Bill Still's Money Masters

He said the Fed isn't Federal and has no reserves.

Of course it's Federal, it was created by Congress and signed into law by the President.

As far as reserves, they hold $1.6 trillion in Treasuries, $940 billion in insured MBS and almost $450 billion in gold. I could go on, but do I really have to?

The Fed is not owned by the government. Congress doesn't control it. Nor can it audit its books. It is a banking cartel that is disguised as part of the federal government.

The Fed creates money from nothing then leans it out with interest. Thus, every dollar has debt associated with it.

If Bill has his way....the Treasury department would create the money then spend it into the market....debt free.

As far as the 100% reserves....In order to get the new Treasury money in circulation ... You would slowing supply the banks with cash and lower the fractal reserve amount until they have 100% reserve.

As far as the 100% reserves....

You never answered, why is 100% reserves better? And how would you borrow?

Banks will need to earn money to loan it out. Interest rate will need to raise a lot for that to happen.
It would insure better qualified creditors and would stop banks from creating money from nothing.
 
The Fed is not owned by the government. Congress doesn't control it. Nor can it audit its books. It is a banking cartel that is disguised as part of the federal government.

The Fed creates money from nothing then leans it out with interest. Thus, every dollar has debt associated with it.

If Bill has his way....the Treasury department would create the money then spend it into the market....debt free.

As far as the 100% reserves....In order to get the new Treasury money in circulation ... You would slowing supply the banks with cash and lower the fractal reserve amount until they have 100% reserve.

As far as the 100% reserves....

You never answered, why is 100% reserves better? And how would you borrow?

Banks will need to earn money to loan it out. Interest rate will need to raise a lot for that to happen.
It would insure better qualified creditors and would stop banks from creating money from nothing.

Interest rate will need to raise a lot for that to happen.

So you want much higher rates on loans and zero interest on deposits?

It would insure better qualified creditors

And it would crush the economy. How would that give us better qualified creditors?

and would stop banks from creating money from nothing.

But banks don't create money from nothing. You're probably getting that silly idea from guys like Bill Still.
 
As far as the 100% reserves....

You never answered, why is 100% reserves better? And how would you borrow?

Banks will need to earn money to loan it out. Interest rate will need to raise a lot for that to happen.
It would insure better qualified creditors and would stop banks from creating money from nothing.

Interest rate will need to raise a lot for that to happen.

So you want much higher rates on loans and zero interest on deposits?

It would insure better qualified creditors

And it would crush the economy. How would that give us better qualified creditors?

and would stop banks from creating money from nothing.

But banks don't create money from nothing. You're probably getting that silly idea from guys like Bill Still.

Like I said...I'm not a economist. I was asking for insight into our monetary system and our Central Bank.

Are you saying our current system is the best there is and there is no room for improvements?
 
Banks will need to earn money to loan it out. Interest rate will need to raise a lot for that to happen.
It would insure better qualified creditors and would stop banks from creating money from nothing.

Interest rate will need to raise a lot for that to happen.

So you want much higher rates on loans and zero interest on deposits?

It would insure better qualified creditors

And it would crush the economy. How would that give us better qualified creditors?

and would stop banks from creating money from nothing.

But banks don't create money from nothing. You're probably getting that silly idea from guys like Bill Still.

Like I said...I'm not a economist. I was asking for insight into our monetary system and our Central Bank.

Are you saying our current system is the best there is and there is no room for improvements?

No, I'm not saying there is no room for improvement.
I am saying Bill Still doesn't know what he's talking about.
I'm also saying 100% reserves is a silly, destructive idea.
 
As far as the 100% reserves....

You never answered, why is 100% reserves better? And how would you borrow?

Well, I'll answer it, since the question has been sitting here for a while.

The 100% reserve requirement only applies to demand depostis, things like checking and savings. The bank tells you that you can have 100% of your money in those accounts at any time, but yet (on the books) they've loaned out up to 90% of it (or more, actually), actually creating new money.

With 100% reserves on demand accounts, there would still be things called time deposits, like CDs, in which the understanding is you can't have the money for a set period of time while the banks loans out 100% of it. That's where they get the money to lend. And in that case, it's not inflationary because it's the "same" money in the account that's being lent out, not bookkeeping created money.

