Here is the link. My edition has another cover, but the editor is the same, so this one (judging by the year) should overall be the same book that I have... Yeah, I suspect we're mostly just having translation issues. I'll try to be more aware of this in the future. Hopefully you will as well. I don't think so, lol. If you think that I will take this, then you are just wrong. This simply won't work as you planned it... By "If you think that I will take this" do you mean "If you think that I will stand for this"? Are you denying that you're not very good at writing in English? Do you deny that many of your sentences are grammatically incorrect? Show me the code examples, I'm really curious. So as not to clutter the thread, you may want to do this privately (it is a bit off-topic even for me, lol). And no, I don't take it personal, never mind... |
|
|
|
|
I have already explained (for the justice sake, it was not me who first voiced this explanation here) earlier in the thread, somewhere within a couple of previous pages. I think, as a frequenter of this thread, you won't lose a chance to read the thread from the moment the question of money multiplication came up here...
|
|
|
|
I guess Wikipedia actually got something right for a change.
I didn't plagiarize my answer from Wikipedia, if that's what you're suggesting.
I didn't mean to say you copied it from Wikipedia. But if you open the corresponding article there, you will see that it tells almost the same... And if you open up a typical Economics textbook used at the college/university level in the United States, you'll probably see something similar as well. If it's all wrong, I'd be interested in hearing about that. I didn't say it is all wrong, lol. You seem to either intentionally misinterpret my words or just not read closely enough my posts. In fact, I said it correctly describes the mechanics, but doesn't explain why this multiplier is money multiplier in the first place (i.e. the principle of money multiplication)... |
|
|
|
Here is the link. My edition has another cover, but the editor is the same, so this one (judging by the year) should overall be the same book that I have... Yeah, I suspect we're mostly just having translation issues. I'll try to be more aware of this in the future. Hopefully you will as well. I don't think so, lol. If you think that I will take this, then you are just wrong. This simply won't work as you planned it... |
|
|
|
I guess Wikipedia actually got something right for a change.
I didn't plagiarize my answer from Wikipedia, if that's what you're suggesting.
I didn't mean to say you copied it from Wikipedia. But if you open the corresponding article there, you will see that it tells almost the same... |
|
|
|
[This was added later.] Now your turn to tell your understanding of what money multiplication is (I gave my understanding before)...
I think the link I gave explained it better than I can, but basically the issue is that M1 includes both physical money and checking balances (a couple other things too but they can be left out for this simple explanation). When banks do not hold 100% reserves for their checking balances but instead lend out checking deposits they've received, this is called fractional reserve banking. This causes M1 to be bigger than M0, which is called money multiplication. What happens is that A puts money into her checking account and then the bank lends it to B. B usually either deposits the money or spends it, and generally someone down the line deposits the money, usually most or all of it. In the case where the banks all hold reserves of 1/X, and all of the non-bank participants spend or deposit their money, the result is a geometric series, which approaches a limit where M1 adds up to X times that of M0. X is called the money multiplier. In practice the money multiplier is always less than X, and potentially can be significantly less than X if non-bank participants hold significant assets in cash. If banks keep too little in reserves this can cause insolvency and bank failures and runs on the bank and recessions, which in turn can cause non-bank participants to lose trust in the banks and hold their assets in cash. This is, of course, a greatly oversimplified model of what happens in practice. I hope you don't expect me to write a whole textbook on the topic. You actually paraphrase what is written in Wikipedia about money multiplication in general and money multiplier in particular. I guess Wikipedia actually got something right for a change. I didn't plagiarize my answer from Wikipedia, if that's what you're suggesting. This correctly describes the mechanics, but lacks telling the principle behind it. It is fun that whenever people tell what you just did (or just quote Wikipedia), they still can't explain how "money is created out of thin air", lol...
As I've said before, "money is created out of thin air" is a metaphor. Probably a quite inappropriate metaphor to use when discussing things with someone whose native language is not English, and may not fully appreciate the nuances of the idiom. As far as "the principle behind it", I'm not really sure what you're getting at.I've read your description of money multiplication. But I still don't understand it, i.e. what makes that factor X to be considered as money multiplier (that what I would call the principle behind the mechanics)... |
|
|
|
It stands on my bookshelf but it can hardly help you since it is not in English. It is called something like "Money. Credit. Banks.". This textbook is for universities
Does it list an author or authors? Editors? Can you give me enough information to look it up? Maybe I won't be able to read it, but I can at least try to find something which refers to it so I can get an idea of what type of theories it's teaching. That said, just the fact that the book is not in English is useful to know. Maybe the problem is that you're not translating things right when you explain it in English. This definitely explains why a lot of your sentences don't make sense (like when you were referring to the process of fractional reserve banking as "money multiplier"). In English we refer to it as fractional reserve banking, and the money multiplier is just a number which represents a ratio such as that between M1 and M0. Here is the link. My edition has another cover, but the editor is the same, so this one (judging by the year) should overall be the same book that I have... |
|
|
|
[This was added later.] Now your turn to tell your understanding of what money multiplication is (I gave my understanding before)...
