Credible Argument for Keeping the Fed

[Contumacious]

Ummmm....the Founders created our first central back under George Washington.

Guy if you are comparing the First Bank to the Federal Reserve we have now you have a very shallow knowledge of history. I suggest reading up on it.

I was responding to the claim the founders "opted for NO Central banking authority". Clearly they did opt for a central bank.

Clearly , you are delusional.

.

 

[Mr Liberty]

Ummmm....the Founders created our first central back under George Washington.

Guy if you are comparing the First Bank to the Federal Reserve we have now you have a very shallow knowledge of history. I suggest reading up on it.

I was responding to the claim the founders "opted for NO Central banking authority". Clearly they did opt for a central bank.

Some did (Hamilton) Some didn't (Jefferson) who said this:"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
I agree with Jefferson.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Guy if you are comparing the First Bank to the Federal Reserve we have now you have a very shallow knowledge of history. I suggest reading up on it.

I was responding to the claim the founders "opted for NO Central banking authority". Clearly they did opt for a central bank.

Clearly , you are delusional.

.

First Bank of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The First Bank was a bank chartered by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791.

Hmmmmm.....I'm pretty sure Washington was President in 1791

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Competing currencies? Great idea. How many should we have? What if your boss paid you with one but your mortgage was in another? How many separate bank accounts will you need?

Competing currencies would never happen, although it is not explicitly written in the Constitution, the way the Constitution is written makes it unconstitutional.

I'm not sure why it was even brought up what a dumb idea.

I remember holding a silver certificate, it was not a federal reserve note. I could exchange it for a silver dollar. Made of real silver, not the nickel copper money we use today.
We have had competing currency before.

Bank accounts, mortgages, wages, and anything else can easily be tracked in both federal reserve and silver money at their exchange rates.

The Federal Reserve system is fraud. All fractional lending is fraud. A farmer cannot sell more corn futures than he owns. If he did he would go to prison. Only a bank can lend money he doesn't possess. They make money out of thin air and you don't see anything wrong with this.

The TARP (our money) was given to the banks. What did they do with it? I have been looking but, I can't find the answer. Why don't we know?

I entered the work force in 1975 and long before I started, the Federal Reserve and their partner the Federal Government, have gradually and systematically robbed me and my countrymen of our economic liberty. They have created a soft tyranny that soon may become very hard. Liberty is not a spectrum. It doesn't have degrees or types. You either have it or you don't. We do not have economic liberty. We are not free. Whatever freedoms you think you have are illusionary. We are tax slaves. Don't believe me. Stop paying them.

Since the beginning of the financial crisis the FED has increased the money supply by 120% and they are not done. This is a housing bubble and it has not finished deflating. The banks will be in trouble again soon and will get another bailout. This will continue until the value of the dollar reaches zero and joins the continental.

The Federal Reserve system is fraud. All fractional lending is fraud. A farmer cannot sell more corn futures than he owns. If he did he would go to prison. Only a bank can lend money he doesn't possess.

You are mistaken. With a 10% reserve requirement, banks lend less than deposits, not more.

The TARP (our money) was given to the banks. What did they do with it?

They paid it back, at a profit to the Treasury.

 

[Contumacious]

I was responding to the claim the founders "opted for NO Central banking authority". Clearly they did opt for a central bank.

Clearly , you are delusional.

.

First Bank of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The First Bank was a bank chartered by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791.

Hmmmmm.....I'm pretty sure Washington was President in 1791

The First Bank was a bank chartered by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791. The charter was set for a 20-year expiration date. The Bank was created to handle the financial needs and requirements of the central government of the newly formed United States

the Bank, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, would:

be forbidden to buy government bonds.
have a mandatory rotation of directors.
neither issue notes nor incur debts beyond its actual capitalization

So, the Federal Reserve Board has nothing to do with the First Bank of the US. Their purpose was in no way similar.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Clearly , you are delusional.

.

First Bank of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The First Bank was a bank chartered by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791.

