TURMEL: On Social Credit
The reason I
don't mind going into great detail about the
creation of money is that it's done in
such a way as to fool people
into believing that the banking system
which DOES lend out newly
created money is lending out depositors'
savings. How can those who
admit that it is creating money refuse
to link that to a tap and
continue to persist in the notion that
it operates like a piggy bank
reservoir?
To facilitate
discussion, I'm going to suggest that rather than
have the bank write a deposit to your
account, they give you a deposit
slip. When you make a loan from the bank,
you give the bank an IOU. I
think this will clear up a lot.
I'll actually
do the movements of the money and the IOUs and
deposit slips through the system using
$ for dollars, DS for Deposit
Slip and IOU for debt notes.
On Oct 28 1995,
jamcorp@world.std.com (Jonathan Priluck) wrote:
:>::Okay, suppose you have $100 and you
deposit it in the bank. The bank
:>::needs to, either by law or just to
cover demands for cash, to keep some
:>::of that in reserves, say, arbitrarily,
$10. It then loans out the
:>::remaining $90.
:
:O.K. So now the bank has $100 (which
you placed on deposit and so
:theoretically have access to)
PIGGY BANK
Deposits Interest(paid) Loans Paid
Depositor
|
|
|
|------------|-------------|-------------|--------------|
| |----|-------------|-------------|----|
|
DS100 |
| $100 RESERVOIR
| |
| |----|-------------|-------------|----|
|
|------------|-------------|-------------|--------------|
|
|
|
Withdrawals Expenses
Loans Made
So the piggy bank
has the 100 dollar bills and you have a deposit
slip for $100.
:>::The person loaned the $90
PIGGY BANK
Deposits Interest(paid) Loans Paid
Depositors
|
|
|
|--------|-------------|-------------|--------|
DS100 | |----|-------------|-------------|----|
| Borrower
|
| $10 RESERVOIR
IOU90 | |
$90
|
|----|-------------|-------------|----| |
|--------|-------------|-------------|--------|
|
|
|
Withdrawals Expenses
Loans Made
:>:: buys goods from someone else, who
deposits the $90 in the bank.
:
PIGGY BANK
Deposits Interest(paid) Loans Paid
Depositors
|
|
|
|--------|-------------|-------------|--------|
DS100 | |----|-------------|-------------|----|
|
DS90 | | $10
RESERVOIR IOU90 |
| Borrower
|
| $90
| | $0
|
|----|-------------|-------------|----| |
|--------|-------------|-------------|--------|
|
|
|
Withdrawals Expenses
Loans Made
:O.K. now the grocer who sold the
goods has $90, the person who spent the
:money has groceries but also owes the
bank $90 plus interest. Now
:theoretically the Grocer still has access
to the $90 he placed on deposit
:(and I still theoretically still have
acess to the initial $100 for a total
:of $190 "deposited" in the bank between
you and the grocer). Let's hope
:that you and the grocer don't need to
make big withdrawals becuase it get's
:worse.
:
The person who
borrowed the $90 out of your piggy bank replaces
it with his IOU for $90. The grocer then
deposits the $90 into the
piggy bank and gets a deposit slip for
$90.
It's true that
the original depositor has his deposit slip for
$100 and the grocer has deposit slip for
$90 but the piggy bank still
only holds $100 and the $90 IOU.
:>::The bank holds $9 to maintain cash
reserves, and loans out $81.
:
PIGGY BANK
Deposits Interest(paid) Loans Paid
Depositors
|
|
|
|--------|-------------|-------------|--------|
DS100 | |----|-------------|-------------|----|
|
DS 90 | | $10
RESERVOIR IOU90 |
| Borrower
|
| $ 9
IOU81 | |
$81
|
|----|-------------|-------------|----| |
|--------|-------------|-------------|--------|
|
|
|
Withdrawals Expenses
Loans Made
Again, the person
who borrowed the $81 out of your piggy bank
replaces it with his IOU for $81.
:>::And so on.
