Central Banks Don't Create Money.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reserves are deposit balances with the central bank.

And vault cash.

Vault cash can be used to satisfy a reserve requirement

Yes, because vault cash is part of reserves. LOL!

A reporting institution may satisfy its reserve requirements by holding vault cash, by holding a reserve balance with its Federal Reserve Bank, or by electing to be a respondent and passing its required reserve balance through a correspondent institution.

Page 18

http://www.federalreserve.gov/reportforms/forms/FR_2900cu20120930_i.pdf

Are you done making me laugh yet?

- You are going to continue to be wrong about everything here.

Sometimes it's best to recognize that an argument isn't ideological, and you don't need to argue with it.

Sometimes it's best to recognize that an argument isn't ideological

I never said your errors were ideological.
I'm just showing you're wrong.

- Oh you are, are you?

Your understanding of this seems a little tangled.

So far you've claimed that a bank can turn an asset into a liability, which takes two credit entries - you keep denying that, but can't name any debit entry a bank could possibly make which would fit your little scenario.

You initially claimed that banks loaned deposits, but abandoned that when you were shown conclusively to be wrong.

You then decided that banks lend reserves, but now admit they can't, and are now falling back on two positions:

1) Some sort of mumbling musings that even though banks can't lend reserves, that the fact that reserves exist in the financial universe somehow means banks are lending them and

2) This new, twisted argument in which a federal regulation says that a reserve requirement can be met either with reserves or with something else means that the something else is actually reserves, which can most charitably be described as an abuse of both logic and the English language.

So how are you "proving me wrong", exactly? Is that like claiming that the bruises the other guy gave you prove you won the fight?

So far you've claimed that a bank can turn an asset into a liability,

No I didn't.

You initially claimed that banks loaned deposits, but abandoned that when you were shown conclusively to be wrong.

Banks can loan deposits, less the reserve requirement.
Never abandoned my position.

You then decided that banks lend reserves, but now admit they can't

Banks can lend reserves. Never abandoned my position.

This new, twisted argument in which a federal regulation says that a reserve requirement can be met either with reserves or with something else means that the something else is actually reserves

Code of Federal Regulations
Title 12 - Banks and Banking
Volume: 2Date: 2012-01-01Original Date: 2012-01-01Title: Section 204.5 - Maintenance of required reserves.Context: Title 12 - Banks and Banking. CHAPTER II - FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. SUBCHAPTER A - BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. PART 204 - RESERVE REQUIREMENTS OF DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS (REGULATION D).
§ 204.5 Maintenance of required reserves. (a)(1) A depository institution, a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank, and an Edge or Agreement corporation shall maintain required reserves in the form of vault cash and, if vault cash does not fully satisfy the institution's required reserves, in the form of a balance maintained (i) Directly with the Federal Reserve Bank in the Federal Reserve District in which the institution is located, or (ii) With a pass-through correspondent in accordance with § 204.5(d).

Maintenance of required reserves.

I'm torn. What is more credible, the actual Federal Regulation, or the clown who said.......

But the two kinds of money are not exchanged. Bank deposits never become central bank reserves or vice versa.

LOL!

- Vault cash satisfies the reserve requirement. It is NOT the same thing as balances at the central bank, which ARE reserves. That's what they are called.

§ 204.5 Maintenance of required reserves. (a)(1) A depository institution, a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank, and an Edge or Agreement corporation shall maintain required reserves in the form of vault cash

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reserves are deposit balances with the central bank.

And vault cash.

Vault cash can be used to satisfy a reserve requirement

Yes, because vault cash is part of reserves. LOL!

A reporting institution may satisfy its reserve requirements by holding vault cash, by holding a reserve balance with its Federal Reserve Bank, or by electing to be a respondent and passing its required reserve balance through a correspondent institution.

Page 18

http://www.federalreserve.gov/reportforms/forms/FR_2900cu20120930_i.pdf

Are you done making me laugh yet?

- Notice the wording, Todd. To satisfy the requirement you may hold vault cash *or* reserves.

Need I parse that further?

To satisfy the requirement you may hold vault cash *or* reserves.

To satisfy the reserve requirement, you may hold vault cash or a reserve balance at the Fed. Sounds like vault cash is counted as reserves.

- How does it sound like that?

You can satisfy the requirement with vault cash *or* reserves makes it extremely clear that they are not the same thing.

