Bitcoin Forum

Hillarious

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIHCAi1MBBA

The arguments from the video are sound.

Like a broken bell.

They lack to include the things the people working on rebuilding will not  be able to build or do.

Think, I break your legs and then a lot of people get to work in fixing them: nurses, surgeons, RX technicians, ...
Why not?

How is this propaganda for fractional reserve?

a lot of bs gets spread around. just make sure we all comment on these things and tell the truth. we cant be hostile or angry either or we come off as a bunch of a-holes hehe. we gotta be nice and explain things concisely. :)

It paints a false picture of the positives and negatives of using a debt based system as apposed to one backed by real value.  They claim history shows people have lived a better way of life under the debt based system which is a generalization I believe to be false.  They don't take technological advances into account for an example.  Also they insist if you need a loan you'd also need a creditor and insurer and large fees to conduct business.  This video basically praises the failing system we have right now as the best way to operate a thriving economy which we all know is false and it hurts my head watching it.   

Sound - if you missed what has gone on in the world the last 100 years with regard to the value of money, recessions and the like. 

Fiaters gonna fiat.

I wouldn't go as far to say there are no positives to using fractional reserves when risk is managed properly. Fractional reserves allows for the market to be tweaked so that growth does not get to be too high nor too low (negative). The central bank can manulipate both short term and long term (the effects of this are untested) interest rates to try to manage the economic growth rate. This will make the economy more stable and lead to a long term increase of standard of living.

Fractional Reserve System is what prevented a lot of banks from going under during the last recession.
Just imagine, if banks had chosen just to hold 2-3% reserves, how many banks would have failed.

They are just perpetuating their status quo bullshit.

I think you have more or less contradicted yourself. Banks need to operate on a fractional reserve system to survive, as if they cannot leverage their own money they would not be able to make enough money to pay their expenses. However if banks are over-leveraged then they will have a much greater chance of failing when the economy turn sour as it did in 2008/9.

Not really. The Fractional Reserve Requirement is what prevented banks from over-leveraging.
We should be thankful that there are standards in place.

I am not sure what you are talking about. Part of the reason for the financial crisis is that some banks were massively over-leveraged. Some had in excess of 40 to 1 leverage.

I don't think you are talking about banks. Banks have stringent reserve requirements, partly because they hold deposits of people. Other financial institutions, which are not subject to stringent regulations, can have very high leverage.

Glass Steagall removed all the constraints during Clinton years. And Bush took a blame for all the ill-effect.

These other institutions were using a fractional reserve system. Even the banks that kept their leverage to no more then 10-1 failed (although now all of them did).

its not bullshit

As a bank you have 100:1 leverage.. if everyone chooses the same bank, the money supply is inflated via lending by 99.9999:1

"Now you may point out that during the later parts of our current industrial period, we stopped using commodity money, and have only been using credit money, and, therefore, the trend is wrong. However, stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalala" *waves hands around* Wooooo... Nothing to see here....."

I'm pretty sure the cost of that insurance premium will eventually rise up to be about the same as the opportunity cost. Cheap credit only means there's going to be MUCH more of it, and as the people keep borrowing, the premiums will go up until they reach the same level people were able to manage when opportunity cost was part of the interest. Then the insurer would be found not to have enough money to cover the credit default swaps (which is what these are), and crash. Like things did in 2008. But I guess the economy would be able to expand a whole hell of a lot more... on borrowed money... like it also has for the last 100 years... or something.

Fuck the fractional reserve! Biggest scam in the planet.

There are many ways around the reserve requirements. Many banks used off-balance sheet vehicles that essentially allowed them to take on more risk then they should have. Also if the assets they buy with borrowed money decline in value significantly then the fact that they are only leveraged x to 1 does not matter because the equity will be wiped out.

And you are talking about only the legal ways. Looking at the 'settlements' major banks are making these days, I am sure some of them bent rules as well.

This is mere propaganda so it shouldn't be a thing of worry until much later.

We need more BTC propaganda  8)

BTC has its foot soldiers too. Vocal adopters like us.

Google Agenda 21. We are fucked, that should scare the pants out of you. Start racking up BTC my friends.

Banks are being strongarmed into paying billions to the government, and the governments claims do not have merit. The government also has been more or less forcing banks to reach multiple settlements over what is generally the same issue, but with only very minor differences multiple times.