In our current system, the banks have the power to inflate assets with liberal loan policy and then deflate the assets with tight loan policy. For an example, please see the recent housing bubble and crash, preceeded by the 1980s housing bubble and crash, preceeded by the 1960s housing bubble and crash and on and on.

Right there is one of he biggest reasons why the fractional reserve banking system has to go.
 
As far as the 100% reserves....

You never answered, why is 100% reserves better? And how would you borrow?

Well, I'll answer it, since the question has been sitting here for a while.

The 100% reserve requirement only applies to demand depostis, things like checking and savings. The bank tells you that you can have 100% of your money in those accounts at any time, but yet (on the books) they've loaned out up to 90% of it (or more, actually), actually creating new money.

With 100% reserves on demand accounts, there would still be things called time deposits, like CDs, in which the understanding is you can't have the money for a set period of time while the banks loans out 100% of it. That's where they get the money to lend. And in that case, it's not inflationary because it's the "same" money in the account that's being lent out, not bookkeeping created money.

In our current system, the banks have the power to inflate assets with liberal loan policy and then deflate the assets with tight loan policy. For an example, please see the recent housing bubble and crash, preceeded by the 1980s housing bubble and crash, preceeded by the 1960s housing bubble and crash and on and on.

Right there is one of he biggest reasons why the fractional reserve banking system has to go.

The bank tells you that you can have 100% of your money in those accounts at any time, but yet (on the books) they've loaned out up to 90% of it (or more, actually), actually creating new money.

But you can have 100% of your money in those accounts.
So what problem do you imagine you're fixing?
And any loan actually creates new money, not just loans from time deposits.

And in that case, it's not inflationary because it's the "same" money in the account that's being lent out, not bookkeeping created money.

Loans from time deposits are just as inflationary as loans from demand deposits.

In our current system, the banks have the power to inflate assets with liberal loan policy and then deflate the assets with tight loan policy.

You can't have a liberal loan policy funded with CDs? That's funny.
 
As far as the 100% reserves....

You never answered, why is 100% reserves better? And how would you borrow?

Well, I'll answer it, since the question has been sitting here for a while.

The 100% reserve requirement only applies to demand depostis, things like checking and savings. The bank tells you that you can have 100% of your money in those accounts at any time, but yet (on the books) they've loaned out up to 90% of it (or more, actually), actually creating new money.

With 100% reserves on demand accounts, there would still be things called time deposits, like CDs, in which the understanding is you can't have the money for a set period of time while the banks loans out 100% of it. That's where they get the money to lend. And in that case, it's not inflationary because it's the "same" money in the account that's being lent out, not bookkeeping created money.

In our current system, the banks have the power to inflate assets with liberal loan policy and then deflate the assets with tight loan policy. For an example, please see the recent housing bubble and crash, preceeded by the 1980s housing bubble and crash, preceeded by the 1960s housing bubble and crash and on and on.

Right there is one of he biggest reasons why the fractional reserve banking system has to go.

The bank tells you that you can have 100% of your money in those accounts at any time, but yet (on the books) they've loaned out up to 90% of it (or more, actually), actually creating new money.

But you can have 100% of your money in those accounts.
So what problem do you imagine you're fixing?
And any loan actually creates new money, not just loans from time deposits.

And in that case, it's not inflationary because it's the "same" money in the account that's being lent out, not bookkeeping created money.

Loans from time deposits are just as inflationary as loans from demand deposits.

In our current system, the banks have the power to inflate assets with liberal loan policy and then deflate the assets with tight loan policy.

You can't have a liberal loan policy funded with CDs? That's funny.

You CAN have 100% of your money UNLESS more than 10% of the depositors want it at the same time. You SHOULD see something wrong with that. The problem you would be solving would be stopping fraud that could lead to a major meltdown, one like we have already seen in recent years. When the value of homes across the country go down so much that banks can't make up for the 75% or so they have of depositors money tied up in loans, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

Loans from timed deposits are not as inflationary as on demand deposits. The reason is simply that with a timed deposit the same money is not in two places at once.
 
Well, I'll answer it, since the question has been sitting here for a while.

The 100% reserve requirement only applies to demand depostis, things like checking and savings. The bank tells you that you can have 100% of your money in those accounts at any time, but yet (on the books) they've loaned out up to 90% of it (or more, actually), actually creating new money.