Vault cash is part of reserves.
- No, it isn't.

A reporting institution may satisfy its reserve requirements by holding vault cash, by holding a reserve balance with its Federal Reserve Bank, or by electing to be a respondent and passing its required reserve balance through a correspondent institution.
The Fed says you can satisfy reserve requirements with vault cash or a reserve balance at a Federal Reserve Bank.

So which is the more accurate claim?
Mine----Vault cash is part of reserves.
Your's----No, it isn't

- I'm guessing that English is a second language for you, amiright?

But the two kinds of money are not exchanged. Bank deposits never become central bank reserves or vice versa.

Hilarious!

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Notice the wording, Todd. To satisfy the requirement you may hold vault cash *or* reserves.

Need I parse that further?

To satisfy the requirement you may hold vault cash *or* reserves.

To satisfy the reserve requirement, you may hold vault cash or a reserve balance at the Fed. Sounds like vault cash is counted as reserves.

- How does it sound like that?

You can satisfy the requirement with vault cash *or* reserves makes it extremely clear that they are not the same thing.

Vault cash is part of reserves.
- No, it isn't.

A reporting institution may satisfy its reserve requirements by holding vault cash, by holding a reserve balance with its Federal Reserve Bank, or by electing to be a respondent and passing its required reserve balance through a correspondent institution.
The Fed says you can satisfy reserve requirements with vault cash or a reserve balance at a Federal Reserve Bank.

So which is the more accurate claim?
Mine----Vault cash is part of reserves.
Your's----No, it isn't

- I'm guessing that English is a second language for you, amiright?

But the two kinds of money are not exchanged. Bank deposits never become central bank reserves or vice versa.

Hilarious!

- And that's still correct.

Your argument is that based on your interpretation of a definition, cash and reserves are somehow interchangeable?

Get a clue.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- You are going to continue to be wrong about everything here.

Sometimes it's best to recognize that an argument isn't ideological, and you don't need to argue with it.

Sometimes it's best to recognize that an argument isn't ideological

I never said your errors were ideological.
I'm just showing you're wrong.

- Oh you are, are you?

Your understanding of this seems a little tangled.

So far you've claimed that a bank can turn an asset into a liability, which takes two credit entries - you keep denying that, but can't name any debit entry a bank could possibly make which would fit your little scenario.

You initially claimed that banks loaned deposits, but abandoned that when you were shown conclusively to be wrong.

You then decided that banks lend reserves, but now admit they can't, and are now falling back on two positions:

1) Some sort of mumbling musings that even though banks can't lend reserves, that the fact that reserves exist in the financial universe somehow means banks are lending them and

2) This new, twisted argument in which a federal regulation says that a reserve requirement can be met either with reserves or with something else means that the something else is actually reserves, which can most charitably be described as an abuse of both logic and the English language.

So how are you "proving me wrong", exactly? Is that like claiming that the bruises the other guy gave you prove you won the fight?

So far you've claimed that a bank can turn an asset into a liability,

No I didn't.

You initially claimed that banks loaned deposits, but abandoned that when you were shown conclusively to be wrong.

Banks can loan deposits, less the reserve requirement.
Never abandoned my position.

You then decided that banks lend reserves, but now admit they can't

Banks can lend reserves. Never abandoned my position.

This new, twisted argument in which a federal regulation says that a reserve requirement can be met either with reserves or with something else means that the something else is actually reserves

Code of Federal Regulations
Title 12 - Banks and Banking
Volume: 2Date: 2012-01-01Original Date: 2012-01-01Title: Section 204.5 - Maintenance of required reserves.Context: Title 12 - Banks and Banking. CHAPTER II - FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. SUBCHAPTER A - BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. PART 204 - RESERVE REQUIREMENTS OF DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS (REGULATION D).
§ 204.5 Maintenance of required reserves. (a)(1) A depository institution, a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank, and an Edge or Agreement corporation shall maintain required reserves in the form of vault cash and, if vault cash does not fully satisfy the institution's required reserves, in the form of a balance maintained (i) Directly with the Federal Reserve Bank in the Federal Reserve District in which the institution is located, or (ii) With a pass-through correspondent in accordance with § 204.5(d).

Maintenance of required reserves.

I'm torn. What is more credible, the actual Federal Regulation, or the clown who said.......