Hmmmmm.....I'm pretty sure Washington was President in 1791

The First Bank was a bank chartered by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791. The charter was set for a 20-year expiration date. The Bank was created to handle the financial needs and requirements of the central government of the newly formed United States

the Bank, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, would:

be forbidden to buy government bonds.
have a mandatory rotation of directors.
neither issue notes nor incur debts beyond its actual capitalization

So, the Federal Reserve Board has nothing to do with the First Bank of the US. Their purpose was in no way similar.

.

So, the Federal Reserve Board has nothing to do with the First Bank of the US. Their purpose was in no way similar.

Awesome. What does that have to do with the Founders setting up a Central Bank in 1791?

 

[CT9]

Guy if you are comparing the First Bank to the Federal Reserve we have now you have a very shallow knowledge of history. I suggest reading up on it.

I was responding to the claim the founders "opted for NO Central banking authority". Clearly they did opt for a central bank.

Some did (Hamilton) Some didn't (Jefferson) who said this:"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
I agree with Jefferson.

Yea well history proves Hamilton correct. This country would never have made it to the 19th century if it wasn't for him.

Jefferson hated the banks because he couldn't afford the Monticello even with his slaves. Jefferson was an outright hypocrite... I suggest if you haven't read the book Hamilton by Ron Chernow. Don't get indebted and you won't have a problem with the banks. I don't know the more I read about Jefferson, he was brilliant, but the more I can't stand him.

 

[CT9]

First Bank of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The First Bank was a bank chartered by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791.

Hmmmmm.....I'm pretty sure Washington was President in 1791

The First Bank was a bank chartered by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791. The charter was set for a 20-year expiration date. The Bank was created to handle the financial needs and requirements of the central government of the newly formed United States

the Bank, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, would:

be forbidden to buy government bonds.
have a mandatory rotation of directors.
neither issue notes nor incur debts beyond its actual capitalization

So, the Federal Reserve Board has nothing to do with the First Bank of the US. Their purpose was in no way similar.

.

So, the Federal Reserve Board has nothing to do with the First Bank of the US. Their purpose was in no way similar.

Awesome. What does that have to do with the Founders setting up a Central Bank in 1791?

You brought the founders into this justifying the Federal Reserve Board, it looks like you have just admitted you were wrong. The Federal Reserve today is nothing like the Central Bank in 1791... therefore the founders did not have a Federal Reserve.

 

[Contumacious]

First Bank of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The First Bank was a bank chartered by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791.

Hmmmmm.....I'm pretty sure Washington was President in 1791

The First Bank was a bank chartered by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791. The charter was set for a 20-year expiration date. The Bank was created to handle the financial needs and requirements of the central government of the newly formed United States

the Bank, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, would:

be forbidden to buy government bonds.
have a mandatory rotation of directors.
neither issue notes nor incur debts beyond its actual capitalization

So, the Federal Reserve Board has nothing to do with the First Bank of the US. Their purpose was in no way similar.

.

So, the Federal Reserve Board has nothing to do with the First Bank of the US. Their purpose was in no way similar.

Awesome. What does that have to do with the Founders setting up a Central Bank in 1791?

Pardon me , the Founders did not set a central bank. Hamilton , and a supreme court composed of state supremacists - federalists - decided to subvert the Constitution.

James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry opposed it.

.

 

[CT9]

^^If you were to think that way when it happened I understand. But history proved Hamilton correct, the bank did nothing but benefit the U.S. and its people. I find it astonishing people in this day and age could come off with such a displeasing tone in reference to the first bank of the U.S.

It was nothing like the one we have today.

 

[WatertheTree]

Competing currencies would never happen, although it is not explicitly written in the Constitution, the way the Constitution is written makes it unconstitutional.

I'm not sure why it was even brought up what a dumb idea.

I remember holding a silver certificate, it was not a federal reserve note. I could exchange it for a silver dollar. Made of real silver, not the nickel copper money we use today.
We have had competing currency before.

Bank accounts, mortgages, wages, and anything else can easily be tracked in both federal reserve and silver money at their exchange rates.

The Federal Reserve system is fraud. All fractional lending is fraud. A farmer cannot sell more corn futures than he owns. If he did he would go to prison. Only a bank can lend money he doesn't possess. They make money out of thin air and you don't see anything wrong with this.

The TARP (our money) was given to the banks. What did they do with it? I have been looking but, I can't find the answer. Why don't we know?

