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)? |
|
|
|
Возможно, вы правы, и я неправильно описал пирамиду. Просто в сознании многих людей пирамида видится как нечто крайне негативное, как система, в которой в плюсе оказываются только небольшая доля ранних пользователей и только за счет обмана всех остальных. И поэтому, я думаю, у многих людей и нет доверия к биткоину, прочитают где-то, что это пирамида, а с этим словом ассоциации строго негативные - обман и лохотрон, и все. А в биткоине обмана никакого нет. Поэтому, думаю, биткоин все же не стоит называть пирамидой, чтобы не создавать у людей ложное представление о нем. Но это лишь мое скромное мнение.
Это лишь следствие базового принципа, или первопричины, т.е. необеспеченности ничем конкретных фантиков (билетов МММ, ну или биткоинов, как вариант). Люди это интуитивно понимают и относятся потому с недоверием, а не из-за того, что где-то вычитали, что это пирамида. Кто-то же это всё равно изначально написал, правильно? За фиатом хотя бы есть (условно) суверенное государство (следует отметить, что за биткоином в принципе тоже кое-что есть), а вот что было за фантиками МММ как образцово-показательной пирамиды? |
|
|
|
Переживаешь, что заставят заплатить каждую копеечку налогов? Ну что ж, понимаю, придётся... Какой то ты злой... Ну что могу сказать? - и вам не болеть...! Just Sit Back And Let The Good Times Roll ))) Так мне тоже придётся, потому и злой... Чему уж тут особо радоваться? |
|
|
|
In this case money multiplication won't work. It won't work if people don't lend their money to banks, and there are a lot of other reasons because of which it may not work. But you said precisely about fractional reserve banking which just happens to exclude banking without reserves at all.
As I already pointed out, there's no such thing as "banking without reserves at all". There may not be a government mandated reserve requirement in some jurisdictions, but all banks keep reserves. It doesn't matter if banks actually keep reserves or not. For money multiplication to work banks don't need reserves in the first place, so your whole argument about fractional reserve banking as a necessary requirement for money multiplication is null and void. Why should I repeat that? You shouldn't repeat it. You should abandon it, because it's absurd. When you multiply zero by anything, you get zero. You don't multiply reserves, you multiply money given out as loans. Money which you put into reserves, you can't loan. The more you have to reserve, the less you can loan and vice versa. It is not reserves that make money multiplication possible. Never thought it could be that hard to grasp, though it seems that you are just trying to defend your position at any price... |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
Всегда раздражает, когда биткоин называют пирамидой. Каким боком это пирамида, спрашивается? Никаких обещаний дохода, как уже было сказано, нет, каждый действует на свой страх и риск. Никакого обмана и "кидалова" нет. Плюс любая пирамида в определенный момент прекращает свое существование, когда прекратится приток новых вкладчиков (или еще до этого момента, по другим причинам), а биткоин не погибнет, даже если в систему будет вовлечено все население планеты (наоборот ему от этого только плюс, т.к. это будет значить, что он получил всеобщее признание). А то что это высокорисковое вложение, никто не спорит, ну так ведь далеко не любое высокорисковое вложение является пирамидой.
И все же как заходит речь про биткоин, обязательно кто-нибудь назовет его пирамидой. Решительно не понимаю почему. Видимо такие люди просто не очень хорошо понимают сущность биткоина и/или сущность пирамиды.
Скорее вы плохо представляете сущность пирамиды (и её отличия от простого пузыря) Биткоин не представляет непосредственной ценности (в отличие, например, от жилья или золота), как, впрочем, и любая фиатная валюта (поэтому и существуют радикальные теории как я выше написал). Однако за последней помимо чисто спекулятивного интереса, стоит ещё, как правило, внушительная экономика, т.е. совокупность товаров и услуг, номинированных в ней. А что реально есть за биткоином? За ним практически нет товарного оборота, а тот, что есть, представляет собой копеечную часть общей капитализации, обеспеченной спекулятивной составляющей... Потому и пузырём назвать биткоин язык с трудом поворачивается |
|
|
|
This is just one understanding of what "full reserve banking" is (to make things simple I took an extreme case). In any case, this is irrelevant since money multiplication (which is relevant here) is not about reserves and your assumption is flat out wrong...
