits, but also keep that money on the accounts of the depositors. (That’s where the increase comes from... I have all my money, by 90% has been loaned out as well...)
You are on pretty good footing if you say that banks, through FRB, cause a growth in the money supply. You can’t say they just print money or increase an account balance and then loan it out.
Now whether you want to argue if FRB is fraud or not, that’s a different story. (How can I have my money and yet someone else has it too?)
If you are willing to burn an hour, this lecture is pretty good. Notice Salerno doesn’t make value judgements on FRB. Rather, he just lays out what it is and gives examples:
-
72
Did you know Banks create money out of thin air?
by TerryWalstrom inbanks create money “out of thin air.”empirical studies have been undertaken to prove this thesis and this is the conclusion:.
in the 5,000 year history of banking, banks have been thought of as “deposit taking institutions which lend money”.. 1. what is the legal reality?
banks don’t take deposits and don’t lend money.the public is under this false impression on purpose because the language of banks is not legal language.. so--what is a “deposit”?a deposit is not actually a deposit.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@Terry:
Dodd-Frank had nothing to do with fractional reserve banking or the money supply.
It was passed in response to the financial crises in much the same way leeches were applied to disease (bad blood) hundreds of years ago.
The financial crisis was caused by banks reacting to government policies - risky home loans backed by government agencies, loans that banks had to give out to appear not to “discrimate”. Add a healthy dose of fuel from the Fed, and you get a massive bubble. The air for the bubble came from the Fed, the government policies funneled it into the housing market. If the same crisis hit today, the same banks would fail - even though Dodd-Frank was recently repealed.
-
72
Did you know Banks create money out of thin air?
by TerryWalstrom inbanks create money “out of thin air.”empirical studies have been undertaken to prove this thesis and this is the conclusion:.
in the 5,000 year history of banking, banks have been thought of as “deposit taking institutions which lend money”.. 1. what is the legal reality?
banks don’t take deposits and don’t lend money.the public is under this false impression on purpose because the language of banks is not legal language.. so--what is a “deposit”?a deposit is not actually a deposit.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
As Simon suggested, when you finance a car, guys with fake beards are not carrying around suitcases full of crisp $100 bills.
But there ARE definitely guys with fake beards and hair on the lot.
-
72
Did you know Banks create money out of thin air?
by TerryWalstrom inbanks create money “out of thin air.”empirical studies have been undertaken to prove this thesis and this is the conclusion:.
in the 5,000 year history of banking, banks have been thought of as “deposit taking institutions which lend money”.. 1. what is the legal reality?
banks don’t take deposits and don’t lend money.the public is under this false impression on purpose because the language of banks is not legal language.. so--what is a “deposit”?a deposit is not actually a deposit.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Not sure how I missed this thread. I’ve gone through the thread a bit - just to be clear : we aren’t talking about the money created through fractional reserve banking, correct?
FRB does increase the money supply through loans. It, however, does not mean banks “print” money. If the bank’s loans start to fall through, they can’t just adjust the numbers. Nor can they keep loaning. If they have the minimum reserve and their loans (assets) start to evaporate, it can get really ugly for the bank.
-
22
What does 'populist' mean?
by LoveUniHateExams inso yeah, i've been encountering the word 'populist' quite a bit recently.. e.g.
trump's a populist president.. what does it mean?.
does it simply mean popular?.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Social equality is not on his agenda into improving the lifestyle of the lower middle class, in spite of him politically pandering to the working class in a populist way.
Curious, what is “social equality” to you?
There has been no other mechanism, in all of human history, by far, hands down, without any historical doubt, that has improved the lives of ANY and ALL “classes” more than the free market. The extent to which it is undermined is the extent to which the lifestyle of the lower or middle classes suffer.
Somehow I get the feeling you weren’t talking about that though... Rather, I get the feeling you may have been advocating for something opposite to that... but I digress.
-
22
What does 'populist' mean?
by LoveUniHateExams inso yeah, i've been encountering the word 'populist' quite a bit recently.. e.g.
trump's a populist president.. what does it mean?.
does it simply mean popular?.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
It was only because of the Electoral College system that Trump was designated winner.
The contest for the President is a contest of winning states. It is the “United States.”
Imagine if a baseball team, upon losing the World Series, started to complain: “Wait, Wait! We should win. This is all wrong. Sure the other team won more games, but we had more overall hits when you add them together. Therefore, we are the better team.” Not only is it disengenous to change the rules at the end, which, amazingly favors the losing team (imagine that), but in the end, that’s not the contest the teams were in. Measuing the winning team by total number of hits is just a horrible measure for naming a series champ.
But here’s the real kicker : even if the rules were to change, who’s to say the losing team would really be the winner? Each team would change its game play behavior from the start of the season to maximize hit count, instead of game wins.
Same with elections. Even if you were to change the elections to a popular vote, you can’t assume the vote would come out the way you think it would. For example, take NY or CA... or any Democrat stronghold state: there are many people that stay home because they know the people in NYC outnumber them. If it were a popular vote, you would probably see those people come out, affecting the outcome in ways you can’t predict. These systems are complicated. Changing one variable doesn’t imply, in any way, that the rest of the system remains constant.
In fact, I bet Trump would have won in a popular vote too - as long as those were the rules from the start and everyone had the opportunity to adjust their behavior.