The borrower spends the $81 and that vendor deposits it:
Deposits Interest(paid) Loans Paid
Depositors
|
|
|
|--------|-------------|-------------|--------|
DS100 | |----|-------------|-------------|----|
|
DS 90 | | $10
RESERVOIR IOU90 |
|
DS 81 | | $ 9
IOU81 | | Borrower
|
| $81
| | $0
|
|----|-------------|-------------|----| |
|--------|-------------|-------------|--------|
|
|
|
Withdrawals Expenses
Loans Made
$8 is held in
reserves and the other $73 is loaned out in
exchange for another $73IOU
PIGGY BANK
Deposits Interest(paid) Loans Paid
Depositors
|
|
|
|--------|-------------|-------------|--------|
DS100 | |----|-------------|-------------|----|
|
DS 90 | | $10
RESERVOIR IOU90 |
|
DS 81 | | $ 9
IOU81 | | Borrower
|
| $ 8
IOU73 | |
$73
|
|----|-------------|-------------|----| |
|--------|-------------|-------------|--------|
|
|
|
Withdrawals Expenses
Loans Made
The borrower spends the $73 and that vendor deposits it:
Deposits Interest(paid) Loans Paid
Depositors
|
|
|
|--------|-------------|-------------|--------|
DS100 | |----|-------------|-------------|----|
|
DS 90 | | $10
RESERVOIR IOU90 |
|
DS 81 | | $ 9
IOU81 | |
DS 73 | | $ 8
IOU73 | |
|
| $73
| | Borrower
|
|----|-------------|-------------|----| |
$0
|--------|-------------|-------------|--------|
|
|
|
Withdrawals Expenses
Loans Made
:Exactly. Each time the loan is spent the
loan is still owed to the bank and
:the deposit from which the loan was made
is still owed to multiple
:investors. If you can see that
perhaps money and credit are one and the
:same then you ought to be able to see
the new money being created.
:
At this point,
the first depositor has his deposit slip for $100
and the savers have deposit slips for
$90, $81, and $73 but the piggy
bank still only holds $100 in cash and
the $90, $81 and $73 IOUs. I
see no creation of any new money here.
I see more deposit slips and
more IOUs but no new money.
:>: Though he's
again talking about the banks creating money, his
:>:example doesn't show any new money
being created.
:
:I see new money being created.
:
I don't. I see
more deposit slips and more IOUs but I haven't
seen the new money being created that
you say you see.
:Each time they make a loan they double
up on
:a deposit and they create a double up
on the lender who both owes that
:money and who has also spent the money,
another double call on the same
:dollars.
:
Note that he
calls it a double call on the same dollars. That
would indicate that there are no new dollars
and only the same dollars
that we're dealing with.
:Clearly after the first iteration of the
example if there is no
:new money then both the origional depositor
($100 that started everything)
:and the second depositor (the Grocer
who deposited the $90 from which the
:bank then made another loan) cannot both
withdraw their funds from the bank
:becuase together they have $190 on deposit
and the bank only has $100 (the
:$10 reserve plus the money on deposit).
:
Clearly, if the
banking system operated this way, after the money
keeps being reloaned up to the limit dependent
on the reserve ratio,
the first depositor has his deposit slip
for $100 and other depositors
have deposit slips for
(DS90 + DS81 + DS73 + DS66 + DS59
+ DS53 +...)= $900 new deposit slips
the piggy bank
still only holds $100 in cash and the
(IOU90 +IOU81 +IOU73 +IOU66 +IOU59 +IOU53
+...)= $900 new IOU slips
At the limit of the process:
Deposits Interest(paid) Loans Paid
Depositors
|
|
|
|--------|-------------|-------------|--------|
DS100 | |----|-------------|-------------|----|
|
DS 90 | | $10
RESERVOIR IOU90 |
|
DS 81 | | $ 9
IOU81 | |
DS 73 | | $ 8
IOU73 | |
DS 66 | | $ 7
IOU66 | |
DS 59 | | $ 7
IOU59 | |
DS 53 | | $ 6
IOU53 | |
| |
| |
| | |
| |
|------
------ | |
| |
| $100
IOU900 | | Borrower
| |
|----|-------------|-------------|----| |
$0
----- |--------|-------------|-------------|--------|
DS1000
|
|
|
Withdrawals Expenses
Loans Made
Lots of new Deposit
Slips and IOU slips but no new money, only
the original 100 dollars in your piggy
bank and $900 in IOUs matching
1,000 in Deposit slips.
Get yourself
a piggy bank and 100 dollars and no matter how many
times you relend and reborrow that 100
dollars, you'll find that you
don't end up with more money. If your
piggy bank does manage to end up
with more than 100 dollars, the government
will certainly be knocking
on your door.