But the two kinds of money are not exchanged. Bank deposits never become central bank reserves or vice versa.

LOL!

- Vault cash satisfies the reserve requirement. It is NOT the same thing as balances at the central bank, which ARE reserves. That's what they are called.

§ 204.5 Maintenance of required reserves. (a)(1) A depository institution, a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank, and an Edge or Agreement corporation shall maintain required reserves in the form of vault cash

- Vault cash is still not reserves. If you read on, you will find that there is a distinct form of what are called "central bank reserves", which are the topic of discussion, which are only deposits at the central bank, and are never cash.

I think you need bigger font and more underlining. And throw in more cackles and guffaws - because you certainly don't have an argument.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Notice the wording, Todd. To satisfy the requirement you may hold vault cash *or* reserves.

Need I parse that further?

To satisfy the requirement you may hold vault cash *or* reserves.

To satisfy the reserve requirement, you may hold vault cash or a reserve balance at the Fed. Sounds like vault cash is counted as reserves.

- How does it sound like that?

You can satisfy the requirement with vault cash *or* reserves makes it extremely clear that they are not the same thing.

Vault cash is part of reserves.
- No, it isn't.

A reporting institution may satisfy its reserve requirements by holding vault cash, by holding a reserve balance with its Federal Reserve Bank, or by electing to be a respondent and passing its required reserve balance through a correspondent institution.
The Fed says you can satisfy reserve requirements with vault cash or a reserve balance at a Federal Reserve Bank.

So which is the more accurate claim?
Mine----Vault cash is part of reserves.
Your's----No, it isn't

- I'm guessing that English is a second language for you, amiright?

But the two kinds of money are not exchanged. Bank deposits never become central bank reserves or vice versa.

Hilarious!

- Show me anywhere that says they can be exchanged.

Anywhere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sometimes it's best to recognize that an argument isn't ideological

I never said your errors were ideological.
I'm just showing you're wrong.

- Oh you are, are you?

Your understanding of this seems a little tangled.

So far you've claimed that a bank can turn an asset into a liability, which takes two credit entries - you keep denying that, but can't name any debit entry a bank could possibly make which would fit your little scenario.

You initially claimed that banks loaned deposits, but abandoned that when you were shown conclusively to be wrong.

You then decided that banks lend reserves, but now admit they can't, and are now falling back on two positions:

1) Some sort of mumbling musings that even though banks can't lend reserves, that the fact that reserves exist in the financial universe somehow means banks are lending them and

2) This new, twisted argument in which a federal regulation says that a reserve requirement can be met either with reserves or with something else means that the something else is actually reserves, which can most charitably be described as an abuse of both logic and the English language.

So how are you "proving me wrong", exactly? Is that like claiming that the bruises the other guy gave you prove you won the fight?

So far you've claimed that a bank can turn an asset into a liability,

No I didn't.

You initially claimed that banks loaned deposits, but abandoned that when you were shown conclusively to be wrong.

Banks can loan deposits, less the reserve requirement.
Never abandoned my position.

You then decided that banks lend reserves, but now admit they can't

Banks can lend reserves. Never abandoned my position.

This new, twisted argument in which a federal regulation says that a reserve requirement can be met either with reserves or with something else means that the something else is actually reserves

Code of Federal Regulations
Title 12 - Banks and Banking
Volume: 2Date: 2012-01-01Original Date: 2012-01-01Title: Section 204.5 - Maintenance of required reserves.Context: Title 12 - Banks and Banking. CHAPTER II - FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. SUBCHAPTER A - BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. PART 204 - RESERVE REQUIREMENTS OF DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS (REGULATION D).
§ 204.5 Maintenance of required reserves. (a)(1) A depository institution, a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank, and an Edge or Agreement corporation shall maintain required reserves in the form of vault cash and, if vault cash does not fully satisfy the institution's required reserves, in the form of a balance maintained (i) Directly with the Federal Reserve Bank in the Federal Reserve District in which the institution is located, or (ii) With a pass-through correspondent in accordance with § 204.5(d).

Maintenance of required reserves.

I'm torn. What is more credible, the actual Federal Regulation, or the clown who said.......

But the two kinds of money are not exchanged. Bank deposits never become central bank reserves or vice versa.

LOL!

- Vault cash satisfies the reserve requirement. It is NOT the same thing as balances at the central bank, which ARE reserves. That's what they are called.

