It is not money that is being created through FRB or MM. It is money derivatives that are actually created and redeemed.
That's your terminology. As I understand it, most of the rest of the world calls checking account balances money. If FRB creates money derivatives, and not money, then how is the money created? For that matter, what do you mean by "money"? Yes, I intentionally used such terminology to show the difference between a central bank created money and an ordinary bank created money. Though I agree that we can call checking account balances money since they function as money (and this is the reason they are counted as money) Central bank emitted money can be considered in this context as base money (as it is)... |
|
|
|
No, this was possible to do in the 19th century when they (banks) did actually issue more bank notes than they had gold as reserve. Today, you can't create assets ("just print bank notes or add the new money to accounts") without first balancing them with corresponding liabilities (claims, i.e. money lent to a bank). If you still think otherwise, please tell precisely how new money is added to an account and what happens to the balance
In a situation where there's not enough liquidity for the banks to handle the demand through interbank lending, the bank borrows money from the Federal Reserve, through the discount window. There's no physical money which is transferred in that case, at least not immediately. Usually the need is temporary and the physical cash never needs to be even printed, let alone shipped to the bank. Yes, so a newly created bank asset (claim on money lent, i.e. "printed out of thin air") is balanced by the bank's liability before the Federal Reserve. Still, there is no asset without a balancing it liability (though the balance itself increases giving an illusion of creating money out of nothing)... I'm not sure what you're getting at. Dollar bills themselves are a liability. A liability of the federal reserve. I don't think anyone is under the impression that money is literally created out of nothing. It's a metaphor, not an illusion. Literally, money is created out of a balance sheet entry. Literally, dollar bills are created out of ink and paper. It is not money that is being created through FRB or MM. It is money derivatives that are actually created and redeemed. And yes, many are under the impression that money is literally created out of nothing (there was an animation presented earlier here that shows just that)... Surely, I wouldn't call a metaphor an actual increase in money terms on the balance sheet. As to me, illusion of creating money out of thin air is the right word |
|
|
|
No, this was possible to do in the 19th century when they (banks) did actually issue more bank notes than they had gold as reserve. Today, you can't create assets ("just print bank notes or add the new money to accounts") without first balancing them with corresponding liabilities (claims, i.e. money lent to a bank). If you still think otherwise, please tell precisely how new money is added to an account and what happens to the balance
In a situation where there's not enough liquidity for the banks to handle the demand through interbank lending, the bank borrows money from the Federal Reserve, through the discount window. There's no physical money which is transferred in that case, at least not immediately. Usually the need is temporary and the physical cash never needs to be even printed, let alone shipped to the bank. Yes, so a newly created bank asset (claim on money lent, i.e. "printed out of thin air") is balanced by the bank's liability before the Federal Reserve, or an old liability (before a depositor) is replaced with the new one (before the Federal Reserve). Still, there is no asset without a balancing it liability (though the balance itself either increases giving an illusion of creating money out of nothing or decreases giving an illusion of money disappearing into nothing)... |
|
|
|
A central bank is not incidentally called a lender of last resort. I intentionally stressed 'last' here which means there are other lenders that a bank can appeal for help to. In case there is a bank-run, the bank can either directly borrow insufficient funds from other banks through interbank market or sell its loans (probably with discount) to anyone willing to buy them (usually other banks or the government) to fill a cash gap (cash deficiency). In either case, there is no money printing...
They can't borrow from other banks if the other banks are all experiencing bank runs too. As far as selling its loans at a discount, you seem to be contemplating bankruptcy. Yes, when pretty much everyone goes bankrupt that would solve the problem. Also, we can't forbid banks from lending more than they have since they just can't lend more than they actually have. If you think otherwise, I'm all ears!
A bank is able to loan money into your checking account even though they don't actually have any physical dollars to back it up. They're forbidden from doing so, so they have to take the roundabout route described by myself and Wikipedia and that video I linked to, but it's possible for them to just directly credit people's accounts with money that doesn't exist physically. They still have to balance this money within a short period of time (within a working day, if I'm not mistaken) with corresponding liability (claim)... My whole point is that it's possible. Forbidden, but possible. I thought you were suggesting that it can't be forbidden, because it's impossible (" we can't forbid banks from lending more than they have since they just can't lend more than they actually have"). I wrote several times about this possibility in this thread. These are very intricate and technical details of actual banking (and accounting) which are irrelevant to how FRB works or what people mean by "creating money out of thin air"... |
|
|
|
A central bank is not incidentally called a lender of last resort. I intentionally stressed 'last' here which means there are other lenders that a bank can appeal for help to. In case there is a bank-run, the bank can either directly borrow insufficient funds from other banks through interbank market or sell its loans (probably with discount) to anyone willing to buy them (usually other banks or the government) to fill a cash gap (cash deficiency). In either case, there is no money printing...
They can't borrow from other banks if the other banks are all experiencing bank runs too. As far as selling its loans at a discount, you seem to be contemplating bankruptcy. Yes, when pretty much everyone goes bankrupt that would solve the problem. Also, we can't forbid banks from lending more than they have since they just can't lend more than they actually have. If you think otherwise, I'm all ears!
