Fractional reserve Youtube propaganda

[knight22]

Hillarious

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIHCAi1MBBA

[hodap]

Hillarious

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIHCAi1MBBA

The arguments from the video are sound.

[painlord2k]

Hillarious

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIHCAi1MBBA

The arguments from the video are sound.

Like a broken bell.

They lack to include the things the people working on rebuilding will not  be able to build or do.

Think, I break your legs and then a lot of people get to work in fixing them: nurses, surgeons, RX technicians, ...
Why not?

[zimmah]

How is this propaganda for fractional reserve?

[iluvpie60]

a lot of bs gets spread around. just make sure we all comment on these things and tell the truth. we cant be hostile or angry either or we come off as a bunch of a-holes hehe. we gotta be nice and explain things concisely.

[counter]

How is this propaganda for fractional reserve?

It paints a false picture of the positives and negatives of using a debt based system as apposed to one backed by real value.  They claim history shows people have lived a better way of life under the debt based system which is a generalization I believe to be false.  They don't take technological advances into account for an example.  Also they insist if you need a loan you'd also need a creditor and insurer and large fees to conduct business.  This video basically praises the failing system we have right now as the best way to operate a thriving economy which we all know is false and it hurts my head watching it.   

[cr1776]

Hillarious

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIHCAi1MBBA

The arguments from the video are sound.

Sound - if you missed what has gone on in the world the last 100 years with regard to the value of money, recessions and the like. 

[Capt Drake]

Fiaters gonna fiat.

[itsAj]

How is this propaganda for fractional reserve?

It paints a false picture of the positives and negatives of using a debt based system as apposed to one backed by real value.  They claim history shows people have lived a better way of life under the debt based system which is a generalization I believe to be false.  They don't take technological advances into account for an example.  Also they insist if you need a loan you'd also need a creditor and insurer and large fees to conduct business.  This video basically praises the failing system we have right now as the best way to operate a thriving economy which we all know is false and it hurts my head watching it.   

I wouldn't go as far to say there are no positives to using fractional reserves when risk is managed properly. Fractional reserves allows for the market to be tweaked so that growth does not get to be too high nor too low (negative). The central bank can manulipate both short term and long term (the effects of this are untested) interest rates to try to manage the economic growth rate. This will make the economy more stable and lead to a long term increase of standard of living.

[botany]

Fractional Reserve System is what prevented a lot of banks from going under during the last recession.
Just imagine, if banks had chosen just to hold 2-3% reserves, how many banks would have failed.

[EnfoncerQ2]

They are just perpetuating their status quo bullshit.

[wasserman99]

Fractional Reserve System is what prevented a lot of banks from going under during the last recession.
Just imagine, if banks had chosen just to hold 2-3% reserves, how many banks would have failed.

I think you have more or less contradicted yourself. Banks need to operate on a fractional reserve system to survive, as if they cannot leverage their own money they would not be able to make enough money to pay their expenses. However if banks are over-leveraged then they will have a much greater chance of failing when the economy turn sour as it did in 2008/9.

[botany]

Fractional Reserve System is what prevented a lot of banks from going under during the last recession.
Just imagine, if banks had chosen just to hold 2-3% reserves, how many banks would have failed.

I think you have more or less contradicted yourself. Banks need to operate on a fractional reserve system to survive, as if they cannot leverage their own money they would not be able to make enough money to pay their expenses. However if banks are over-leveraged then they will have a much greater chance of failing when the economy turn sour as it did in 2008/9.

Not really. The Fractional Reserve Requirement is what prevented banks from over-leveraging.
We should be thankful that there are standards in place.

[itsAj]

Fractional Reserve System is what prevented a lot of banks from going under during the last recession.
Just imagine, if banks had chosen just to hold 2-3% reserves, how many banks would have failed.

I think you have more or less contradicted yourself. Banks need to operate on a fractional reserve system to survive, as if they cannot leverage their own money they would not be able to make enough money to pay their expenses. However if banks are over-leveraged then they will have a much greater chance of failing when the economy turn sour as it did in 2008/9.

Not really. The Fractional Reserve Requirement is what prevented banks from over-leveraging.
We should be thankful that their are standards in place.

I am not sure what you are talking about. Part of the reason for the financial crisis is that some banks were massively over-leveraged. Some had in excess of 40 to 1 leverage.

[botany]

Fractional Reserve System is what prevented a lot of banks from going under during the last recession.
Just imagine, if banks had chosen just to hold 2-3% reserves, how many banks would have failed.