How does money multiplication work if you have full reserve banking? Under full reserve banking, M0=M1, and the money multiplier is 1. I guess you can have a money multiplier (higher than 1) for M2 if you don't require full reserves for time deposits, but M2 isn't really what I think of when I think of "money". In this case money multiplication won't work. It won't work if people don't lend their money to banks, and there are a lot of other reasons because of which it may not work. But you said precisely about fractional reserve banking which just happens to exclude banking without reserves at all. As I already pointed out, there's no such thing as "banking without reserves at all". There may not be a government mandated reserve requirement in some jurisdictions, but all banks keep reserves. It doesn't matter if banks actually keep reserves or not. For money multiplication to work banks don't need reserves in the first place, so your whole argument about fractional reserve banking as a necessary requirement for money multiplication is null and void. Why should I repeat that? |
|
|
|
This is just one understanding of what "full reserve banking" is (to make things simple I took an extreme case). In any case, this is irrelevant since money multiplication (which is relevant here) is not about reserves and your assumption is flat out wrong...
How does money multiplication work if you have full reserve banking? Under full reserve banking, M0=M1, and the money multiplier is 1. I guess you can have a money multiplier (higher than 1) for M2 if you don't require full reserves for time deposits, but M2 isn't really what I think of when I think of "money". In this case money multiplication won't work. It won't work if people don't lend their money to banks, and there are a lot of other reasons because of which it may not work. But you said precisely about fractional reserve banking which just happens to exclude banking without reserves at all. In the latter case the money multiplication would work even better. So you won't get away with it just by sticking to "full reserve banking" as you are evidently trying now... |
|
|
|
0.4BTC/month for a few posts seemed way too much to be legitimate but I don't blame anyone for trying
I think it's perfectly reasonable to blame people who fall for this. Why the heck should you blame these people? What is perfectly reasonable in that? Usually, it doesn't help them much. It is their choice, apparently the wrong one, but does it make you suffer? They actually give you an opportunity to leave feedback here and also me correct you, lol... If you're stupid enough to fall for this then you're to blame here. I never said it made me suffer, and what exactly have you corrected me on here exactly? 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? |
|
|
|
What are the two evils we're talking about here?
Full reserve banking is not an evil.
With full reserve banking there is no banking. Banks on full reserve system can't make loans (lend money) and turn into money warehouses... Sure they can. They just can't make loans from DEMAND DEPOSITS. This is just one understanding of what "full reserve banking" is (to make things simple I took an extreme case). In any case, this is irrelevant since money multiplication (which is relevant here) is not about reserves and your assumption is flat out wrong... |
|
|
|
Fractional reserve banking certainly DOES NOT create M1 money, it is MONEY MULTIPLIER that does the thing (which would work even better it there were no reserver requirements).
As I understand it, a money multiplier is a number. Maybe you have a different understanding of what that term means? It is a number reflecting an underlying process of money multiplication which becomes possible by making loans (i.e. lending money), a process opposite to making reserves. How reserves can help it is simply beyond my understanding... |
|
|
|
Fractional reserve banking refers only to a banking system where a fraction of deposits is being reserved for insurance purposes (In Canada there is no reserve requirement if I'm not mistaken, so it is obviously not omnipresent). You probably meant to say 'money multiplier' (which it is, even in Muslim world to a degree).
I meant to say "fractional reserve banking". The government of Canada may not mandate a particular reserve requirement, but banks in Canada still keep a fraction of their deposits in reserves. Then your whole argument makes no sense, since "fractional reserve banking" is the lesser of the two evils (if at all), and it surely doesn't change anything substantial with regard to the question discussed here (bitcoin banking). What are the two evils we're talking about here? Full reserve banking is not an evil. With full reserve banking there is no banking. Banks on full reserve system can't make loans (lend money) and turn into money warehouses... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