:If you catch them in the middle of
:the cycle right after they have loaned
out the next $81 then it's even
:worse. There is only $19 actually
in the bank to cover $190 in deposits
:(notice this is 10%, which is no coincidence).
If you can't see new money
:than it can only be becuase you don't
want to see it. In which case
:nobody can help you to see that which
you do not want to see.
:
It's not that
I don't want to see the new money beyond
the original 100 dollars which you see,
it's that all I've been shown
is new deposit slips and new IOUs. No
new money.
:>: I don't see
more than the original $100 in this analysis. Does
:>:anyone else.
:
:I guess the answer is yes, I see more
than the one hundred. I am counting
:not only the money that actually *is*
in the bank but also the money that is
:*supposed* to be in the bank from the
perspective of the *depositors*.
:
That explains
it. I count as money only the money that actually
*is* in the bank and don't count money
that is *supposed* to be in the
bank since the model shows that the money
that you think is *supposed*
to be in the bank really isn't. Just because
you think that the new
money is supposed to be in the bank doesn't
make it so.
:Furthermore I see new money being created
in the form of debt which
:the bank beleives the loan recipient
can repay even though the
:dollars to repay that loan are already
spent and redeposited by
:whoever sold him goods and services.
I see new money sprourting up at
:every turn.
:
I've seen IOUs
being created in the form of debt which the bank
believes the loan recipient can repay.
I've seen IOUs and Deposit
Slips sprouting up at every turn but I
still haven't seen more than
the original $100.
:>:The $100 goes into the piggy bank. $10
goes to reserves
:>:and $90 is loaned out. That still
adds up to $100.
:
:Except how much money is supposed to
be on deposit?
:
Yes, your piggy
bank will have $900 more in Deposits Slips than
when you started but you will still only
have your original $100 and
$900 in IOUs.
:I guess I'm finished, the answer is yes,
I see money being created.
:I don't know if it really matters.
But yes I see it.
:
You can't really
be seeing money created in your piggy bank. Even
though no depositor can get more than
$100 out of it at a time, you
want to see because you know it's true
that everyone DOES have access
to their deposits all the time.
The flaw in your
explanation of how the banking system does lend
out new money is that you don't have a
tap. My model with the tap
works exactly the way you think it does
and I find it hard to
understand that you insist the bank creates
new loans and you won't
accept that it doesn't come out depositors
savings.
I'll now go through
exactly the same process with my blueprint
and you'll notice that from the exterior
point of view, it looks
exactly like your piggy bank except that
it does create new money:
:O.K. So now the bank has $100 (which
you placed on deposit and so
:theoretically have access to)
FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANK
Deposits Interest(in) Loan Payments
Depositors
|
|
|
DS100 |--------|-------------|------------|---------|
|
|
| |---|---|
|
|
|----|-------------|----| | DRAIN |
|
|
| $100
| |-------| |
|
| RESERVOIR
|
|
|
|
| |-------| |
|
|----|-------------|----| | TAP |
|
|
|
| |---|---|
|
|--------|-------------|------------|---------|
|
| |
Withdrawals Bank Expenses Loans Out
:>::The person loaned the $90
FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANK
Deposits Interest(in) Loan Payments
Depositors
|
|
|
DS100 |--------|-------------|------------|---------|
|
|
| |---|---|
|
|
|----|-------------|----| | DRAIN |
| Borrower
|
| $10 $90 IOU90 |
|-------| |
$90
|
| RESERVOIR
|
| |
|
|
| |-------| |
|
|
|----|-------------|----| | TAP |
| |
|
|
| |---|---|
| |
|--------|-------------|------------|---------|
|
|
| |-------------------|
Withdrawals Bank Expenses Loans Out
The borrower received
new money from the tap and the depositor's
$100 had 10 dollars held in reserve by
the central bank and the other
$90 held by the bank. In this way, the
depositor still has use of his
$100 if he wishes even though the borrower
is also using his $90 in
the economy.
:>:: buys goods from someone else, who
deposits the $90 in the bank.