With 100% reserves on demand accounts, there would still be things called time deposits, like CDs, in which the understanding is you can't have the money for a set period of time while the banks loans out 100% of it. That's where they get the money to lend. And in that case, it's not inflationary because it's the "same" money in the account that's being lent out, not bookkeeping created money.

In our current system, the banks have the power to inflate assets with liberal loan policy and then deflate the assets with tight loan policy. For an example, please see the recent housing bubble and crash, preceeded by the 1980s housing bubble and crash, preceeded by the 1960s housing bubble and crash and on and on.

Right there is one of he biggest reasons why the fractional reserve banking system has to go.

The bank tells you that you can have 100% of your money in those accounts at any time, but yet (on the books) they've loaned out up to 90% of it (or more, actually), actually creating new money.

But you can have 100% of your money in those accounts.
So what problem do you imagine you're fixing?
And any loan actually creates new money, not just loans from time deposits.

And in that case, it's not inflationary because it's the "same" money in the account that's being lent out, not bookkeeping created money.

Loans from time deposits are just as inflationary as loans from demand deposits.

In our current system, the banks have the power to inflate assets with liberal loan policy and then deflate the assets with tight loan policy.

You can't have a liberal loan policy funded with CDs? That's funny.

You CAN have 100% of your money UNLESS more than 10% of the depositors want it at the same time. You SHOULD see something wrong with that. The problem you would be solving would be stopping fraud that could lead to a major meltdown, one like we have already seen in recent years. When the value of homes across the country go down so much that banks can't make up for the 75% or so they have of depositors money tied up in loans, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

Loans from timed deposits are not as inflationary as on demand deposits. The reason is simply that with a timed deposit the same money is not in two places at once.

You CAN have 100% of your money UNLESS more than 10% of the depositors want it at the same time. You SHOULD see something wrong with that.

What do you feel is wrong with that? Spell it out.

The problem you would be solving would be stopping fraud that could lead to a major meltdown

Only loaning CD deposits would stop fraud? You're not serious.

Loans from timed deposits are not as inflationary as on demand deposits.

That's funny everytime I hear that silly claim.

The reason is simply that with a timed deposit the same money is not in two places at once.

Says the guy who doesn't understand how they calculate money supply.
 
You CAN have 100% of your money UNLESS more than 10% of the depositors want it at the same time. You SHOULD see something wrong with that.

What do you feel is wrong with that? Spell it out.

The problem you would be solving would be stopping fraud that could lead to a major meltdown

Only loaning CD deposits would stop fraud? You're not serious.

Loans from timed deposits are not as inflationary as on demand deposits.

That's funny everytime I hear that silly claim.

The reason is simply that with a timed deposit the same money is not in two places at once.

Says the guy who doesn't understand how they calculate money supply.

What's wrong with loaning out 90% of bank deposits? Because if they are on demand accounts they have a written obligation to pay everyone their money if they want it, but they can't. That's why it's wrong and that is why it's fraud, loaning CD deposits isn't fraud. It's not going to stop fraud in general if that's what you thought I meant, if so you missed the point.

I'm glad you think it's funny but it's still true that on demand deposits are inflationary if at the same time the money is being loaned out. The money is two places at once regardless of how you would like to calculate money supply. You are making it too complicated, it is very clear: the money is both in someone's bank account and being loaned out therefor it is in two different places, it is like taking one dollar and turning it into two.
 
He said the Fed isn't Federal and has no reserves.

Of course it's Federal, it was created by Congress and signed into law by the President.

As far as reserves, they hold $1.6 trillion in Treasuries, $940 billion in insured MBS and almost $450 billion in gold. I could go on, but do I really have to?

The Fed is not owned by the government. Congress doesn't control it. Nor can it audit its books. It is a banking cartel that is disguised as part of the federal government.

The Fed creates money from nothing then leans it out with interest. Thus, every dollar has debt associated with it.

If Bill has his way....the Treasury department would create the money then spend it into the market....debt free.

As far as the 100% reserves....In order to get the new Treasury money in circulation ... You would slowing supply the banks with cash and lower the fractal reserve amount until they have 100% reserve.

The Fed is not owned by the government.

Sure it is.

