Basics of the Current Monetary System

[BlackHatCoiner]

I have read somewhere bitcoin for the currency and Bitcoin for the ecosystem / network?

I know that's B stands for the network and b for the unit, but you'd never refer to an asset with a capital letter. Why would you on bitcoin?

what do you think about monero's potential?

Useful for both politicians and the mass. It'd be wise to get some in case the whole world catches it on.

Reserve requirements are (or were, before we moved to an "ample reserves" model) a way for the Fed to influence interest rates and liquidity by requiring banks to loan money from them at end of day to meet the stated requirements; they were never a method for the Feds to regulate banks' activities or dictate how much they were "allowed" to lend.

Then, there's this thing missing from the equation of bitcoin. The federal reserve system doesn't rely that much on the existence of a currency which is easily abused by the government, which also needs the banks. Indeed, the inflation can make things worse, but the whole fractional reserve lending has to stop. The USA has to stop borrowing money with interest. Bitcoin adoption won't lead to a less stressful and happier life; there are other drastic measures needed to be taken.

Bitcoin is just the beginning of the differentiation between the government and the money. It won't lead to a better life judging by the current political behavior. Agreed?

[o_e_l_e_o]

Bitcoin is just the beginning of the differentiation between the government and the money. It won't lead to a better life judging with the current political behavior. Agreed?

Bitcoin is not a magic bullet which will instantly fix all the corruption and ridiculous monetary policy present in Washington. Theoretically, it would prevent the government (and banks) from lending money they don't have, but that's only if people hold their own bitcoin and don't rely on third parties. If I want to take out a loan and hold the bitcoin in my own wallet, then obviously the bank has to send me real bitcoin which they own. If I take out a loan and am happy to hold my bitcoin in a bank wallet or accept some fake wrapped bitcoin or pegged token, then there is nothing stopping them from continuing with the fractional reserve system.

[dbc23]

Everything begins when the government starts creating bonds. These bonds are essentially meant to be sold with an interest. It's like saying “Hey, give me some trillions of dollars and I'll pay you back in a decade plus an interest”. These bonds are our national debt, because we're the ones who're going to pay them in the future.

If this bonds are created by the government and issued out on sale to banks with the mind of getting interest in the future how come many countries still remain indebt? Or does this mean each country has their own form of creating this bonds that keeps them indebted?

The bond is then auctioned and the world's largest banks buy it to receive the sweet interests. The banks then swap those IOUs with the Federal Reserve's checks which brings money into existence. It looks like this:

Treasury's bonds → Banks → Federal Reserve's checks & money minting → Banks ($) → Treasury ($).

So what's actually happening is that the FED and the treasury swap IOUs (checks & bonds) with banks as middlemen. This process continues repeatedly enriching the banks and indebting the public by increasing the national debt.

This national debt been increased does it mean each citizen has a share to pay for the IOUs generated during the swap and if so does this include the charges that get deducted from bank accounts on different occasions?

When you're depositing money in a bank, you shouldn't imagine that they're keeping those money in a safe closet. Instead, they loan it to other people, so you should consider that you're actually loaning them your money.

Now what's fractional reserve lending... It's exactly what it says. The banks are allowed to reserve only a fraction of your deposit and do whatever they want with the rest of it. According to Modern Money Mechanics the reserve ratio is 10%, so let's use this simple percentage in our example.

Let's assume you deposit $1000. The bank can now take $900 of those and lend them to someone. It is reasonable to think that these $900 come out from your $1000. However, that's not the case. What really happens is that these $900 are created out of thin air on top of the $1000. This is how the money supply is extended. Bare with me.

The bank creates a check (a liability) saying that you own $1000 even though, they have only kept $100 of your deposited dollars. The other $900 have been lent. Once the borrower deposits their $900 hard cash in their bank, the bank will give them a liability of $900, but will also keep only 10% of it. The bank can also lend those $810 and keep only the $90.

NOTE: The liability is an IOU. It's nothing more than that, but it is considered currency since it's used as medium of exchange instead of cash.