:
|----------------------------------------------|
| FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANK
|
Deposits Interest(in) Loan Payments
|
Depositors
|
|
|
|
|--------|-------------|------------|---------|
|
|
|
| |---|---|
| |
DS100 | |----|-------------|----|
| DRAIN | |
|
DS90 | | $10
$90 IOU90 | |-------|
| |
|
| $90 RESERVOIR |
| |
|
|
| |-------| |
|
|
|----|-------------|----| | TAP |
| Borrower
|
|
| |---|---|
| $0
|--------|-------------|------------|---------|
|
| |
Withdrawals Bank Expenses Loans Out
:O.K. now the gorcer who sold the
goods has $90, the person who spent the
:money has groceries but also owes the
bank $90 plus interest. Now
:theoretically the Grocer still has access
to the $90 he placed on deposit
:(and I still theoretically still have
acess to the initial $100 for a total
:of $190 "deposited" in the bank between
you and the grocer). Let's hope
:that you and the grocer don't need to
make big withdrawals becuase it get's
:worse.
:>::The bank holds $9 to maintain cash
reserves, and loans out $81.
:
FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANK
Deposits Interest(in) Loan Payments
Depositors
|
|
|
|--------|-------------|------------|---------|
|
|
| |---|---|
|
|
|----|-------------|----| | DRAIN |
|
DS100 | | $10
$90 IOU90 | |-------|
| Borrower
DS90 | | $9
$81 IOU81 |
| $81
|
| RESERVOIR
|
| |
|
|
| |-------| |
|
|
|----|-------------|----| | TAP |
| |
|
|
| |---|---|
| |
|--------|-------------|------------|---------|
|
|
| |-------------------|
Withdrawals Bank Expenses Loans Out
What you say is
still true that both you have access to your new
loan and the grocer has access to his
old savings. Under a fractional
reserve system, you can both make total
withdrawals.
:>::The bank holds $9 to maintain cash
reserves, and loans out $81.
:
FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANK
Deposits Interest(in) Loan Payments
Depositors
|
|
|
|--------|-------------|------------|---------|
|
|
| |---|---|
|
|
|----|-------------|----| | DRAIN |
|
DS100 | | $10
$90 IOU90 | |-------|
| Borrower
DS90 | | $9
$81 IOU81 |
| $81
|
| RESERVOIR
|
| |
|
|
| |-------| |
|
|
|----|-------------|----| | TAP |
| |
|
|
| |---|---|
| |
|--------|-------------|------------|---------|
|
|
| |-------------------|
Withdrawals Bank Expenses Loans Out
Again, the person
who borrowed the $81 out of of a fractional
reserve system is replacing it with his
IOU for $81.
:>::And so on.
At the limit of the process:
FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANK
Deposits Interest(in) Loan Payments
Depositors
|
|
|
|--------|-------------|------------|---------|
|
|
| |---|---|
|
|
|----|-------------|----| | DRAIN |
|
DS100 | | $10
$90 IOU90 | |-------|
| Borrower
DS 90 | | $9
$81 IOU81 |
| $0
DS 81 | | $8
$73 IOU73 |
|
DS 73 | | $7
$66 IOU66 |
|
DS 66 | | $7
$59 IOU59 |
|
DS 59 | | |
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| |
|
| |
|---- ----- ----- |
|
------ | |$100 $900
IOU900 |
|
DS1000 | |
|
|
|
| RESERVOIR
| |-------| |
|
|----|-------------|----| | TAP |
|
|
|
| |---|---|
|
|--------|-------------|------------|---------|
|
| |
Withdrawals Bank Expenses Loans Out
So with the original
$100, the fractional reserve also allowed
for total deposits to be $1000 and for
total IOUs to be 900 except
that new money was actually issued for
those IOUs permitting all
depositors to have access to their real
money, not *supposed* money,
at the same time.
It's a fascinatingly
tricky mechanism but it's purpose is to
foster the impression that borrowers are
getting savers' deposits and
that savers therefore deserve to get interest
for lending borrowers
their money.
This may have
surely been true when banking did operate like a
piggy bank without the creation of new
money but because it certainly
is not true now that banks operate more
like a casino banks issuing
new liquidity. The matching of loans to
deposits successfully hides
the fact that no one is giving up the
current use of their money since
it is new money being loaned out and therefore
no one is being
deprived of the use of their money.
I can only stress
that if a bank creates new money, it must have
tap and if it destroys money when loans
are paid, it must have a sink.
No model that creates liquidity can be
complete without a source and a
sink.
---
Subject: Re: TURMEL: On Social Credit
On Oct 29 1995, huyert@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:
:I mention that my time constraint is becoming
binding, and Turmel
:responds with an exceptionally long post,
digging up virtually everything
:that he and I have ever exchanged.
