The truth is out: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it

[alexeft]

What's interesting is the article claims that candor from the BoE "throws the theoretical basis for austerity out the window". I draw the opposite conclusion. The Crown is not spending real money, only value stolen from people already holding pounds.

Money created from thin air is not wealth created from thin air. It is wealth stolen from the owners of devalued currency.

in germany banks are actually possessing only 2-3% of the money they gave out as credit. if 3 out of 100 bank customers decide to get their funds out the bank the institute will go belly up.
that is why merkel in 2008 after lehman brothers collapse went live on nationwide tv stating to the public that "all funds are safe, the german government is backing every account, stay calm"


it is really funny: for several hundred years people did not know if they should trust banks & governments about the money because they never knew for sure if there was enough gold/silver backing those strange pieces of paper they were given.

today we have a different problem. there is not even enough paper money around to back up all the money in account. let that sink. 

Sometimes one wonders if there's even enough....paper!!!!!! 

[1714840194]

1714840194

[1714840194]

1714840194

[1714840194]

1714840194

[murraypaul]

The expert claims that in some cases banks have lent out TEN TIMES as much money as they actually have.

Yes.
Is that meant to be a surprise to anyone?

[herzmeister]

Money doesn't have to be backed by material resources, like gold. If we're on an island that has no gold, should we suspend all trading and starve? Obviously not. The issue is, as with everything, about trust.

The problem is not that money is "just an IOU". Every LETS works like that.

The problem is who controls the issuance of those IOUs, and the rules that come with it, and the deliberate complexity and bureaucracy that allows parasites to suck off wealth on each level of the pyramid.

In a LETS, if I'm a plumber, I can trade one hour of my plumbing work against one hour of your plumbing work. In today's system, I pay the plumber 10 times more per hour than my own hourly wage. Go figure.

[murraypaul]

In a LETS, if I'm a plumber, I can trade one hour of my plumbing work against one hour of your plumbing work. In today's system, I pay the plumber 10 times more per hour than my own hourly wage. Go figure.

Shrug. Not all jobs are equally valuable.
If you have skills or knowledge other people don't, but that they require, you will be able to command a higher fee for your work.
If you don't, you won't.
I don't begrudge paying plumbers, electricians, etc... for their skills. They can do things I need, and can't do myself.

[herzmeister]

This was a simplification, assuming both plumbers are equally valuable (but still I have to pay 10 times more in today's system). Many LETS in fact do accommodate for the fact that your work might be more valuable than mine.

[superresistant]

In a LETS, if I'm a plumber, I can trade one hour of my plumbing work against one hour of your plumbing work. In today's system, I pay the plumber 10 times more per hour than my own hourly wage. Go figure.

Shrug. Not all jobs are equally valuable.
If you have skills or knowledge other people don't, but that they require, you will be able to command a higher fee for your work.
If you don't, you won't.
I don't begrudge paying plumbers, electricians, etc... for their skills. They can do things I need, and can't do myself.

He's not talking about the value of jobs between them but the fact that most of the money you use is sucked out to the top of the pyramid.

The more money you have, the more money you get.

Having too few money is being a slave of the system.

[sgbett]

The expert claims that in some cases banks have lent out TEN TIMES as much money as they actually have.

Yes.
Is that meant to be a surprise to anyone?

Anyone here? Or anyone reasons the Sun?

[sidhujag]

The expert claims that in some cases banks have lent out TEN TIMES as much money as they actually have.

Yes.
Is that meant to be a surprise to anyone?

Yup the law is that if you deposit $1 you can effectively lend $99 if the people you lend each $9 deposit back into a bank(which they always do)... that $99 is printed.

[wachtwoord]

The expert claims that in some cases banks have lent out TEN TIMES as much money as they actually have.

Yes.
Is that meant to be a surprise to anyone?

Yup the law is that if you deposit $1 you can effectively lend $99 if the people you lend each $9 deposit back into a bank(which they always do)... that $99 is printed.

iirc leverage is 10000 not 10.

[sidhujag]

The expert claims that in some cases banks have lent out TEN TIMES as much money as they actually have.

Yes.
Is that meant to be a surprise to anyone?

Yup the law is that if you deposit $1 you can effectively lend $99 if the people you lend each $9 deposit back into a bank(which they always do)... that $99 is printed.

iirc leverage is 10000 not 10.

Its 10:1 becoming 100:1 because of bank monopolies.

That number doesnt even make sense.

[Zarathustra]

Money doesn't have to be backed by material resources, like gold. If we're on an island that has no gold, should we suspend all trading and starve? Obviously not. The issue is, as with everything, about trust.

The problem is not that money is "just an IOU". Every LETS works like that.

The problem is who controls the issuance of those IOUs, and the rules that come with it, and the deliberate complexity and bureaucracy that allows parasites to suck off wealth on each level of the pyramid.

In a LETS, if I'm a plumber, I can trade one hour of my plumbing work against one hour of your plumbing work. In today's system, I pay the plumber 10 times more per hour than my own hourly wage. Go figure.

Yes, money has never been something different than debt. Money is debt, gold is gold and cirarettes are cigarettes.

[Wilhelm]

What I was told by the illuminati is that...

A bank only has to hold a small percentage of their capital so they can invest the larger percentage.
This way they can create more money by investing it in a diversified way. The results of the investment become profits and we customers receive a percentage on our money.
Every bank customer knows that their money is being invested unless they are ignorant

So yes it is true that a bank only holds a few percent of its total capital. If they would HODL you would have to pay yearly for storing your money in that bank.

If "a lot" of people want their money because the bank can not produce it since it is tied up in investments and retreiving it takes time. This can sometimes cause FUD and panic resulting in a cascading collapse of a good bank. For bad banks the retreiving time is infinity so they go belly up no matter what.

Technically money in the bank is an IOY of an IOY since fiat is an IOY already


There is only a problem if they lose money in investments and cover it up by acting like they have profits. Only this last point is a real problem since the money is non existent.
Usually a country has a central bank or reserve which is the only place money can be created. This should expose the bad banks quickly or allow a country to act accordingly without having FUD spread through the population. With the use of credit and debit cards I believe banks are capable of creating virtual money and that's a bad thing.

I also believe the banking system is rotten and I like bitcoin.


Disclaimer: I'm do not work for a bank or own one or have any good knowledge of them. Feel free to comment.

[BitOnyx]

Well this system should sink in 2008, sad thing is taxpayers must keep it alive now. System will collapse at some point, together with it fiat and London Club.

[JimboToronto]

Good thread. Too bad it'll probably get moved.

[deepDown]

Has anyone of the macro-financial experts here even bothered to read the original article (and not just THE MONEY IS NOT REAL sensationalism from the OP link)?

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q102.pdf

And if you can't read scientific articles - here is what is the main statement of this one:

As a by-product of QE, new central bank reserves are created. But these are not an important part of the transmission mechanism. This article explains how, just as in normal times, these reserves cannot be multiplied into more loans and deposits and how these reserves do not represent ‘free money’ for banks.

[Ibian]

As a by-product of QE, new central bank reserves are created. But these are not an important part of the transmission mechanism. This article explains how, just as in normal times, these reserves cannot be multiplied into more loans and deposits

Does anyone really believe that? Even IF they can't touch the money in normal (that is, fraudulent) ways, without them they would not have money to lend out - or in some cases, a bank at all.

and how these reserves do not represent ‘free money’ for banks.

Which is it? Is it not money or is it not free?