I entered the work force in 1975 and long before I started, the Federal Reserve and their partner the Federal Government, have gradually and systematically robbed me and my countrymen of our economic liberty. They have created a soft tyranny that soon may become very hard. Liberty is not a spectrum. It doesn't have degrees or types. You either have it or you don't. We do not have economic liberty. We are not free. Whatever freedoms you think you have are illusionary. We are tax slaves. Don't believe me. Stop paying them.

Since the beginning of the financial crisis the FED has increased the money supply by 120% and they are not done. This is a housing bubble and it has not finished deflating. The banks will be in trouble again soon and will get another bailout. This will continue until the value of the dollar reaches zero and joins the continental.

The Federal Reserve system is fraud. All fractional lending is fraud. A farmer cannot sell more corn futures than he owns. If he did he would go to prison. Only a bank can lend money he doesn't possess.

You are mistaken. With a 10% reserve requirement, banks lend less than deposits, not more.

The TARP (our money) was given to the banks. What did they do with it?

They paid it back, at a profit to the Treasury.

I told you guys this guy was a FUCKING DIPSHIT DUMBASS who doesnt know what he is talking about. You have no clue about monetary policy or where money comes from.

Hey dummy, go read a book or watch a documentary. We look forward to your support of ending the fed, once you put more in your head then playboy magazine and mtv.

 

[editec]

The Fed has a responsibility to maintain the value of the currency. The "dollar" is the stock in trade of the Fed and they no more want to create new dollars than does a corporation to issue new stock, because the net affect is to devalue or erode their stock in trade. If it weren't for the existence of the Fed, both monetary and fiscal policy would be in the province of the politicians, and if you think we can trust them to be responsible managers of both fiscal and monetary policy, I've got a bridge to sell you, because they have been fiscal failures.

The 2011 dollar is worth the same as $0.04 in 1913, the year the Fed was established. That's the opposite of maintaining the value of the dollar.

Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics

You're completely missing the point of monetary policy.

That expansion of specie reflects the expansion of goods and services on hand.

While we may have 50 times the amount of cash in ciculation, we also have 50 times (or more) the amount of wealth that those dollars represent.

Some of that "inflation" is appropriate to the inflating amount of wealth that has been generated since 1913.

Probably not all of it, of course, but a lot.

 

[editec]

The Fed has a responsibility to maintain the value of the currency. The "dollar" is the stock in trade of the Fed and they no more want to create new dollars than does a corporation to issue new stock, because the net affect is to devalue or erode their stock in trade. If it weren't for the existence of the Fed, both monetary and fiscal policy would be in the province of the politicians, and if you think we can trust them to be responsible managers of both fiscal and monetary policy, I've got a bridge to sell you, because they have been fiscal failures.

The 2011 dollar is worth the same as $0.04 in 1913, the year the Fed was established. That's the opposite of maintaining the value of the dollar.

Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Who cares. The immediate affect is meaningless. The only effect we feel is from loss of value of savings, but when inflation is high over a period of time growth is greater and interest bearing accounts offset losses to savings. Owners of land and homeowners benefit from inflation as the mortgage loan (if there is one) becomes smaller in comparioson to the resale value. I'd rather see some inflation rather than zero inflation. We're not in charge of control of the world economy, and a lot of our inflation comes from our participation in a world economy. Better fiscal management could overcome the problems we experience; poor fiscal management drives poor monetary policy.

You're right about one thing...inflation is the DEBTORS friend if those debts are set at FIXED RATES of interest.

And THAT actually would be one good approach to dealing with our current DEBT CRISES (AKA: OUR balance sheet depression) .

Of course, if we expand the amount of cash in ciculation by giving it to the very people who already have too much of it?

Then that's a contraindicated approach to dealing with this crises.

The NEW money needs to get into the hands of the CONSUMERS, NOT the PRODUCERS

That is WHY I keep saying that INCREASING TAXES (right now) to REDUCE THE NATIONAL DEBT is a BAD idea. (reduces the money supply)

That is ALSO why I say that reducing government spening (right now) is a bad idea, too. (reduces the money suypply AND put more people out of work too thus reducing the DEMAND side of the equasion)

Our economy is pooched because CAPITALISM inevitably seems to go though periods where too many people in debt, and too few people have FAR much money in comparison to the demand side.