Included are a number of points
:which I had explicitly conceded in previous
posts, and should, as a
:result, be closed.
:
I don't remember
you conceding many posts so perhaps you could
tell me which points you made that you
now concede were wrong. Also,
you are the one who earlier wrote that
I was ducking your points.
:If I was cynical, I would suspect that
Turmel is
:trying to use my time constraint so that
I will leave this thread,
:thereby allowing him to claim "victory".
:
No, I'm trying
to get you to admit that the plumbing model I've
provided for the creation of money is
correct. I'm only claiming
victory because you can't rebut one of
my technical arguments and have
to resort to suggesting my arguments are
handled in some of your
books as your only way out. With 29 different
points of contention, if
you can't rebut even one, why should I
infer one of your books can
rebut even one either? After all, your
performance is a function of
those books.
:
Turmel's repeated attacks on issues that I have already noted
:were poorly explained by me are fascinating.
It is as if I have somehow
:become the total personification of all
economists, their
:super-spokes-person. My head swells
with all of this ego!
The reason I chose
pick your arguments apart in detail is the
fact you made statements like:
:Actually, this social credit b.s. not
only does not belong on such groups
:as sci.engr but does not belong on any
sci.* newsgroup. Instead, it
:should more appropriately be sent to
nonesense.* or fiction.*
:To claim that there is any scientific
principle involved requires the
:premise that the foundation of the analysis
is rational. Notwithstanding
:all of the mystical differential equations
that Mr. Turmel lusts over,
:his arguments do not follow logical premises.
:
In summary, bullshit + LaPlace Transforms = bullshit
:
bullshit + real analysis = bullshit
:
bullshit + any kind of math = bullshit
:This is perhaps why Mr. Turmel has never
replied to any of my posts which
:demonstrate, very simply, using basic
and straightforward undergraduate
:level economics, why his social credit
theories are of no value.
:
However, rather than suggesting to Mr. Turmel that he should stop
:spouting such blatantly wrong information
on the 'net, I would like to
:encourage him to continue to do so.
Mr. Turmel's other profession is an
:engineer. If he applies the same
diligence to engineering as he does to
:his social credit philosophies [sic],
then I sure as hell do not wish to
:cross over any bridge, etc., which he
might have had a hand in designing,
:on the likelihood that it falls down.
By all means, please sputter away
:on this forum; it is far safer than building
a bridge with the assumption
:that sand has the same consistency as
concrete.
How does it feel
having to concede to someone making arguments
you're described as:
"more appropriate
to nonsense.* or fiction.*"
"mystical differential
equations"
"do not follow
logical premises"
"bullshit, bullshit,
bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit"
"theories of
no value"
"spouting such
blatantly wrong information"
"not cross over
any bridge he had a hand in designing"
"sputter away"
"that sand has
the same consistency as concrete"
This sure represents
a lot of insults for someone you had to
concede several points to.
:Apparently,
:if I explain something poorly, this means
that the entire economic theory
:is at fault. I would advance the
alternate hypothesis that I am simply a
:lousy instructor, and that, should this
ever be an issue, people should
:be warned away from any class that I
might be teaching!
:
It wasn't that
you explained anything poorly. It's that you were
explaining things which you say you later
explicitly conceded were
wrong.
: I had charitably
assumed that the reason why Turmel was not
:understanding the points I was raising
was because I was a poor explainer
:and because the time constraint was further
limiting what marginal
:ability I may have.
:
You're still
leaving the impression that you haven't conceded
that your facts were wrong.
:I thus suggested that, since I was not
actually
:providing any original theory or explanation,
that Turmel, since he
:apparently has the time to do so, should
read one of the textbooks on
:economics, in which the points I was
trying to make are explained in a
:much fuller and clearer manner.
Since there is both a University of
:Ottawa and Carleton U in Ottawa which
both have econ depts, it seemed
:reasonable to assume that texts on economics
were available in libraries
:within close access for Turmel.
:
Why should I
go read books by guys who don't even have a
blueprint of the system they're discussing?
Once you do have the
blueprint, the monetary token system becomes
rather trivial.
:
In fact, Turmel's replies clearly indicate that he is entirely
:unfamiliar with the economics literature
available or even literature in
:the social sciences where terminology
is standard.
:
That is untrue.
I have read many of the standard economic texts
which is one reason I've been able to
handle each and every "but"
you're tried to present.