Congress doesn't control it.

Not the day to day operations, but they created their dual mandate and could pass a law tomorrow giving Congress direct control, if they wanted.

Nor can it audit its books.

They're audited every year and release their balance sheet weekly.

The Fed creates money from nothing then leans it out with interest.

They buy bonds with it. So?

Thus, every dollar has debt associated with it.

They could create money from nothing and buy wheat or oil or gasoline with it. So what?

If Bill has his way....

Great idea, let the government fund spending with the printing press, what could go wrong?

As far as the 100% reserves....

Why is 100% reserves better? And how would you borrow?

Their open market operations are not audited. Without that, we're getting nothing.
 
You CAN have 100% of your money UNLESS more than 10% of the depositors want it at the same time. You SHOULD see something wrong with that.

What do you feel is wrong with that? Spell it out.

The problem you would be solving would be stopping fraud that could lead to a major meltdown

Only loaning CD deposits would stop fraud? You're not serious.

Loans from timed deposits are not as inflationary as on demand deposits.

That's funny everytime I hear that silly claim.

The reason is simply that with a timed deposit the same money is not in two places at once.

Says the guy who doesn't understand how they calculate money supply.

What's wrong with loaning out 90% of bank deposits? Because if they are on demand accounts they have a written obligation to pay everyone their money if they want it, but they can't. That's why it's wrong and that is why it's fraud, loaning CD deposits isn't fraud. It's not going to stop fraud in general if that's what you thought I meant, if so you missed the point.

I'm glad you think it's funny but it's still true that on demand deposits are inflationary if at the same time the money is being loaned out. The money is two places at once regardless of how you would like to calculate money supply. You are making it too complicated, it is very clear: the money is both in someone's bank account and being loaned out therefor it is in two different places, it is like taking one dollar and turning it into two.

That's why it's wrong and that is why it's fraud

When you deposit money in the bank, you don't know that they're going to loan some of it to other people? How old are you?

I'm glad you think it's funny but it's still true that on demand deposits are inflationary if at the same time the money is being loaned out. The money is two places at once

Exactly the same with time deposits.

regardless of how you would like to calculate money supply.


I'm calculating it the right way. If you did the same, you'd realize your error.

the money is both in someone's bank account and being loaned out therefor it is in two different places, it is like taking one dollar and turning it into two.

Any bank loan does the same, regardless of the source of the funds.
 
The Fed is not owned by the government. Congress doesn't control it. Nor can it audit its books. It is a banking cartel that is disguised as part of the federal government.

The Fed creates money from nothing then leans it out with interest. Thus, every dollar has debt associated with it.

If Bill has his way....the Treasury department would create the money then spend it into the market....debt free.

As far as the 100% reserves....In order to get the new Treasury money in circulation ... You would slowing supply the banks with cash and lower the fractal reserve amount until they have 100% reserve.

The Fed is not owned by the government.

Sure it is.

Congress doesn't control it.

Not the day to day operations, but they created their dual mandate and could pass a law tomorrow giving Congress direct control, if they wanted.

Nor can it audit its books.

They're audited every year and release their balance sheet weekly.

The Fed creates money from nothing then leans it out with interest.

They buy bonds with it. So?

Thus, every dollar has debt associated with it.

They could create money from nothing and buy wheat or oil or gasoline with it. So what?

If Bill has his way....

Great idea, let the government fund spending with the printing press, what could go wrong?

As far as the 100% reserves....

Why is 100% reserves better? And how would you borrow?

Their open market operations are not audited. Without that, we're getting nothing.

What do you want to know about the open market operations that they don't release?
 
The Fed is not owned by the government.

Sure it is.

Congress doesn't control it.

Not the day to day operations, but they created their dual mandate and could pass a law tomorrow giving Congress direct control, if they wanted.

Nor can it audit its books.

They're audited every year and release their balance sheet weekly.

The Fed creates money from nothing then leans it out with interest.

They buy bonds with it. So?

Thus, every dollar has debt associated with it.

They could create money from nothing and buy wheat or oil or gasoline with it. So what?

If Bill has his way....

Great idea, let the government fund spending with the printing press, what could go wrong?

As far as the 100% reserves....

Why is 100% reserves better? And how would you borrow?

Their open market operations are not audited. Without that, we're getting nothing.