If we continue this further we can notice that there's always some liability which is 10 times greater the assets you deposited and your bank is keeping.

Seriously, the cash remains the same. It's $1000. But, they liability constantly rises; it's $1000 + $900 + $810 + + + ... = $10000.

As a conclusion, the currency supply expands. Specifically, around 92-96% of all the currency supply is created from this very procedure and not from the government.

If this be the case then we should get some interei from the banks for generating resources the lend out to their clients other than charging their customers for various bank maintainance excercise the carry out in which most of them are over charged bills

[jaberwock]

Bitcoin is not a magic bullet which will instantly fix all the corruption and ridiculous monetary policy present in Washington. Theoretically, it would prevent the government (and banks) from lending money they don't have, but that's only if people hold their own bitcoin and don't rely on third parties. If I want to take out a loan and hold the bitcoin in my own wallet, then obviously the bank has to send me real bitcoin which they own. If I take out a loan and am happy to hold my bitcoin in a bank wallet or accept some fake wrapped bitcoin or pegged token, then there is nothing stopping them from continuing with the fractional reserve system.

The most logical part is that, blockchain is a ledger that everyone could see. This way we could ask the governments to show what they are spending the money on one by one and each of them. Right now it is behind a bunch of paperwork, but with blockchain it would be easier to see what they are spending money on.

Plus, we get to see their wallets as well and how rich they are getting from stuff, if they hide it then it is illegal, and if they have other wallets then we put them in jail or take all their money, they need to release every wallet they own, and add "politicians can't own stocks and get paid by the companies" then we would be doing so much more better with proof as well. That's how it should be, blockchain+illegal bribing would make things basically just perfect, after that we will only have people who wants to help, and all the ones that wants to get rich will get out because they can't.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Right now it is behind a bunch of paperwork, but with blockchain it would be easier to see what they are spending money on.

It is not difficult to obfuscate your bitcoin and transaction from all but the most determined of attackers. If the US government were to start using bitcoin, they would have no problem doing so. Take a look at Coinbase, for example. They used to have all the cold storage on a small handful of address, but they have now split their cold storage across thousands of addresses, so much so that no one except Coinbase themselves really know how much they are holding in their reserves. The US government would absolutely do the same kind of thing.

Plus, we get to see their wallets as well and how rich they are getting from stuff, if they hide it then it is illegal

They get to make the rules. If they want to be able to hide bitcoin without it being illegal, then they would simply make it not illegal for the government to hide bitcoin, while still making it illegal for everyone else to hide bitcoin.

we put them in jail or take all their money

And how exactly do you propose seizing someone's bitcoin if it is held in their own wallet?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Bump.

[paxmao]

Seriously, I do not think this is complex at all. You have monopoly money that can be printed and a system to get it back when it suits you. Usually, that means nearly never gets called back.

Interest rates... what's difficult? It is the price of borrowing money, not that complex to understand right? An on regards to fractional lending, it means that the bank can lend more money than it really has - Is there anything I am missing.

You what is difficult for me? That after knowing all this facts, there is still people that argue that "bitcoin is not as good a money"

[BlackHatCoiner]

Seriously, I do not think this is complex at all.

It's not considered easy for an average person to acknowledge how money works in the current monetary system.

For instance, the phrase “money creates money”, requires you to understand that money can be beyond the physical bank notes in circulation. Analyzing it and you'll notice that beyond a printer, there's the trust between the citizens and the banks that creates that money. (And that the latter is mostly responsible)

Interest rates... what's difficult? It is the price of borrowing money, not that complex to understand right? An on regards to fractional lending, it means that the bank can lend more money than it really has - Is there anything I am missing.

No, this is what interest rates mean, but there's more to say. Behind this simplified and broad definition, there's this fact: With interest rates, the national debt increases, which means you ought to work more for enjoying less. Abruptly, there's more money created without your permission and you continue working for the same salary while others enjoy the goods you've given to them, due to your ignorance.