§ 204.5 Maintenance of required reserves. (a)(1) A depository institution, a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank, and an Edge or Agreement corporation shall maintain required reserves in the form of vault cash

- Vault cash is still not reserves. If you read on, you will find that there is a distinct form of what are called "central bank reserves", which are the topic of discussion, which are only deposits at the central bank, and are never cash.

I think you need bigger font and more underlining. And throw in more cackles and guffaws - because you certainly don't have an argument.

- Vault cash is still not reserves. If you read on, you will find that there is a distinct form of what are called "central bank reserves",

There are two forms of reserves, vault cash and a reserve balance at the Fed.

shall maintain required reserves in the form of vault cash

The Federal Regulation can't be any clearer.

But the two kinds of money are not exchanged. Bank deposits never become central bank reserves or vice versa.

Federal Reserve notes, net of Federal Reserve Bank holdings
Historically, Federal Reserve notes have been the largest liability on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. A U.S. depository institution, when it needs more currency to meet its customers' needs, asks a Reserve Bank to send it more Federal Reserve notes. The Reserve Bank ships the currency to the institution and debits the institution's Federal Reserve account by the amount shipped. Thus, an increase in Federal Reserve notes outside of the Reserve Banks is matched, in the first instance, by a reduction in the quantity of reserve balances that banks and other depository institutions hold in their Federal Reserve accounts. Similarly, a depository institution that finds that it has more Federal Reserve notes on hand than it needs to meet its customers' needs generally returns the extra currency to a Reserve Bank; the Reserve Bank credits the institution's account so the liability side of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet shows a reduction in Federal Reserve notes outstanding and a matching increase in reserve balances held by depository institutions.

FRB Federal Reserve liabilities - Credit and Liquidity Programs and the Balance Sheet

If I were to deposit $10 million in cash at my local bank, my cash would first increae their reserves, in the form of vault cash.
If they were to return the extra currency to a Reserve Bank, it would increase their reserve balance at the Fed.

So much for your claim from post #21.

Central Banks Don't Create Money.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Notice the wording, Todd. To satisfy the requirement you may hold vault cash *or* reserves.

Need I parse that further?

To satisfy the requirement you may hold vault cash *or* reserves.

To satisfy the reserve requirement, you may hold vault cash or a reserve balance at the Fed. Sounds like vault cash is counted as reserves.

- How does it sound like that?

You can satisfy the requirement with vault cash *or* reserves makes it extremely clear that they are not the same thing.

Vault cash is part of reserves.
- No, it isn't.

A reporting institution may satisfy its reserve requirements by holding vault cash, by holding a reserve balance with its Federal Reserve Bank, or by electing to be a respondent and passing its required reserve balance through a correspondent institution.
The Fed says you can satisfy reserve requirements with vault cash or a reserve balance at a Federal Reserve Bank.

So which is the more accurate claim?
Mine----Vault cash is part of reserves.
Your's----No, it isn't

- I'm guessing that English is a second language for you, amiright?

But the two kinds of money are not exchanged. Bank deposits never become central bank reserves or vice versa.

Hilarious!

- Look back at the OP. What is the central point?

The central point is that money is created by government spending and endogenously by bank lending. The central bank only creates reserves (it does not create cash, either). It creates one form of bank deposit, which is held by banks.

You're not arguing with any of that.

You've descended to a definitional argument which, even if you won it, would not redefine how the system works.

You've taken a vaporous position which misses the entire point, which you never addressed. Your attempts to address secondary points have now been abandoned by you, and you are reduced to preening, cackling, and prancing like a child over something that is dispositive of absolutely nothing. The less people have to say, the louder they shout - as you prove with your bold, large fonts and underlining.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Oh you are, are you?

Your understanding of this seems a little tangled.

So far you've claimed that a bank can turn an asset into a liability, which takes two credit entries - you keep denying that, but can't name any debit entry a bank could possibly make which would fit your little scenario.

You initially claimed that banks loaned deposits, but abandoned that when you were shown conclusively to be wrong.

You then decided that banks lend reserves, but now admit they can't, and are now falling back on two positions:

1) Some sort of mumbling musings that even though banks can't lend reserves, that the fact that reserves exist in the financial universe somehow means banks are lending them and

2) This new, twisted argument in which a federal regulation says that a reserve requirement can be met either with reserves or with something else means that the something else is actually reserves, which can most charitably be described as an abuse of both logic and the English language.