DEMAND (worker's cash positions) becomes out of balance against SUPPLY (CAPITAL's cash positions aqnd ability to produce goods and servicesww).

And that is exactly the case right now.


Major corporations have plenty of money to expand.

Naturally they won't UNTIL they see a NEED to expand.(Who can blame them? Not me for sure)

And so that isn't going to happen until/unless the DEMAND SIDE (the workers and consumers) aren't drownding in DEBT.

RECAP?

In a system where monetary control is the system of the central banking system:

Q: How does one mitigate the pernicious effects of balance sheet debt?

A: By increasing the supply of MONEY and getting it into the hands of the DEBTOR CLASS.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The First Bank was a bank chartered by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791. The charter was set for a 20-year expiration date. The Bank was created to handle the financial needs and requirements of the central government of the newly formed United States

the Bank, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, would:

be forbidden to buy government bonds.
have a mandatory rotation of directors.
neither issue notes nor incur debts beyond its actual capitalization

So, the Federal Reserve Board has nothing to do with the First Bank of the US. Their purpose was in no way similar.

.

So, the Federal Reserve Board has nothing to do with the First Bank of the US. Their purpose was in no way similar.

Awesome. What does that have to do with the Founders setting up a Central Bank in 1791?

You brought the founders into this justifying the Federal Reserve Board, it looks like you have just admitted you were wrong. The Federal Reserve today is nothing like the Central Bank in 1791... therefore the founders did not have a Federal Reserve.

I made no claim as to the similarity between the First Bank of the US and the current Federal Reserve.
The original claim was that the Founders didn't want us to have a central bank.
The fact that the founders, in 1791, including President Washington, established a central bank, shows that claim to be wrong. Sorry.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The First Bank was a bank chartered by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791. The charter was set for a 20-year expiration date. The Bank was created to handle the financial needs and requirements of the central government of the newly formed United States

the Bank, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, would:

be forbidden to buy government bonds.
have a mandatory rotation of directors.
neither issue notes nor incur debts beyond its actual capitalization

So, the Federal Reserve Board has nothing to do with the First Bank of the US. Their purpose was in no way similar.

.

So, the Federal Reserve Board has nothing to do with the First Bank of the US. Their purpose was in no way similar.

Awesome. What does that have to do with the Founders setting up a Central Bank in 1791?

Pardon me , the Founders did not set a central bank. Hamilton , and a supreme court composed of state supremacists - federalists - decided to subvert the Constitution.

James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry opposed it.

.

Don't forget, President Washington signed the bill.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I remember holding a silver certificate, it was not a federal reserve note. I could exchange it for a silver dollar. Made of real silver, not the nickel copper money we use today.
We have had competing currency before.

Bank accounts, mortgages, wages, and anything else can easily be tracked in both federal reserve and silver money at their exchange rates.

The Federal Reserve system is fraud. All fractional lending is fraud. A farmer cannot sell more corn futures than he owns. If he did he would go to prison. Only a bank can lend money he doesn't possess. They make money out of thin air and you don't see anything wrong with this.

The TARP (our money) was given to the banks. What did they do with it? I have been looking but, I can't find the answer. Why don't we know?

I entered the work force in 1975 and long before I started, the Federal Reserve and their partner the Federal Government, have gradually and systematically robbed me and my countrymen of our economic liberty. They have created a soft tyranny that soon may become very hard. Liberty is not a spectrum. It doesn't have degrees or types. You either have it or you don't. We do not have economic liberty. We are not free. Whatever freedoms you think you have are illusionary. We are tax slaves. Don't believe me. Stop paying them.

Since the beginning of the financial crisis the FED has increased the money supply by 120% and they are not done. This is a housing bubble and it has not finished deflating. The banks will be in trouble again soon and will get another bailout. This will continue until the value of the dollar reaches zero and joins the continental.

The Federal Reserve system is fraud. All fractional lending is fraud. A farmer cannot sell more corn futures than he owns. If he did he would go to prison. Only a bank can lend money he doesn't possess.

You are mistaken. With a 10% reserve requirement, banks lend less than deposits, not more.