I think you have more or less contradicted yourself. Banks need to operate on a fractional reserve system to survive, as if they cannot leverage their own money they would not be able to make enough money to pay their expenses. However if banks are over-leveraged then they will have a much greater chance of failing when the economy turn sour as it did in 2008/9.

Not really. The Fractional Reserve Requirement is what prevented banks from over-leveraging.
We should be thankful that their are standards in place.

I am not sure what you are talking about. Part of the reason for the financial crisis is that some banks were massively over-leveraged. Some had in excess of 40 to 1 leverage.

I don't think you are talking about banks. Banks have stringent reserve requirements, partly because they hold deposits of people. Other financial institutions, which are not subject to stringent regulations, can have very high leverage.

[madken7777]

Fractional Reserve System is what prevented a lot of banks from going under during the last recession.
Just imagine, if banks had chosen just to hold 2-3% reserves, how many banks would have failed.

I think you have more or less contradicted yourself. Banks need to operate on a fractional reserve system to survive, as if they cannot leverage their own money they would not be able to make enough money to pay their expenses. However if banks are over-leveraged then they will have a much greater chance of failing when the economy turn sour as it did in 2008/9.

Not really. The Fractional Reserve Requirement is what prevented banks from over-leveraging.
We should be thankful that their are standards in place.

I am not sure what you are talking about. Part of the reason for the financial crisis is that some banks were massively over-leveraged. Some had in excess of 40 to 1 leverage.

I don't think you are talking about banks. Banks have stringent reserve requirements, partly because they hold deposits of people. Other financial institutions, which are not subject to stringent regulations, can have very high leverage.

Glass Steagall removed all the constraints during Clinton years. And Bush took a blame for all the ill-effect.

[itsAj]

Fractional Reserve System is what prevented a lot of banks from going under during the last recession.
Just imagine, if banks had chosen just to hold 2-3% reserves, how many banks would have failed.

I think you have more or less contradicted yourself. Banks need to operate on a fractional reserve system to survive, as if they cannot leverage their own money they would not be able to make enough money to pay their expenses. However if banks are over-leveraged then they will have a much greater chance of failing when the economy turn sour as it did in 2008/9.

Not really. The Fractional Reserve Requirement is what prevented banks from over-leveraging.
We should be thankful that their are standards in place.

I am not sure what you are talking about. Part of the reason for the financial crisis is that some banks were massively over-leveraged. Some had in excess of 40 to 1 leverage.

I don't think you are talking about banks. Banks have stringent reserve requirements, partly because they hold deposits of people. Other financial institutions, which are not subject to stringent regulations, can have very high leverage.

These other institutions were using a fractional reserve system. Even the banks that kept their leverage to no more then 10-1 failed (although now all of them did).

[titulng]

They are just perpetuating their status quo bullshit.

its not bullshit

[sidhujag]

Fractional Reserve System is what prevented a lot of banks from going under during the last recession.
Just imagine, if banks had chosen just to hold 2-3% reserves, how many banks would have failed.

I think you have more or less contradicted yourself. Banks need to operate on a fractional reserve system to survive, as if they cannot leverage their own money they would not be able to make enough money to pay their expenses. However if banks are over-leveraged then they will have a much greater chance of failing when the economy turn sour as it did in 2008/9.

Not really. The Fractional Reserve Requirement is what prevented banks from over-leveraging.
We should be thankful that their are standards in place.

I am not sure what you are talking about. Part of the reason for the financial crisis is that some banks were massively over-leveraged. Some had in excess of 40 to 1 leverage.

I don't think you are talking about banks. Banks have stringent reserve requirements, partly because they hold deposits of people. Other financial institutions, which are not subject to stringent regulations, can have very high leverage.

As a bank you have 100:1 leverage.. if everyone chooses the same bank, the money supply is inflated via lending by 99.9999:1

[Rassah]

"Now you may point out that during the later parts of our current industrial period, we stopped using commodity money, and have only been using credit money, and, therefore, the trend is wrong. However, stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalala" *waves hands around* Wooooo... Nothing to see here....."

I'm pretty sure the cost of that insurance premium will eventually rise up to be about the same as the opportunity cost. Cheap credit only means there's going to be MUCH more of it, and as the people keep borrowing, the premiums will go up until they reach the same level people were able to manage when opportunity cost was part of the interest. Then the insurer would be found not to have enough money to cover the credit default swaps (which is what these are), and crash. Like things did in 2008. But I guess the economy would be able to expand a whole hell of a lot more... on borrowed money... like it also has for the last 100 years... or something.