So how are you "proving me wrong", exactly? Is that like claiming that the bruises the other guy gave you prove you won the fight?

So far you've claimed that a bank can turn an asset into a liability,

No I didn't.

You initially claimed that banks loaned deposits, but abandoned that when you were shown conclusively to be wrong.

Banks can loan deposits, less the reserve requirement.
Never abandoned my position.

You then decided that banks lend reserves, but now admit they can't

Banks can lend reserves. Never abandoned my position.

This new, twisted argument in which a federal regulation says that a reserve requirement can be met either with reserves or with something else means that the something else is actually reserves

Code of Federal Regulations
Title 12 - Banks and Banking
Volume: 2Date: 2012-01-01Original Date: 2012-01-01Title: Section 204.5 - Maintenance of required reserves.Context: Title 12 - Banks and Banking. CHAPTER II - FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. SUBCHAPTER A - BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. PART 204 - RESERVE REQUIREMENTS OF DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS (REGULATION D).
§ 204.5 Maintenance of required reserves. (a)(1) A depository institution, a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank, and an Edge or Agreement corporation shall maintain required reserves in the form of vault cash and, if vault cash does not fully satisfy the institution's required reserves, in the form of a balance maintained (i) Directly with the Federal Reserve Bank in the Federal Reserve District in which the institution is located, or (ii) With a pass-through correspondent in accordance with § 204.5(d).

Maintenance of required reserves.

I'm torn. What is more credible, the actual Federal Regulation, or the clown who said.......

But the two kinds of money are not exchanged. Bank deposits never become central bank reserves or vice versa.

LOL!

- Vault cash satisfies the reserve requirement. It is NOT the same thing as balances at the central bank, which ARE reserves. That's what they are called.

§ 204.5 Maintenance of required reserves. (a)(1) A depository institution, a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank, and an Edge or Agreement corporation shall maintain required reserves in the form of vault cash

- Vault cash is still not reserves. If you read on, you will find that there is a distinct form of what are called "central bank reserves", which are the topic of discussion, which are only deposits at the central bank, and are never cash.

I think you need bigger font and more underlining. And throw in more cackles and guffaws - because you certainly don't have an argument.

- Vault cash is still not reserves. If you read on, you will find that there is a distinct form of what are called "central bank reserves",

There are two forms of reserves, vault cash and a reserve balance at the Fed.

shall maintain required reserves in the form of vault cash

The Federal Regulation can't be any clearer.

But the two kinds of money are not exchanged. Bank deposits never become central bank reserves or vice versa.

Federal Reserve notes, net of Federal Reserve Bank holdings
Historically, Federal Reserve notes have been the largest liability on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. A U.S. depository institution, when it needs more currency to meet its customers' needs, asks a Reserve Bank to send it more Federal Reserve notes. The Reserve Bank ships the currency to the institution and debits the institution's Federal Reserve account by the amount shipped. Thus, an increase in Federal Reserve notes outside of the Reserve Banks is matched, in the first instance, by a reduction in the quantity of reserve balances that banks and other depository institutions hold in their Federal Reserve accounts. Similarly, a depository institution that finds that it has more Federal Reserve notes on hand than it needs to meet its customers' needs generally returns the extra currency to a Reserve Bank; the Reserve Bank credits the institution's account so the liability side of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet shows a reduction in Federal Reserve notes outstanding and a matching increase in reserve balances held by depository institutions.

FRB Federal Reserve liabilities - Credit and Liquidity Programs and the Balance Sheet

If I were to deposit $10 million in cash at my local bank, my cash would first increae their reserves, in the form of vault cash.
If they were to return the extra currency to a Reserve Bank, it would increase their reserve balance at the Fed.

So much for your claim from post #21.

Central Banks Don't Create Money.

- I discussed the purchase of cash with reserves with you a long time ago in hopes that it wouldn't sieve through that colander of a mind of yours.

Central banks don't create cash.

Cash distribution is not a policy variable. The FRA says that banks may purchase cash only to satisfy "existing obligations".

That means they can restock their teller windows and ATM machines when they run low.

The creation of loans has nothing to do with cash. It is an act of balance sheet expansion, through the simultaneous creation of loans receivable and deposits, which is not dependent on a bank's possession of reserves, other deposits, or cash.