A bank is able to loan money into your checking account even though they don't actually have any physical dollars to back it up. They're forbidden from doing so, so they have to take the roundabout route described by myself and Wikipedia and that video I linked to, but it's possible for them to just directly credit people's accounts with money that doesn't exist physically. They still have to balance this money within a short period of time (within a working day, if I'm not mistaken) with corresponding liability (claim). And this has nothing to do with FRB... |
|
|
|
A central bank is not incidentally called a lender of last resort. I intentionally stressed 'last' here which means there other lenders that a bank can appeal for help to. In case there is a bank-run, the bank can either directly borrow insufficient funds from other banks through interbank market or sell its loans (probably with discount) to anyone willing to buy them (usually other banks or the government) to fill a cash gap (cash deficiency). In either case, there is no money printing...
Also, we can't forbid banks from lending more than they have since they just can't lend more than they actually have. If you think otherwise, I'm all ears!
If there's no money printing, then what's the problem with Bitcoin? They do lend more than they have, under the fractional reserve system, which could be done also using Bitcoin. They just print bank notes or add the new money to accounts. I don't quite understand what problem you are referring to (with Bitcoin) No, this was possible to do in the 19th century when they (banks) did actually issue more bank notes than they had gold as reserve. Today, you can't create assets ("just print bank notes or add the new money to accounts") without first balancing them with corresponding liabilities (claims, i.e. money lent to a bank). If you still think otherwise, please tell precisely how new money is added to an account and what happens to the balance It seems that we are going for the second round with what was explained previously in much detail here |
|
|
|
But if you borrow BTC from a bank to make a purchase, the seller will expect to receive the actual BTC, not a BTC bank credit. So the scope for FRB is far more limited.
You won't borrow BTC from a bank, the bank will issue a credit card with which you will pay for your purchases. Whether this bank (or any other bank for that matter) actually has all the BTCs it has credited you with is another question... So, unless there is a Central Bank which has set the economy on a Bitcoin standard (with all ensuing dramatic consequences), banks will still be able to create more money (virtual BTCs) than there are bitcoins out there... If you agree with this, then the fixed supply nature of Bitcoin becomes unnecessary and detrimental here But when a bank becomes insolvent, the extra money created from thin air just disappears. The monetary expansion is just temporal. Under the current system, a central bank can just print that extra fiat money to save the bank, increasing the money supply and reducing the purchasing power of the previous supply. That's not possible with Bitcoin, as they can't be created by central banks. We can't forbid banks from lending more than they don't have, unless the government forbids them to do so. But I wouldn't expect that from governments, as they have historically encouraged banks to increase the money supply, to create temporary prosperity (which increases tax revenue) and lend money to the same government. A central bank is not incidentally called a lender of last resort. I intentionally stressed 'last' here which means there are other lenders that a bank can appeal for help to. In case there is a bank-run, the bank can either directly borrow insufficient funds from other banks through interbank market or sell its loans (probably with discount) to anyone willing to buy them (usually other banks or the government) to fill a cash gap (cash deficiency). In either case, there is no money printing... Also, we can't forbid banks from lending more than they have since they just can't lend more than they actually have. If you think otherwise, I'm all ears! |
|
|
|
про англиканизм улыбнуло, при том что Satoshi японец  профнепригодны все те кто стоял у истоков биткоина  Не англиканизм, а англицизм. Англиканизм - это следование религиозной конфессии англиканской церкви. Известный документ Сатоши написан на английском языке, и слово биткойн имеет английское происхождение. Поэтому в русском языке является новым англицизмом. А те, кто стоял у истоков биткойна, таких грубых терминологических ошибок как "биткоИн" не делали. Термин "англиканизм" тоже корректно использовать в данном значении (часто используют исходя из аналогии "американизм").. |
|
|
|
про англиканизм улыбнуло, при том что Satoshi японец профнепригодны все те кто стоял у истоков биткоина Ага, Ковчег был построен любителем, а проффесионалы профессионалы построили Титаник. Хотя последнему просто не повезло с вахтенным офицером... |
|
|
|
Falling prices will lead to greater efficiency instead of wasting scarce resources. See Japan. Stagnant GDP but super clean cities, machinery not needing replacement for 15 years, wonderful food, low unemployment. Deflation is ok How come? If we take this source, the rate of unemployment in Japan had been steadily raising through 90s and on, peaking twice in 2004 and 2009... |
|
|
|
Falling prices will lead to greater efficiency instead of wasting scarce resources. See Japan. Stagnant GDP but super clean cities, machinery not needing replacement for 15 years, wonderful food, low unemployment. Deflation is ok. If their population levels weren't declining I think their GDP might even be slightly growing. Now they've got Abenomics to screw things up by trying to create GDP growth. Growth in what? Speculative assets? Why is growth necessary for a shrinking population? No wonder Abe's popularity is falling. Since, Abenomics, Japan's current account deficit has only been getting wider. Imports growth is outstripping exports growth.
