Full Reserve Banking

[Imran Siddiqui]

Has anyone mentioned to fakeBoris that arguing by BAM has never really worked?

[Fake Boris]

Elok: What source do you trust on the issue of private banking and monetary policy?

[Elok]

Clearly you have never read the works of the great monetary theoretician Emeril, Imran.

[rah]

I have already told you that the bank gets to earn interest on 15-20K from your 2k. This is a fact.

Good luck

You can say that 1000 times but it still doesn't explain how I'm being cheated.
What is the value of my average 2k balance to me. If I'm in a solid investment 10% is only 200 dollars a year.
What is the value of my banking services. I believe it's worth more than 200 dollars a year.
So I believe it's a fair transaction for me.

Please try again to explain how I'm being cheated. Facts are usually better then luck.

[Fake Boris]

In the end, it's quite sad how struggling working class people like Elok are emotionally attached to systems made to rip them off.

[Fake Boris]

You can say that 1000 times but it still doesn't explain how I'm being cheated.
What is the value of my average 2k balance to me. If I'm in a solid investment 10% is only 200 dollars a year.
What is the value of my banking services. I believe it's worth more than 200 dollars a year.
So I believe it's a fair transaction for me.

Please try again to explain how I'm being cheated. Facts are usually better then luck.

Full reserve banking would entail that people pay for checking services.

You responded to that by saying that you'd rather not pay for checking services.

I then tried to show you that paying for demand deposits services alone would net you more money, not less:

If your average balance is 2K then they get to earn interest on 15-20K.

This privilege is much more profitable than free checking services and you'd be better served if it were socialized. And I'm not even talking about the elimination of public debt. Care to find out what percentage of your tax dollars goes to debt servicing?

Technically eliminating the public debt is only a detriment to you if you earn more revenue from personal investment in public debt instruments than the percentage of your taxes that goes to debt service, i.e. if you're part of the ~1%.

This of course assuming you're willing to look at the global picture and all the implications of full reserve banking (which are quite complex).

[Elok]

Elok: What source do you trust on the issue of private banking and monetary policy?

Well, certainly not that one, since I went ahead and dug through the website and I have no idea who the hell is saying it. Some dude with a gmail account. And support from, uh, Milton Friedman and Dennis Kucinich. That would be a NO and a NO.

Also, your notion of "ripping off" is basically that the banks are using my money to make money for themselves. As I am in no position to do what they are doing with it, and I do not lose any of my actual money, I am fine with their using my cash to pay for their many services, such as looking out for dip****s on the internet using my card number to buy porn. I'm certainly not going to lock up all my money in the equivalent of a CD for the petty emotional satisfaction of constraining a financial institution. You might as well argue that my employer is "cheating" me, insofar as my labor helps them generate far greater value than they pay me for. Yes, that's generally how the system works, and I'm fine with it.

[Elok]

Also, while your page refers vaguely to the possibility of the government endlessly printing money, I see nothing that explains how this would not cause hyperinflation. If it's buried in one of the linked articles, you can find it; I'm not digging through all that.

[Fake Boris]

Well, certainly not that one, since I went ahead and dug through the website and I have no idea who the hell is saying it. Some dude with a gmail account. And support from, uh, Milton Friedman and Dennis Kucinich. That would be a NO and a NO.

Forget all about this. Focus on the points being made.

Also, your notion of "ripping off" is basically that the banks are using my money to make money for themselves.

It's a little more than that. Private interests are in charge of the money supply. What could possibly go wrong?

As I am in no position to do what they are doing with it, and I do not lose any of my actual money,

If monetary creation were 100% public, then technically you would be in a position to do what the banks do with your money - through petitioning government.

I am fine with their using my cash to pay for their many services, such as looking out for dip****s on the internet using my card number to buy porn.

This is not disputed here. It's equally possible in both a fractional or full reserve system.

I'm certainly not going to lock up all my money in the equivalent of a CD for the petty emotional satisfaction of constraining a financial institution.

You're missing the whole part where it's about cold hard cash for you and elimination of public debt, aren't you? The "emotional satisfaction" I would derive from a 100% reform would be 100% based on tangible benefits.

You might as well argue that my employer is "cheating" me, insofar as my labor helps them generate far greater value than they pay me for. Yes, that's generally how the system works, and I'm fine with it.

Your employer is generating plus-value, but not creating money, which makes this an altogether different case.

[Fake Boris]

Also, while your page refers vaguely to the possibility of the government endlessly printing money, I see nothing that explains how this would not cause hyperinflation. If it's buried in one of the linked articles, you can find it; I'm not digging through all that.

Very short explanation:

It wouldn't cause hyperinflation because under fractional reserve banking, banks only keep around 10% of deposits in actual liquid reserves. The other 90% is composed of different non-cash financial assets (mostly debt).
In a full reserve reform, the Fed would buy assets held by banks with fresh money (which include private and public debts). These debts, now owned by the Fed, would be canceled. At the same time however, the reserve requirement for private banks would be raised to 100%. Effectively, this would force banks to keep the fresh monies in their vaults to back deposits. The money, not being recirculated, would not cause inflation.

[rah]

Full reserve banking would entail that people pay for checking services.

You responded to that by saying that you'd rather not pay for checking services.

I then tried to show you that paying for demand deposits services alone would net you more money, not less:

Your twist on what happened.

I posted

Every time a bank has figured out a way to charge me for holding my money, I have changed banks.

You posted

Then you've been cheated out of your money.

What they'd charge for checking services is much less than what they make through fractional reserve.

I responded with

HUH. How can they have cheated me out of my money if I've never paid any fees? Their interest rates have been comparable to banks that charge.
Any large amounts of funds that I have are invested in more profitable opportunities.

You have yet to show any facts that I'm being cheated. You can say all you want that they're making money off me. I have not said they haven't. I have said that the value of the money that I keep with them is less than I value the services they provide. And I'm not even counting the interest that I get paid on that account. (it is tiny which is why I haven't mentioned it previously)

SO one more time, How am I being cheated? You even state under your preferred system I would have to pay money for my checking account. How would that net better for me? Are you saying that under your system that the interest they would be paying me on my 2k average would exceed the service fees for my checking account (and I'm sure they would also charge for the other services that they provide free now, like atm fees and such).

HOW AM I BEING CHEATED.

[Fake Boris]

Rah: I took your intervention as if you meant to oppose a theoretical full reserve reform because you didn't want to pay for checking services.

If you just meant to say that you shop for the best bank around, and that you didn't mean this in response to full reserve banking, there's no need to discuss the topic further. I don't mind which bank as a consumer you do business with, that's not what this thread is about.

[N35t0r]

I have already told you that the bank gets to earn interest on 15-20K from your 2k. This is a fact.

Good luck

no

[Fake Boris]

no

Humanity's resistance to simple facts never ceases to amaze me.

[rah]

Rah: I took your intervention as if you meant to oppose a theoretical full reserve reform because you didn't want to pay for checking services.

II you just meant to say that you shop for the best bank around, and that you didn't mean this in response to full reserve banking, there's no need to discuss the topic further. I don't mind which bank as a consumer you do business with, that's not what this thread is about.

I simply posted

Every time a bank has figured out a way to charge me for holding my money, I have changed banks.

How could you possibly think that meant anything other than I shop for the best bank around?

Just admit that I'm not being cheated. Is it that hard to admit that you posted something in error. Jeeze. give it up.