:Perhaps I am being
:naive in having expected that someone
would challenge an entire science
:as well as the paradigm on which society
operates without having even
:looked at the most basic literature available.
:
And it is the
fact that I am challenging an entire (pseudo)
science that seems to offend you. Why
is it so hard to accept that an
engineer using systems engineering modelling
techniques can't have
come up with the accurate blueprint despite
5000 years of failure by
economists to solve this most puzzling
of systems?
And frankly,
that is my claim to fame. No economics textbook has
every used something as simple as a plumbing
model to completely show
the flows of the monetary liquidity system.
The analysis you've been
reading is absolutely unique since most
engineers leave economics to
economists.
And the fact
it seems simple is not a weakness. Electrical
engineers have always used plumbing models
to describe electrical
blueprints too using the tap and drain
to represent the source and the
ground of a battery, area of the pipe
to represent resistance and
current represent by liters of fluid.
And it works. A plumbing model
can perfectly model the current flows
in an electrical circuit and I
can see no reason that the same plumbing
model couldn't perfectly
model the monetary flows in an economic
system.
Of course, using
a blueprint model to analyze the financial
system does expose those economic falsities
like the belief that banks
lend out their depositors' funds.
:
A case in point:
:
:: (16)
He hasn't returned to explain why economists have failed
:: after 5000 years of managing the money
system to produce a successful
:: stable system.
:
:Actually, I was trying to avoid causing
you embarassment.
:
Give me a break.
Of the 29 points of contention between us, the
only one you choose to respond to is a
subjective conclusion. I see no
response to any of the objective points
dealing with the alternate
blueprints I raised.
:You see,
:economics has not existed for 5000 years.
Political economy only really
:got moving in the early 18th century,
and even then things didn't take
:off until Adam Smith with his _Wealth
of Nations_ published in 1776. The
:evolution from political economy to economics
took another century,
:although I am sure that economic historians
can provide better or more
:clear information that me. Even
with the science of economics
:established, the influence of economists
has not been that exceptional.
:
Fractional reserve
banking has been used for 5000 years and
they're still working the same debt slavery
scam the same way today.
:If there is some secret cabal of economists
who, in the fashion of the
:illuminati, control the world economy,
they forgot to include me
:(probably because I am so lousy at explaining
things...).
:
They wouldn't
include you until you understood how the money
system really worked and then you, like
them, would have to be able to
live with yourself knowing how all the
starvation, crime and misery
caused by the artificial insufficiency
of money is preventable while
they continue to profit from the "death-gamble"
loanshark industry.
I'm sorry but
even Jesus Christ provided a better description of
the banking system with his differential
equation defining interest:
"To those who
have abundance will more be given but from those
who have no abundance, even what they
have will be taken away."
This question
of growing debt may seem a philosophical point to
you but I see a lot of dead people as
a result of the poverty inherent
due to the unsafe engineering design of
the banking system. Is it any
wonder the only people Christ physically
attacked with his whip were
the money-lenders? Perhaps, he, Mohammed,
the saints of the Bible and
I simply have a clearer understanding
of
the evils of the system you
so heartily defend.
:Turmel replies to my recommendation that
he read a book:
:
:: This
is a standard economist's technique. When they can't answer
:: any of the questions themselves, they
tell us the answer is in such
:: and such a textbook. That gives the
impression that they the questions
:: left unhandled are handled in the book
and they might still be right.
:
:I apologise if I incorrectly assumed
that you could read and/or find the
:library. The books do have nice
pictures though, so they could still be
:worthwhile.
:
Once again, you
duck the technical points I make to resort to
insults.
:Perhaps, if you read the book, and still
find the questions
:"unhandled" or answered incorrectly,
you can bring those comments to this
:thread.
:
After I've corrected
you on 29 points, how is my adding to the
list by challenging even more points going
to affect your failure to
respond to the original 29?
:
As a possible example, if I gave a completely awful proof of the
:First Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
(and, off the top of my head, all
:that you would get would be an awful
and unclear proof), I have, by no
:means, proven that calculus is all horse-shit.
If I recognized that my
:proof was awful I could choose to cite
a book that contains a good
:proof. This is what I am doing,
except in economics, of course, and not
:math.
:
I am not saying
that your methodology is wrong, I'm saying that
many of your premises are wrong. There's
a difference.
:
But then again, you can lead someone to a university but you
:can't make him/her think.