Again, it's intentionally difficult to understand for the average person.

[oHnK]

Seriously, I do not think this is complex at all. You have monopoly money that can be printed and a system to get it back when it suits you. Usually, that means nearly never gets called back.

Interest rates... what's difficult? It is the price of borrowing money, not that complex to understand right? An on regards to fractional lending, it means that the bank can lend more money than it really has - Is there anything I am missing.

You what is difficult for me? That after knowing all this facts, there is still people that argue that "bitcoin is not as good a money"

Not everyone has the same level of understanding of the monetary system today, but it's true it's a bit late if people don't understand it on this forum.  Ok skip, actually what I think is that the current monetary system has plunged many people into not understanding that their assets are not doing well.  How can people believe in saving with billions of funds when the funds are processed by the bank and distributed to parties who want to owe for various things.  Currently, the monetary system is controlled by the media, so gossip in many countries due to the COVID-19 condition does not seem to pose any risk.  Even though the crypto system has not been tested to replace the current system, we are still optimistic in the future that BTC will still be able to answer various problems caused by fiat.  .

[o_e_l_e_o]

Seriously, I do not think this is complex at all.

There are a lot of basic misunderstandings which are widely held. Such as when you say printing money - most people believe the government or the Fed are responsible for the majority of new money being printed, when actually upwards of 90% is created by banks handing out loans. These loans are only indirectly controlled by the Fed, by them setting interest rates, reserve requirements, etc.

You also mention fractional lending. Most people believe that banks can only lend out x times the amount of money they have, depending on the reserve requirements set by the Fed. Not only are these reserve requirements 0% (and not 10%, as most people still think), but reserve requirements were never a restriction on how much banks can lend.

People talk about 1 or 2% pay rises, when really they should be talking about pay cuts, because they don't understand inflation. People don't understand the deficit, or the debt, or the debt ceiling.

The bottom line is easy to understand - your fiat is steadily worth less and less, your wages are steadily going down, your purchasing power is steadily eroding, all while bankers and politicians become richer. But the convoluted route that it takes to arrive at that conclusion is anything but simple.

[LUCKMCFLY]

Seriously, I do not think this is complex at all.

There are a lot of basic misunderstandings which are widely held. Such as when you say printing money - most people believe the government or the Fed are responsible for the majority of new money being printed, when actually upwards of 90% is created by banks handing out loans. These loans are only indirectly controlled by the Fed, by them setting interest rates, reserve requirements, etc.

You also mention fractional lending. Most people believe that banks can only lend out x times the amount of money they have, depending on the reserve requirements set by the Fed. Not only are these reserve requirements 0% (and not 10%, as most people still think), but reserve requirements were never a restriction on how much banks can lend.

People talk about 1 or 2% pay rises, when really they should be talking about pay cuts, because they don't understand inflation. People don't understand the deficit, or the debt, or the debt ceiling.

The bottom line is easy to understand - your fiat is steadily worth less and less, your wages are steadily going down, your purchasing power is steadily eroding, all while bankers and politicians become richer. But the convoluted route that it takes to arrive at that conclusion is anything but simple.

Due to the high lack of control of the FED, and of the government as such, then what management can it give to that organism if it allows politicians and banks to do that economic bleeding, because practically that is to steal with a license, where are the laws that protect people and their protection based on the most basic rights? The US economy is clearly down for a long time and that is what many skeptics had predicted since 2018, what about the government's actions? I understand that one of the most incorruptible countries was the USA, but apparently they have problems as big as those of third world countries, with the exception that the USA can still cover those gaps, but there will come a time when they will not be able to do so, and there it is. where a decline will come, which from what I see is very evident.

[BlackHatCoiner]

It's a good time to bump this.

The reserve requirement for US banks is still zero percent, since March 2020: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm. The same is 1% for EU banks: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2023/html/ecb.pr230727~7206e9aa48.en.html. This means that banks can eventually create as much money as they want. The easing of liquidity constraints was implemented to provide banks with greater flexibility during the pandemic. Now that the pandemic is over, what is the excuse for maintaining these reserve requirements?