The TARP (our money) was given to the banks. What did they do with it?

They paid it back, at a profit to the Treasury.

I told you guys this guy was a FUCKING DIPSHIT DUMBASS who doesnt know what he is talking about. You have no clue about monetary policy or where money comes from.

Hey dummy, go read a book or watch a documentary. We look forward to your support of ending the fed, once you put more in your head then playboy magazine and mtv.

I'm laughing at your idiocy.

 

[Mr Liberty]

Competing currencies would never happen, although it is not explicitly written in the Constitution, the way the Constitution is written makes it unconstitutional.

I'm not sure why it was even brought up what a dumb idea.

I remember holding a silver certificate, it was not a federal reserve note. I could exchange it for a silver dollar. Made of real silver, not the nickel copper money we use today.
We have had competing currency before.

Bank accounts, mortgages, wages, and anything else can easily be tracked in both federal reserve and silver money at their exchange rates.

The Federal Reserve system is fraud. All fractional lending is fraud. A farmer cannot sell more corn futures than he owns. If he did he would go to prison. Only a bank can lend money he doesn't possess. They make money out of thin air and you don't see anything wrong with this.

The TARP (our money) was given to the banks. What did they do with it? I have been looking but, I can't find the answer. Why don't we know?

I entered the work force in 1975 and long before I started, the Federal Reserve and their partner the Federal Government, have gradually and systematically robbed me and my countrymen of our economic liberty. They have created a soft tyranny that soon may become very hard. Liberty is not a spectrum. It doesn't have degrees or types. You either have it or you don't. We do not have economic liberty. We are not free. Whatever freedoms you think you have are illusionary. We are tax slaves. Don't believe me. Stop paying them.

Since the beginning of the financial crisis the FED has increased the money supply by 120% and they are not done. This is a housing bubble and it has not finished deflating. The banks will be in trouble again soon and will get another bailout. This will continue until the value of the dollar reaches zero and joins the continental.

The Federal Reserve system is fraud. All fractional lending is fraud. A farmer cannot sell more corn futures than he owns. If he did he would go to prison. Only a bank can lend money he doesn't possess.

You are mistaken. With a 10% reserve requirement, banks lend less than deposits, not more.

The TARP (our money) was given to the banks. What did they do with it?

They paid it back, at a profit to the Treasury.

Try reading this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

Or if you have 10 min watch this:[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bEzOBBcEs8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bEzOBBcEs8[/ame]

If the lending stopped with one bank I would agree with you. This money is created out of thin air and the repeated lending by multiple banks increases the original deposit by nine times.
I will leave you with a statement by John Maynard Keynes in his book:The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919) " There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I remember holding a silver certificate, it was not a federal reserve note. I could exchange it for a silver dollar. Made of real silver, not the nickel copper money we use today.
We have had competing currency before.

Bank accounts, mortgages, wages, and anything else can easily be tracked in both federal reserve and silver money at their exchange rates.

The Federal Reserve system is fraud. All fractional lending is fraud. A farmer cannot sell more corn futures than he owns. If he did he would go to prison. Only a bank can lend money he doesn't possess. They make money out of thin air and you don't see anything wrong with this.

The TARP (our money) was given to the banks. What did they do with it? I have been looking but, I can't find the answer. Why don't we know?

I entered the work force in 1975 and long before I started, the Federal Reserve and their partner the Federal Government, have gradually and systematically robbed me and my countrymen of our economic liberty. They have created a soft tyranny that soon may become very hard. Liberty is not a spectrum. It doesn't have degrees or types. You either have it or you don't. We do not have economic liberty. We are not free. Whatever freedoms you think you have are illusionary. We are tax slaves. Don't believe me. Stop paying them.

Since the beginning of the financial crisis the FED has increased the money supply by 120% and they are not done. This is a housing bubble and it has not finished deflating. The banks will be in trouble again soon and will get another bailout. This will continue until the value of the dollar reaches zero and joins the continental.

The Federal Reserve system is fraud. All fractional lending is fraud. A farmer cannot sell more corn futures than he owns. If he did he would go to prison. Only a bank can lend money he doesn't possess.

You are mistaken. With a 10% reserve requirement, banks lend less than deposits, not more.