I'm done with you on this thread, because you are now going in circles on stuff that has already been addressed.

If you don't get it by now, you're hopeless. If your objective is to live in ignorance of how the banking system actually work, you are amazingly well equipped to accomplish that objective.

A wiser person than I once said it was a waste of time to throw pearls before swine.

And he was right.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So your argument is that when I deposit my paycheck, the bank is going to take my paycheck and lend it to someone?

No, my argument is the dollars I was paid can be lent to someone.

When is the last time you got a loan and the bank handed you someone else's paycheck?

I agree, your strawman has never happened to me before.

They have to CREATE a deposit from nothing.

I explained before that they can create offsetting assets and liabilities, simultaneously.
You probably didn't understand it, because it's accounting.

I'll explain the very simple way this works,

I'm waiting.

- The dollars you were paid? What dollars, Todd? You were given a check.

The bank can't lend the check.

The bank gets reserves for the check.

The bank can't lend reserves.

So what dollars magically appear that they can lend, Todd?

Todd, you need to start getting really specific.

The bottom line is you are absolutely clueless as to how this works.

You're right. This is accounting, something I have spent most of my life making a living at, and about which your understanding is notably hazy.

I would suggest that this discussion is over as far as I'm concerned.

If you have genuine questions, I'll answer them, but you've come to a gunfight with bare hands as far as any argument about the topic is concerned.

- The dollars you were paid? What dollars, Todd?

Yes, I was paid dollars. How are you paid? Euros? Yen?

You were given a check.

Yes. A check denominated in dollars.

The bank can't lend the check.

Who said they could? Where?

The bank gets reserves for the check.

Great, you got one right.

The bank can't lend reserves.

I guess one in a row is the best you can do.
Banks can absolutely lend reserves. They do it every day.

So what dollars magically appear that they can lend, Todd?

No dollars magically appeared.

This is accounting, something I have spent most of my life making a living at,

I hope your confusion about banking hasn't cost any of your clients any money.

I would suggest that this discussion is over as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, I wouldn't blame you for running away.
After I pointed out all your errors and mocked you relentlessly.
I'm surprised you lasted this long. Before you go.....

I'll explain the very simple way this works,

I'm still waiting.

- You may talk to somebody about that ego. Or maybe it's a reading comprehension problem. Or both.

Banks don't - cannot - lend out reserves. Reserves are a balance sheet account on the books of the Fed.

They can't be loaned.

https://www.kreditopferhilfe.net/docs/S_and_P__Repeat_After_Me_8_14_13.pdf

Banks don't - cannot - lend out reserves. Reserves are a balance sheet account on the books of the Fed.

They can't be loaned.

Page 7, of your own source.

Individual banks can try to "get rid of" their excess reserves by making new

loans, and, to the extent that the deposits so created leave their bank and, importantly, do not return as new deposits (the bigger the bank the less likely this condition is to hold), this will work for them.

Have any of your claims from the OP been correct yet?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A wiser person than I once said it was a waste of time to throw pearls before swine.

I agree, my refutation of your OP in my post #8 was all you were worth.

 

[oldfart]

Get a room!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't worry, I've smacked him around so badly, he won't be back.

 

[oldfart]

Don't worry, I've smacked him around so badly, he won't be back.

As an undergraduate I took courses in Money and Banking and Money and Financial Markets from a professor whose previous gig was running the Chicago Fed section that issues the official money supply numbers. He patiently took fifteen minutes arguing with a master's student who wanted to debate the definitions and statistics of the money supply. This thread has become deja vu all over again!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't worry, I've smacked him around so badly, he won't be back.

As an undergraduate I took courses in Money and Banking and Money and Financial Markets from a professor whose previous gig was running the Chicago Fed section that issues the official money supply numbers. He patiently took fifteen minutes arguing with a master's student who wanted to debate the definitions and statistics of the money supply. This thread has become deja vu all over again!

I don't mind educating the idiots.
This time, I failed.

 

[Rshermr]

Don't worry, I've smacked him around so badly, he won't be back.

As an undergraduate I took courses in Money and Banking and Money and Financial Markets from a professor whose previous gig was running the Chicago Fed section that issues the official money supply numbers. He patiently took fifteen minutes arguing with a master's student who wanted to debate the definitions and statistics of the money supply. This thread has become deja vu all over again!

I don't mind educating the idiots.
This time, I failed.