[Yatsan]

Seriously, I do not think this is complex at all. You have monopoly money that can be printed and a system to get it back when it suits you. Usually, that means nearly never gets called back.

Interest rates... what's difficult? It is the price of borrowing money, not that complex to understand right? An on regards to fractional lending, it means that the bank can lend more money than it really has - Is there anything I am missing.

You what is difficult for me? That after knowing all this facts, there is still people that argue that "bitcoin is not as good a money"

Not everyone has the same level of understanding of the monetary system today, but it's true it's a bit late if people don't understand it on this forum.  Ok skip, actually what I think is that the current monetary system has plunged many people into not understanding that their assets are not doing well.  How can people believe in saving with billions of funds when the funds are processed by the bank and distributed to parties who want to owe for various things.  Currently, the monetary system is controlled by the media, so gossip in many countries due to the COVID-19 condition does not seem to pose any risk.  Even though the crypto system has not been tested to replace the current system, we are still optimistic in the future that BTC will still be able to answer various problems caused by fiat.  .

Yes and to add to this statement this gap can influence the question of who owns and controls assets, given banks actually control and dispense funds that are transparent to the everyday citizen. In any case, what the media says has a strong influence on perceptions of the budget, and the COVID pandemic reinforces that capability. Whereas cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC) do provide some potential to replace traditional fiat currencies with a decentralized alternative, more resilient to inflation, they come with their own uncertainties and also will not build on the existing money systems until it is completely replaced understand and will affect compliance.

[ashrafuali]

People in almost all regions know about cryptocurrency.  But with Bitcoin gaining so much popularity, it's as profitable as it is risky.  However, if cryptocurrency is legalized in all countries, its impact on the economy and monetary system could be dire:

  1. **As an alternative to currency**: Cryptocurrencies can play the role of an alternative currency, reducing pressure on global currencies and creating new opportunities for transactions.

  2. **Changes in the Financial System**: This can affect central banks and the banking system.  The absence of intermediaries for transactions through cryptocurrencies may reduce the role of banking institutions.

  3. **Regulation and Security**: New challenges may come with government regulation and security measures.  Cryptocurrencies operate on a distributed network, which can increase the risk of manipulation and fraud.

  4. **Economic Stability**: Cryptocurrency prices can be highly volatile, which can affect economic stability.  This could become a challenge for the economy in the long run.

  5. **Technological Development**: It can open doors for new technologies and innovations, which can be helpful for overall economic development.

  Here, if the legitimacy of cryptocurrencies is accepted, the implications for the economy and the country can be varied, both good and bad.  If accepted in all countries, then as the popularity of this cryptocurrency increases, its price will also increase.

[Alpha Marine]

You could drop the deficit by sooo much if you could tax the rich properly. And I do not mean like do not give them tax cuts or anything, which nobody should do anyway but also tax them higher in federal ways as well.

Rich people are actually taxed more. The US has seven income tax brackets ranging from 10% to 37% depending on how much you make. People who make over $560k annually pay 37%. There are also different brackets to include people who are single and married but paying taxes separately and people paying together. People earning up to $11k or thereabout pay the least taxes of 10%. So if you look at it people who earn more, pay way more taxes in this progressive system.
Whatever the amount of income you make you'll fall under one of 10, 12, 22, 24, 32, 35 or 37 per cent in tax.

Amazon paid zero federal taxes so many years, or so that is what I have been told at least, which means there must be so much tax that is gone just because they do not pay federal taxes, not just amazon but god knows how many companies. Plus when your stock portfolio goes up and you do not sell your stocks, you do not pay much tax I believe, or that is what I believe is the case in USA, I am not from there so these are all from what I read.

This is not true at all. It has been taken out of context to push several agendas. I agree that companies and people find different ways to avoid taxes, but in this particular case, it's incorrect.
This Forbes article explains it better

All these combined plus a LOT LESS military spending would mean that you would both get a shit ton of taxes coming, no breaks for the rich, and a lot less military spending equals ton of surplus let alone any deficit. It is actually "easy" for USA to not only have a tax surplus but also pay all their debt and have money left over.