:
Resorting to
insults doesn't explain why you had to concede so
many points to someone you say you can't
make think.
:It is much less time consuming for both
me and Turmel, as well as anyone
:else on this thread, to simply read the
relevant book and go from there.
:I will thus not reply to the huge quantity
of material that Turmel has
:thrown into his last post and will pause
for a while to see if book
:reading is or is not a lost ability.
:
If you don't
want to concede more of my points but only to the
ones you've already conceded, so be it.
This thread did produce new
analysis using my blueprint which still
remains unchallenged. And I
stake my engineering integrity on the
fact that the blueprint will
remain unchallenged as the true model
of a fractional reserve banking
system.
jamcorp@world.std.com
(Jonathan Priluck) wrote:
:
:>:I see new money being created.
:>:
:> I don't. I
see more deposit slips and more IOUs but I haven't
:>seen the new money being created that
you say you see.
:
:Fine. I understand what you mean
and I agree. No new money is being
:created according to your definition
of what constitutes money.
:
Here's another
who has to concede that no new money is being
created in the original piggy bank tap-less
model.
:And you
:understand what I mean too, even if you
will never (even if you lived to be
:1000 years old) give any credence to
alternate definitions of money.
:
I don't give
credence to his alternate definition of IOUs as
money. I point out that those IOUs aren't
spendable like money and
aren't money. Only money out of the tap
is money.
:So everyone understands everyone and that's
the end of it.
:
No, everyone
doesn't understand everyone. There is a
contradiction in economics to be dealt
with and you haven't dealt with
it. Is your loan new money from a creationary
tap or is it depositors'
savings. It can't be both and you may
not continue to believe that it
is both. Unless you opt to continue the
double-think that you're
getting old and new money at the same
time, you have to choose .
:I already regret responding to this thread.
I will not do it again.
:
Another one giving
up and withdrawing from the debate.
:> Note that he
calls it a double call on the same dollars. That
:>would indicate that there are no new
dollars and only the same dollars
:>that we're dealing with.
:
:You understand what I'm saying and are
playing silly definitional games.
:
They are not
silly definitional games. Whether the money supply
goes up when you make a loan or it doesn't
is a technical point which
is the reason I've included a choice of
blueprints for you to select
as the correct one.
In another article, he says:
:> The flaw in
your explanation of how the banking system does lend
:>out new money is that you don't have
a tap. My model with the tap
:>works exactly the way you think it does
and I find it hard to
:>understand that you insist the bank
creates new loans and you won't
:>accept that it doesn't come out depositors
savings.
:
:You sir are either a very poor reader
or are insane.
:
Listen carefully.....
:
I AGREEE WITH YOU!!!!! I KNOW THERE IS A TAP!!!
:
I KNOW BANKS ARE NOT PIGGY BANKS AND I ALSO KNOW
:
THAT MOST PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE.
:
But the fact
is that most people out there don't know there is a
tap and even if they admit there is one,
they don't know it is in the
private banks. Since you accept that the
loans are from the tap, would
you now agree that my simply plumbing
blueprint and how the banking
system really works is correct?
:
I am yelliong at you becuase you seem to think nobody understands
:what you are saying even when they go
out of their way to try and help you
:explain it to others in new words with
a new perspective.
:
If you've been
following this thread, you must be aware that very
few understand what I'm saying and no
one has tried to explain the
location and operation of the tap as yet.
You are the first
to correctly conclude that banks are not like
piggy banks. And you are also correct
that most people think they are
piggy banks judging by the number of people
before you who explained
the operation of the banks as piggy banks.
Every time someone said
that the bankers were lending out their
depositors' funds, we had
someone who did not know banks are not
piggy banks.
Failure to understand
this makes it impossible to understand the
system as a whole. It's for that reason
I've take such time to detail
the actual flows between the two blueprints.
And I'm pleased that this
unique new technical information has been
elicited and I hope that
having the blueprint will be of service
to those who do not as yet
know that banks don't operate like piggy
banks.
:Furthermore I
:have no idea who I am responding to becuase
you seem to be having arguments
:with yourself, first posting one position
ad tehn responding to it as if you
:were someone else. Go away.
:
This is a cheap
insult given so many different points which have
been argued. I have no idea why you think
that I've been arguing with
myself.
:Have a nice day.
:
Having another
economic thinker regret responding is a nice day.