It is not population shrinking that actually matters here but rather age distribution skewing, i.e. more elders and less young productive hands. So things become yet more complicated, and to keep their standard of living, they have to increase productivity that would possibly lead to GDP growth (since Japan's population is not that much shrinking as it is aging)... |
|
|
|
не кто не ответил, или я чего не правильно делаю
Надо не просто сидеть и ждать, нужно по форуму ползать, хотя бы делая вид, что что-то читаешь... |
|
|
|
А вообще, доводилось мне слышать высказывания, что Сатоши - инопланетянин . Это в какой палате такие слухи рассказывают? В палате представителей . Совет Федерации еще не рассматривал этот вопрос. У инопланетян уже и представительство есть?! И куда катится этот мир... |
|
|
|
<irony> Да они же просто обязаны подчиняться требованиям ЦБ! Ведь у них в названии присутсвует слово "bank"! (Видимо они очень боятся лишиться отсутсвующей у них банковской лицензии...  ) </irony> А по-русски они как называются? Какое-нибудь ушибленное ООО... |
|
|
|
Как бы не пришлось узнать в ближайшее время, что у Олега Сухова уже нет адвокатской лицензии Друзья, большое спасибо за поддержку и положительные отзывы. Для нас это очень важно. Наша схема работы существенно отличалась от работы остальных обменников, так как все этапы обменных операций проходили абсолютно легально и в соответствии с законами РФ. Поэтому продолжить работу мы можем только в том случае, если ЦБ РФ пересмотрит свою позицию (на что вряд ли стоит рассчитывать). В различных вариантах с "лазейками" все равно будет сохраняться высокий риск того, что банк рано или поздно заблокирует наши счета. Мы такой риск брать не готовы. На данный момент мы находимся в состоянии ожидания прояснения ситуации, в надежде, что вместо запрета ЦБ введет контроль рынка "виртуальных валют". П.С. Вариант с Украиной рассмортим А нельзя ожидать такого, что задним числом начнут претензии предъявлять (ну там адреса, пароли, явки)? Ещё вдруг налог заставят заплатить какой-нибудь безбашенный (типа доходы от выигрышей на тотализаторе 35%), лол... |
|
|
|
deisik, а он походу казачок засланный, все чего-то ходит + мутит + подбивает + возжигает = провоцирует! Да про это уже кто только не говорил... |
|
|
|
PS тока не говорите мне что менты если полезут в это дело никого не обидят - в большинстве известный случаев они почти всегда кого-то сильно обижали, но фишка в том, что возможностей для мести у умных людей на порядки больше! (терроризм это самое малое что будет - гораздо хуже если начнут например помогать каким-нить недогосударствам в создании ОМП и тп технологий, кто что умеет, пока этим дебилам-террористам не один умный инженер не помогал тк например 9/11 чтобы развалить ВТЦ достаточно было всего 1 иненера средней грамотности и 1 гаечного ключа, самолеты были не нужны, и кстати он выдержал удар самолетов, а развалился из-за проектного косяка про который знали либо сразу бы догадались практически все грамотные инженеры, не говоря о разработчиках...)
Вы прямо так говорите, что все умные люди лютые звери какие-то и мизантропы отмороженные, АЭС там взорвать или помочь в создании ОМП. Умный человек прежде всего понимает, что месть должна быть целенаправленной и избирательной (иначе какая от неё радость). Даже бандиты в своих кровавых разборках как-то стараются случайных людей не задевать (карму берегут, лол)... По-вашей же логике пострадают вообще люди по большей части непричастные |
|
|
|
гениально, если он все-таки существует!
Существовать-то точно существует, вопрос только в том - "он" это, или "они"... А вообще, доводилось мне слышать высказывания, что Сатоши - инопланетянин . Это в какой палате такие слухи рассказывают? |
|
|
|
В чем дело интересно ?
у тебя другой провайдер. А у меня Ростелеком. Ну у меня Ростелеком тоже, сайт нормально открылся (сейчас специально проверил). Что я делаю не так?Edit: второй раз попробовал - и облом!!! Чудны дела твои, господи. Включил opera-turbo (была отключена!), сайт снова стал открываться (но это понятно). Но ведь сколько денег на это выкинули, а обходится тривиально (даже с проксями не надо мучиться)... |
|
|
|
Не желаем, притом совершенно. Все кто читал вдумчиво, понял, что "ничего не запрещено, потому что мы, ЦБ (дебилы), не понимаем что это и нужно ли это запретить, а если нужно, то за что, а если регулировать, то как". Но большинство подумать забыло, поэтому в ближайшие 2 дня курс будет только проваливаться вниз. Вы знаете, что делать. Что-то не похоже, чтобы курс как-то особо проваливался вниз... Или вы не о биткоине? Так и рубль вроде как затормозился. По рублю так вообще, на мой взгляд, больше истерики, чем реальной девальвации... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