The TARP (our money) was given to the banks. What did they do with it?

They paid it back, at a profit to the Treasury.

Try reading this:Money supply - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or if you have 10 min watch this:[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bEzOBBcEs8]Federal Reserve Banking System Explained - YouTube[/ame]

If the lending stopped with one bank I would agree with you. This money is created out of thin air and the repeated lending by multiple banks increases the original deposit by nine times.
I will leave you with a statement by John Maynard Keynes in his book:The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919) " There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."

repeated lending by multiple banks increases the original deposit by nine times

Yes. Yet each bank lent less than deposits.

 

[Mr Liberty]

The Federal Reserve system is fraud. All fractional lending is fraud. A farmer cannot sell more corn futures than he owns. If he did he would go to prison. Only a bank can lend money he doesn't possess.

You are mistaken. With a 10% reserve requirement, banks lend less than deposits, not more.

The TARP (our money) was given to the banks. What did they do with it?

They paid it back, at a profit to the Treasury.

Try reading this:Money supply - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or if you have 10 min watch this:[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bEzOBBcEs8]Federal Reserve Banking System Explained - YouTube[/ame]

If the lending stopped with one bank I would agree with you. This money is created out of thin air and the repeated lending by multiple banks increases the original deposit by nine times.
I will leave you with a statement by John Maynard Keynes in his book:The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919) " There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."

repeated lending by multiple banks increases the original deposit by nine times

Yes. Yet each bank lent less than deposits.

Name Amount deposit Amount lent Reserve
John $100,000.00 $90,000.00 $10,000.00
Mary $90,000.00 $81,000.00 $9,000.00
George $81,000.00 $72,900.00 $8,100.00
Mike $72,900.00 $65,610.00 $7,290.00
Sue $65,610.00 $59,049.00 $6,561.00
Tom $59,049.00 $53,144.00 $5,904.90
Dick $53,144.00 $47,829.69 $5,314.40
Harry $47,829.69 $43,046.72 $4,782.97
Bess $43,046.72
Totals $512,579.41 $56,593.27

John 's deposit was money he made working in the economy. Everyone else obtained a loan and deposited the money in a different bank. As you see here a total of $512,579.41 was loan out. All created out of thin air. Each person in the example has their deposit available and an equal amount of debt. This is how bubbles are created. You don't see any thing wrong with this?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Try reading this:Money supply - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or if you have 10 min watch this:Federal Reserve Banking System Explained - YouTube

If the lending stopped with one bank I would agree with you. This money is created out of thin air and the repeated lending by multiple banks increases the original deposit by nine times.
I will leave you with a statement by John Maynard Keynes in his book:The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919) " There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."

repeated lending by multiple banks increases the original deposit by nine times

Yes. Yet each bank lent less than deposits.

Name Amount deposit Amount lent Reserve
John $100,000.00 $90,000.00 $10,000.00
Mary $90,000.00 $81,000.00 $9,000.00
George $81,000.00 $72,900.00 $8,100.00
Mike $72,900.00 $65,610.00 $7,290.00
Sue $65,610.00 $59,049.00 $6,561.00
Tom $59,049.00 $53,144.00 $5,904.90
Dick $53,144.00 $47,829.69 $5,314.40
Harry $47,829.69 $43,046.72 $4,782.97
Bess $43,046.72
Totals $512,579.41 $56,593.27

John 's deposit was money he made working in the economy. Everyone else obtained a loan and deposited the money in a different bank. As you see here a total of $512,579.41 was loan out. All created out of thin air. Each person in the example has their deposit available and an equal amount of debt. This is how bubbles are created. You don't see any thing wrong with this?

Excellent example.
9 deposits, totalling $612,579.41.
8 loans, totalling $512,579.41
9 reserve "deposits", totalling $100,000

You see every loan is less than the deposit that precedes it.

As you see here a total of $512,579.41 was loan out. All created out of thin air.

Yes, that was the loan total. Not created out of thin air, created from deposits.

Each person in the example has their deposit available and an equal amount of debt.

Yes. Except for John. Simple accounting.

You don't see any thing wrong with this?

I see nothing wrong with people depositing or borrowing money.
Do you see anything wrong with it?