Why Do We Tolerate The Banks Printing Money ?

[myrkul]

No. Fractional Banking is a fact, and if not for it we'd be living 100 years back.

You mean when gas was $0.20/gallon?

Still is, if you buy with silver dimes.

[1713494027]

1713494027

[1713494027]

1713494027

[1713494027]

1713494027

[1713494027]

1713494027

[1713494027]

1713494027

[Lethn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaeRZ4S2Orw

Fractional banking is a steaming turd that's had tons of air freshener put on it to make everyone think it smells good.

[HeroC]

Because who wants a traditional economy?

I'll give you a cow for 2bitcoins. 

[teodor87]

No. Fractional Banking is a fact, and if not for it we'd be living 100 years back.

You mean when gas was $0.20/gallon?

Still is, if you buy with silver dimes.

Silver dimes do not generate as much growth.

[zvs]

Why Do We Tolerate The Banks Printing Money ?  

because i don't want to bring 2 goats to walmart whenever i want to pick up some electronics

re: the sign about coins... there's actually pretty good money to be had if you have a teller friend or something at a bank.   get all their rolls of half dollars, you should make around $50 an hour if you know what you're looking for (** and the stuff hasn't already been picked through by someone knowledgeable)

[abbyd]

Because some inflation is good for growth because it encourages the rich to invest their money in businesses- which create jobs. And how else would a national currency be managed?

I tried not to have my drink go up my nose too far when I read this - I think you're in the wrong forum. Try neokeynesianbuttsniff.com?

So we tolerate banks printing money because we tolerate fiat at all.  We tolerate one governance.  Some of us even tolerate one god.  It's funny what a capitalistic society will do, one who advocates competition, but never will when it threatens specific existences.

This

A lie is only a lie until the moment it starts providing results. When you buy a porsch and a house and a wife with a money you made on forex, not moving a finger, is it really a lie?

Semantics - I guess you're "living a lie"?

Correction: They LEND it to us through a scammy process

When you look at the highest levels of society, it's not about money, it's about CONTROL. First, you have to get everyone dependent on monetary systems via DEBT (half the world still lives via subsistence agriculture), then you can control labor by alternately raising wages and prices.

[NsxV2rAt5E]

I watched half of the movie "Money as Debt" that has been mentioned in this forum a few times.
The movie says that money is created when somebody signs a loan.  The banks create the money for the loan out of thin air.
This seems perfectly reasonable to me.  First of all, a house is not exactly "thin air".  The bankers create money out of houses.  The money supply matches the value of tangible goods that are in the money market.  I admit that I didn't follow all the details, especially the ones that indicate that the interbank loans multiply the money supply many times, but I'm just commenting on this one idea of creating money in exchange for tangible goods.

If I put my house on mortgage for $100k, there is $100k of money created to represent the value of the house that I just put in the money market.  I put goods in the market => there is corresponding amount of money created to represent these goods.  If another person mortgages an identical house, they will get the same amount of $ for it (which will also be created).  If the value of goods that are in the money market doubles, the money supply will also double so that prices will remain constant (excluding a small amount of inflation).

Contrast this with the fixed-money supply of bitcoin:  If I put my house in the market for 1000 bitcoins, I'm reducing the bitcoin supply by 1000 bitcoins.  Bitcoins get scarcer and their value relative to goods (my house) increases.  The next person who mortgages an identical house for bitcoins will receive fewer bitcoins than I did.  We both put in the same amount of goods but we get different amounts of bitcoin, depending on who made the transaction first.  Does this seem a fair exchange system?

The value of 1 bitcoin increases as people use bitcoins more.  The people who hold bitcoins get richer (on paper at least) by holding on to their bitcoins and doing nothing at all.

Which of the two systems seems like a bigger scam?

[MikeH]

Contrast this with the fixed-money supply of bitcoin:  If I put my house in the market for 1000 bitcoins, I'm reducing the bitcoin supply by 1000 bitcoins.  Bitcoins get scarcer and their value relative to goods (my house) increases.  The next person who mortgages an identical house for bitcoins will receive fewer bitcoins than I did.  We both put in the same amount of goods but we get different amounts of bitcoin, depending on who made the transaction first.  Does this seem a fair exchange system?

how does putting your house on the market reduce the bitcoin supply? they don't disappear, they just change hands.

[NsxV2rAt5E]

how does putting your house on the market reduce the bitcoin supply? they don't disappear, they just change hands.

It reduces the bitcoin supply for everyone else.

Conventional money is not meant to be a precious commodity whose value changes according to supply and demand.   It has a supply that grows with demand and matches the overall economy.  Creating money to match the demand of the economy is a good thing because it maintains the buying power of money relatively constant (slowly diminishing, on purpose).

[myrkul]

how does putting your house on the market reduce the bitcoin supply? they don't disappear, they just change hands.

It reduces the bitcoin supply for everyone else.

Conventional money is not meant to be a precious commodity whose value changes according to supply and demand.   It has a supply that grows with demand and matches the overall economy.  Creating money to match the demand of the economy is a good thing because it maintains the buying power of money relatively constant (slowly diminishing, on purpose).

No, but seriously, the coins are still there, and they're going to get spent elsewhere. The supply has not been reduced. Just moved around.

[Miz4r]

Silver dimes do not generate as much growth.

Problem is that at some point you can't grow anymore, and then it all collapses because we need more growth, more spending, more consuming (doesn't this make you sick?), more everything to be able to pay our debts plus interest. Yes, it has brought the world a lot of good stuff I guess, but I think we have reached the point now where it is just too much and we need to shift to a new paradigm that doesn't depend on growth. Maybe bitcoin with its finite supply could be a small first step towards such a shift...