The money the US spends on the military is too much. I understand why they have to spend that much, but we have to ask ourselves if it's really worth it. From a certain point of view, it's worth it. If their military is not the best in the world they would be bullied, and might even get overthrown as the world's most dominant economy and military power and that would mean they would miss out on a lot of advantages that they enjoy and that would see their economy drop even faster than anybody imagined.
Still, the US spends too much on their military when there are other sectors that the money can be focused on.

According to Statista the US spent $916 billion on their military in 2023. Thats ridiculous. That amount is 40% of the total amount spent by all the countries of the world on military in the same year.

[Upgrade00]

The reserve requirement for US banks is still zero percent, since March 2020:

Does the reserve ratio still matter much today since the FEDs pay interest on the reserve balances?

The easing of liquidity constraints was implemented to provide banks with greater flexibility during the pandemic. Now that the pandemic is over, what is the excuse for maintaining these reserve requirements?

The way I see it banks were encouraged for the longest to spend more money and push it back into circulation that it will take a long time to change. It's also more profitable for the banks and government if the ratio stays non existent.

[franky1]

got to laugh at this topic

blackhatcoiner thinks banks take peoples bank balance and give it out as loans
he really has no clue how the banking system works

how it really works is when bank customers make deposits their balance is the customers and remains as the customers bank balance..
.. the bank separately CALCULATES a total combined amount of all its customers balance and separately CREATES a new balance sheet of new money it can allocate out to loan applicants at a certain ratio

EG back when it was 10:90
for every $10m of bank deposits the bank can have a separate new money balance sheet it can allocate out of $90m in loans

in short banks CREATE NEW MONEY when dealing with loans. it does not take balance away from depositors balance

[laijsica]

Seriously, I do not think this is complex at all.

There are a lot of basic misunderstandings which are widely held. Such as when you say printing money - most people believe the government or the Fed are responsible for the majority of new money being printed, when actually upwards of 90% is created by banks handing out loans. These loans are only indirectly controlled by the Fed, by them setting interest rates, reserve requirements, etc.

You also mention fractional lending. Most people believe that banks can only lend out x times the amount of money they have, depending on the reserve requirements set by the Fed. Not only are these reserve requirements 0% (and not 10%, as most people still think), but reserve requirements were never a restriction on how much banks can lend.

People talk about 1 or 2% pay rises, when really they should be talking about pay cuts, because they don't understand inflation. People don't understand the deficit, or the debt, or the debt ceiling.

The bottom line is easy to understand - your fiat is steadily worth less and less, your wages are steadily going down, your purchasing power is steadily eroding, all while bankers and politicians become richer. But the convoluted route that it takes to arrive at that conclusion is anything but simple.

Due to the high lack of control of the FED, and of the government as such, then what management can it give to that organism if it allows politicians and banks to do that economic bleeding, because practically that is to steal with a license, where are the laws that protect people and their protection based on the most basic rights? The US economy is clearly down for a long time and that is what many skeptics had predicted since 2018, what about the government's actions? I understand that one of the most incorruptible countries was the USA, but apparently they have problems as big as those of third world countries, with the exception that the USA can still cover those gaps, but there will come a time when they will not be able to do so, and there it is. where a decline will come, which from what I see is very evident.

Not only the United States but most of the world's economies are full of their foreign debt and domestic debt relative to their gross wealth. The government of that country or the FED is forced to print extra currency to keep the wheels of their country's economy running. This method may help the economy for a while but it is a threat to the financial system of the country in the long run. If we try to understand the actual meaning of what @o_e_l_e_o said, the gist is that most of the measures taken by the FED to keep a country's financial institutions alive are not reaching the maximum people and most of the money is going into the pockets of politicians and giant businessman  and inflation is increasing but That amount of people are not getting wages increase and price of every commodity is increasing.