Sometimes it is a good idea to understand who the educator and student are. That, me boy, is where you failed. And bored us all to near death...........

 

[emilynghiem]

Reserves are deposit balances with the central bank.

And vault cash.

Vault cash can be used to satisfy a reserve requirement

Yes, because vault cash is part of reserves. LOL!

A reporting institution may satisfy its reserve requirements by holding vault cash, by holding a reserve balance with its Federal Reserve Bank, or by electing to be a respondent and passing its required reserve balance through a correspondent institution.

Page 18

http://www.federalreserve.gov/reportforms/forms/FR_2900cu20120930_i.pdf

Are you done making me laugh yet?

- You are going to continue to be wrong about everything here.

Sometimes it's best to recognize that an argument isn't ideological, and you don't need to argue with it.

Sometimes it's best to recognize that an argument isn't ideological

I never said your errors were ideological.
I'm just showing you're wrong.

- Oh you are, are you?

Your understanding of this seems a little tangled.

So far you've claimed that a bank can turn an asset into a liability, which takes two credit entries - you keep denying that, but can't name any debit entry a bank could possibly make which would fit your little scenario.

You initially claimed that banks loaned deposits, but abandoned that when you were shown conclusively to be wrong.

You then decided that banks lend reserves, but now admit they can't, and are now falling back on two positions:

1) Some sort of mumbling musings that even though banks can't lend reserves, that the fact that reserves exist in the financial universe somehow means banks are lending them and

2) This new, twisted argument in which a federal regulation says that a reserve requirement can be met either with reserves or with something else means that the something else is actually reserves, which can most charitably be described as an abuse of both logic and the English language.

So how are you "proving me wrong", exactly? Is that like claiming that the bruises the other guy gave you prove you won the fight?

So far you've claimed that a bank can turn an asset into a liability,

No I didn't.

You initially claimed that banks loaned deposits, but abandoned that when you were shown conclusively to be wrong.

Banks can loan deposits, less the reserve requirement.
Never abandoned my position.

You then decided that banks lend reserves, but now admit they can't

Banks can lend reserves. Never abandoned my position.

This new, twisted argument in which a federal regulation says that a reserve requirement can be met either with reserves or with something else means that the something else is actually reserves

Code of Federal Regulations
Title 12 - Banks and Banking
Volume: 2Date: 2012-01-01Original Date: 2012-01-01Title: Section 204.5 - Maintenance of required reserves.Context: Title 12 - Banks and Banking. CHAPTER II - FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. SUBCHAPTER A - BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. PART 204 - RESERVE REQUIREMENTS OF DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS (REGULATION D).
§ 204.5 Maintenance of required reserves. (a)(1) A depository institution, a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank, and an Edge or Agreement corporation shall maintain required reserves in the form of vault cash and, if vault cash does not fully satisfy the institution's required reserves, in the form of a balance maintained (i) Directly with the Federal Reserve Bank in the Federal Reserve District in which the institution is located, or (ii) With a pass-through correspondent in accordance with § 204.5(d).

Maintenance of required reserves.

I'm torn. What is more credible, the actual Federal Regulation, or the clown who said.......

But the two kinds of money are not exchanged. Bank deposits never become central bank reserves or vice versa.

LOL!

- Vault cash satisfies the reserve requirement. It is NOT the same thing as balances at the central bank, which ARE reserves. That's what they are called.

- So now you have admitted that everything I said in my OP was correct, and you're thinking that this argument over terms promises a big victory for you?

That's the basic problem with libertarians: they get bogged down in minutia, and have no ability to see the forest for the trees.

Now - go look back at my OP, and tell me which elements of it you have shown to be wrong.

The answer is: none.

... And if Abbie Hoffman were alive today, This is the point of the conversation
where he would toss a load of loose dollar bills over the crowd of Wall Street brokers trading away.
And watch them drop everything they are doing to grab whatever cold cash they can get their hands on....

Wall Street Protest, Circa 1967

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Let's forget about how banks create money

But that was topic of your OP???????? Why not cut the BS and tell us what your point is if you have any idea??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We the taxpayers should go on strike and refuse to pay the costs, crimes, debts and damages for anything we deem to be unauthorized, unlawful, unconstitutional, or conflicts of interest in spending federal dollars.

on strike?? I thought in a democracy we voted , debated, advocated and ran for office?