Replies

Did you miss my point or are you ignoring it?
banking is an inherently unsound enterprise that finances longer term assets with demand liabilities.

I addressed your point to the letter. Your choosing not to acknowledge that would ordinarily be a pretty lame response, but in this case it is probably the best response available to you. Acknowledging that you don't know what banks are or what role they play in an economy would be a difficult step at this point. Your better play is to simply plow ahead in ignorance by stating your point over again, hoping someone falls for it.

You won't read this either, but I'm still not going to let you get away with this. You used the phrase:

centralized planner Federal Reserve's ability to create money at will and then LEND it to us at interest

1. Referring to a central bank as a 'central planner' is ignorant and tells people more about you than it does about the Fed.

2. Telling people that the Federal Reserve has the ability to create money at will is of a kind with telling people that the Pope has the ability to machine-gun visitors to the Vatican. Technically accurate, but not useful. It's an attempt to frighten, not enlighten.

3. The Federal Reserve pays all of its profits to the Treasury as a franchise fee; it is run as a non-profit. The statement that the Federal Reserve "charges us interest" is a lie born of ignorance.

I think this is a record. Using only 18 words, you managed to tell two fairly large lies, plus squeeze in a disingenous statement designed to frighten people for no reason.

Why are you doing this?

Deuce: every single non-bank business finances its assets with liabilities of equal or greater maturity. OTOH, fractional reserve banks violate this principle in the extreme.

Nick: But without [fractional reserve banks], you don't get to have an economy.

First of all, let me apologize for having missed the fact that you did, indeed, respond to my point in the very last sentence of your response in #383. After several hundred words, in the very last sentence, you offered the explaination reproduced above. Great! It's excrutiating but we are making progress.

If I can paraphrase, then, you fully recognize the inherent risk of a fractional reserve bank, but you feel the risk is necessary because without fractional reserve banks you don't get to have an economy.

I assume, then, that if all the pluses you see that emanate from these risky enterprises can be achieved without having to undertake the risk that you acknowledge exists, you would be open to the idea. (A simple yes or know will do. Don't worry, I'm not going to try to sell you a convertible debenture).

Deuce: centralized planner Federal Reserve's ability to create money at will and then LEND it to us at interest

Nick: Referring to a central bank as a 'central planner' is ignorant and tells people more about you than it does about the Fed.

Deuce: Could you explain to me why?

Nick: Telling people that the Federal Reserve has the ability to create money at will… is technically accurate, but not useful. It's an attempt to frighten, not enlighten.

Deuce: The fact that, say, the Fed enabled the money supply to double in the last dozen years is not useful? That it could have easily restricted it to “only” 50%? That they could have also made it 1000%? Why is it not meaningful to you?

Nick: The Federal Reserve pays all of its profits to the Treasury as a franchise fee; it is run as a non-profit. The statement that the Federal Reserve "charges us interest" is a lie born of ignorance.

Deuce: I was imprecise. The Fed buys $10bn in open market operations (this actually reduces effective interest, because Fed doesn't keep the interest). But then (pay attention here) This enables its client/owner/benefactor banks to piggyback $100bn+ of additional bond purchases. We only get charged on the latter $100bn. Is that better?