I think the link I gave explained it better than I can, but basically the issue is that M1 includes both physical money and checking balances (a couple other things too but they can be left out for this simple explanation). When banks do not hold 100% reserves for their checking balances but instead lend out checking deposits they've received, this is called fractional reserve banking. This causes M1 to be bigger than M0, which is called money multiplication. What happens is that A puts money into her checking account and then the bank lends it to B. B usually either deposits the money or spends it, and generally someone down the line deposits the money, usually most or all of it. In the case where the banks all hold reserves of 1/X, and all of the non-bank participants spend or deposit their money, the result is a geometric series, which approaches a limit where M1 adds up to X times that of M0. X is called the money multiplier. In practice the money multiplier is always less than X, and potentially can be significantly less than X if non-bank participants hold significant assets in cash. If banks keep too little in reserves this can cause insolvency and bank failures and runs on the bank and recessions, which in turn can cause non-bank participants to lose trust in the banks and hold their assets in cash. This is, of course, a greatly oversimplified model of what happens in practice. I hope you don't expect me to write a whole textbook on the topic. You actually paraphrase what is written in Wikipedia about money multiplication in general and money multiplier in particular. This correctly describes the mechanics, but lacks telling the principle behind it. It is fun that whenever people tell what you just did (or just quote Wikipedia), they still can't explain how "money is created out of thin air", lol... |
|
|
|
Проблема в том, что с биткоином может никто напрямую и бороться не станет, только сделать что-нибудь полезное с ним также ничего нельзя будет. Попросту перекроют кислород по всем путям входа и выхода...
По всем входам/выходам перекрыть не получится. Да, популярные способы, т.к сказать привычные для масс, можно перекрыть, но все.... никак. Например осуществление международных переводов и обнал с рук. Полезно, не очень удобно, можно признать вне закона, но если людям это будет выгодно, то будет существовать рынок "из под полы" однозначно. Я с этим совершенно не спорю, просто экономического смысла закрывать все потенциальные лазейки нет. Закроют только самые "вредные", условно говоря, т.е. те, которые могут нанести наиболее существенный ущерб. Как-то так... Ваша пара биткоинов "под подушкой" вообще мало кому будет интересна (разве только кул-хацкерам) |
|
|
|
As you may have noticed I asked about your understanding I'd love to hear your explanation in your own words (core principle, 2-3 sentences). I've seen it so many times when people provided links and couldn't explain coherently what was written there. In fact, I expected that you wouldn't try to explain it yourself, lol... If we're going to start demanding answers of each other, then you'll note that I asked first, and you haven't answered my question yet. Your question is meaningless ("Where do you get that idea from?"). I got it from the textbook That answer's very helpful, though. Which textbook? If I can get a copy from my library, I can read the section of the textbook you're talking about and maybe understand what it is you're saying. It stands on my bookshelf but it can hardly help you since it is not in English. It is called something like "Money. Credit. Banks.". This textbook is for universities |
|
|
|
And how reserves which banks can't loan are positively relevant here (i.e. contributing to it)?
That question doesn't make sense. Are you suggesting that it's possible to run a bank, and accept demand deposits, without keeping any reserves? This is irrelevant to the question asked. Once again, how do reserves contribute to money multiplication? Without reserves there would be no deposits, so there would be no money multiplication. And yes, there is no miracle in running a bank without keeping any reserves at all (and at the same time accepting demand deposits), provided the bank has access to cheap interbank loans. This is rather a technical question, and I have to repeat it is not relevant in the context...