What do you want to know about the open market operations that they don't release?

Everything. Open market operations and discount window operations are exempted in the audit.
 
Congress is supposed to oversee the Fed. They can't properly oversee the body they created if they don't have access to the most important information.

This is why the Fed is referred to as not being federal. They operate independently and with VERY little oversight, and they hide behind the excuse that their monetary policy would be compromised if certain information was made public.

Fuck that. The congress and the people have every right to know what is being done with their money.
 
Congress is supposed to oversee the Fed. They can't properly oversee the body they created if they don't have access to the most important information.

This is why the Fed is referred to as not being federal. They operate independently and with VERY little oversight, and they hide behind the excuse that their monetary policy would be compromised if certain information was made public.

Fuck that. The congress and the people have every right to know what is being done with their money.

Congress is supposed to oversee the Fed.

They do.

They can't properly oversee the body they created if they don't have access to the most important information.

If only Alan Grayson had more info, everything would be better. :cuckoo:
 
Congress is supposed to oversee the Fed. They can't properly oversee the body they created if they don't have access to the most important information.

This is why the Fed is referred to as not being federal. They operate independently and with VERY little oversight, and they hide behind the excuse that their monetary policy would be compromised if certain information was made public.

Fuck that. The congress and the people have every right to know what is being done with their money.

Congress is supposed to oversee the Fed.

They do.

They can't properly oversee the body they created if they don't have access to the most important information.

If only Alan Grayson had more info, everything would be better. :cuckoo:

Great over sight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Congress is supposed to oversee the Fed. They can't properly oversee the body they created if they don't have access to the most important information.

This is why the Fed is referred to as not being federal. They operate independently and with VERY little oversight, and they hide behind the excuse that their monetary policy would be compromised if certain information was made public.

Fuck that. The congress and the people have every right to know what is being done with their money.

Congress is supposed to oversee the Fed.

They do.

They can't properly oversee the body they created if they don't have access to the most important information.

If only Alan Grayson had more info, everything would be better. :cuckoo:

Great over sight.
[ame=http://youtu.be/CY8xz3Q7aig]Federal Reserve Lost 9 TRILLION Dollars. - YouTube[/ame]

This woman pretty clearly states what her job is. She oversees the operations of the Board of Governors. Grayson asks her about the trillion dollar expansion of OMOs, an operation of the FOMC, not the Board of Governors; and an unsubstantiated bloomberg report.

If you want to know about the expansion of the Fed's OMOs, just go to their fucking website; or ask an FOMC member during their testimony to congress. If you want to know about some mysterious $9 trillion off-balance sheet activity, specify what the fuck you're talking about. Seriously, what response can we expect anybody to have to "tell me about some sort of $9 trillion in lending I heard about from a friend of a friend of mine" other than "... huh?".
 
Congress is supposed to oversee the Fed. They can't properly oversee the body they created if they don't have access to the most important information.

This is why the Fed is referred to as not being federal. They operate independently and with VERY little oversight, and they hide behind the excuse that their monetary policy would be compromised if certain information was made public.

Fuck that. The congress and the people have every right to know what is being done with their money.

All information about monetary policy is public. The FOMC statement specifies an exact goal for the policy instrument, OMOs are conducted on the open market (hence Open Market Operations) with specified primary dealers, a list of which you can find on the Fed's website. Data on their balance sheet is updated daily and the minutes of the FOMC meeting are also released. Monetary policy is transparent.

What's not transparent, or at least what used to not be, was the identity of the recipients of certain discount window loans, though the exact quantity was placed on the balance sheet. The reason for this was that if other banks found out they were borrowing from the Fed, they'd assume that the liquidity issue was a solvency issue and freeze them out of all credit; a self fulfilling bank run, people expect that bank might become insolvent which causes a solvent back to become insolvent. That was half the reason the Fed was invented, to act as Lender of Last Resort, which doesn't work if you disclose those identities immediately.

This changed recently, now they have to disclose their identities. LoLR isn't a monetary policy action, by the way. It's a secured loan at interest and doesn't permanently add to the size of the monetary base. Anyway, if you ask me, just get rid of the whole LoLR thing. Or if people insist that it exist, have the Treasury do it instead of the Fed.
 

Forum List

Back
Top