Access to cheap interbank loans is useless when someone comes into the bank to present a check or make a withdraw, and you don't have any money to give them. Who's going to deposit their money there? You forget about internet banking (or rather remote banking) where you use other banks' ATMs to get or put cash. I am using one if you're curious. I still have to repeat that you pick at petty details... |
|
|
|
As you may have noticed I asked about your understanding I'd love to hear your explanation in your own words (core principle, 2-3 sentences). I've seen it so many times when people provided links and couldn't explain coherently what was written there. In fact, I expected that you wouldn't try to explain it yourself, lol... If we're going to start demanding answers of each other, then you'll note that I asked first, and you haven't answered my question yet. Your question is largely meaningless ("Where do you get that idea from?"). I got it from the textbook. Now your turn to tell your understanding of what money multiplication is (I gave my understanding before)... |
|
|
|
Just consider two cases. In the first case someone fell and broke his leg, and in the second he broke your leg. In which case is it more reasonable to blame that guy?
I don't see how that's an applicable analogy here. This is more of you can only scam the naive and greedy ie only fools get scammed like this and when they do it's nobodies fault but their own.. Yes, this is obviously their own fault for which they can blame themselves, which is still hardly constructive but at least authorized, so to speak. But this in no case gives you a right to blame these poor peeps unless their faults somehow concern you personally in a negative way... In fact, on their faults we have built a whole discussion here (which should be considered as positive), so we should in a sense be even grateful to them for such an opportunity Again, I don't understand what logic you're using here. Ok, I'm ready to accept that I failed to explain you my position coherently. Am I to be blamed, lol? As to me, the word has some negative connotation of accusing people in their wrong-doings when it doesn't involve your interests directly. What you mean I would probably refer to as making a mistake and taking responsibility for it (or failing to take). Does the latter properly convey the meaning you put into the word (i.e. being irresponsible)? |
|
|
|
Желающие могут попробовать сыграть по моей реферальной ссылке. Со своей стороны обещаю всяческую поддержку и могу замолвить словечко, если напрямую не получается к автору обратиться, сам он из Англии, а соответствующая тема на форуме здесьА что делать с купонами, типа " Поздравляем! Вы выиграли купон стоимостью 0.00001 BTC.
Daily Bitcoins advertising credits
Код: e7eee5da46........" Куда их потом ? Это что за купоны такие, там вроде ничего подобного нет? Можно ссылку на описание хотя бы... |
|
|
|
Как все серьезно, даже программу придумали, чтобы переделывала написание...
Почему нет варианта "без разницы"?
Потому что здесь только буйные собрались. Тем, кому "без разницы" - в другую палату... |
|
|
|
Так мне тоже придётся, потому и злой... Чему уж тут особо радоваться? Странно... А я думал - для того и в крипте сидим, что бы НИКОМУ, НИГОДА, НИ ЗА ЧТО НЕ ОТСТЁГИВАТЬ..! Хорошо видно? Давай всё же ещё раз... НИКОМУ, НИГОДА, НИ ЗА ЧТО!За это и боремся... В этом суть крипты...! Проблема в том, что с биткоином может никто напрямую и бороться не станет, только сделать что-нибудь полезное с ним также ничего нельзя будет. Попросту перекроют кислород по всем путям входа и выхода... А вот и главный злодей герой пожаловал |
|
|
|
And how reserves which banks can't loan are positively relevant here (i.e. contributing to it)?
That question doesn't make sense. Are you suggesting that it's possible to run a bank, and accept demand deposits, without keeping any reserves? This is irrelevant to the question asked. Once again, how do reserves contribute to money multiplication? And yes, there is no miracle in running a bank without keeping any reserves at all (and at the same time accepting demand deposits), provided the bank has access to cheap interbank loans. This is rather a technical question, and I have to repeat it is not relevant in the context... |
|
|
|
As you may have noticed I asked about your understanding I'd love to hear your explanation in your own words (core principle, 2-3 sentences). I've seen it so many times when people provided links and couldn't explain coherently what was written there. In fact, I expected that you wouldn't try to explain it yourself, lol... |
|
|
|
Статические или динамические IP адреса тут не при чём. Блокировка на 360 секунд при логине возникает из-за того, что движок форума принимает вход пользователя на форум за сообщение. Писать можно даже залогинившись одним пользователем с разных адресов (с разных компьютеров)...
вононочотогда всё понятно, спасибо. Пишу про это уже в третий раз только в этой теме, лол. Сам так поначалу мучался... спасибо, что все разъяснили. В общем, было бы неплохо, если бы мой исходный пост кто-нибудь дублировал на каждой странице данной темы (можно и без дополнительных благодарностей, я не обижусь) |
|
|
|
You don't multiply reserves, you multiply money given out as loans.
Where do you get that idea from? Okay, what is your understanding of money multiplication? And how reserves which banks can't loan are positively relevant here (i.e. contributing to it)? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
