Alan Greenspan telling the truth!

[Toddsterpatriot]

There's simply no way in which customer deposits create the loans. I just can't see it

Obviously. I'll keep pointing out your errors until you do.

I already accept that banks have to follow requirements put on them by the government. But we both know that the money in the deposits, the majority, comes from commercial bank loans in the first place. Loans are responsible for virtually all deposits.

I already accept that banks have to follow requirements put on them by the government.

Great. That's not your error.

the money in the deposits, the majority, comes from commercial bank loans in the first place

And the money for the loans, come from deposits in the first place.

Loans are responsible for virtually all deposits.

Virtually, but not all.

Todd, you've literally just admitted that loans are responsible for virtually all deposits. So, here's where it really gets interesting: You're telling me banks are stuck using deposits created by commercial bank loans to fund loans? Think about that... Loans created the initial deposits.

Todd, you've literally just admitted that loans are responsible for virtually all deposits.
For, I don't know, the twelfth time, I've never denied that loans are most of the money supply.
A bank still needs a deposit before it can loan.

You're telling me banks are stuck using deposits created by commercial bank loans to fund loans?

Tell me other sources of funds banks can use to make loans.

The money created from deficit spending is one possible source. Or they don't use a source at all. (This may not apply to US banks since we have certain requirements though.)

The money created from deficit spending is one possible source.

A bank gets access to money from deficit spending to make loans?
How do they do that?

Or they don't use a source at all.

I'm more interested in banks that don't bounce their loan checks.

 

[Dovahkiin]

I already accept that banks have to follow requirements put on them by the government. But we both know that the money in the deposits, the majority, comes from commercial bank loans in the first place. Loans are responsible for virtually all deposits.

I already accept that banks have to follow requirements put on them by the government.

Great. That's not your error.

the money in the deposits, the majority, comes from commercial bank loans in the first place

And the money for the loans, come from deposits in the first place.

Loans are responsible for virtually all deposits.

Virtually, but not all.

Todd, you've literally just admitted that loans are responsible for virtually all deposits. So, here's where it really gets interesting: You're telling me banks are stuck using deposits created by commercial bank loans to fund loans? Think about that... Loans created the initial deposits.

Todd, you've literally just admitted that loans are responsible for virtually all deposits.
For, I don't know, the twelfth time, I've never denied that loans are most of the money supply.
A bank still needs a deposit before it can loan.

You're telling me banks are stuck using deposits created by commercial bank loans to fund loans?

Tell me other sources of funds banks can use to make loans.

The money created from deficit spending is one possible source. Or they don't use a source at all. (This may not apply to US banks since we have certain requirements though.)

The money created from deficit spending is one possible source.

A bank gets access to money from deficit spending to make loans?
How do they do that?

Or they don't use a source at all.

I'm more interested in banks that don't bounce their loan checks.

Money from deficit spending flows into the domestic private sector. It ends up in the hands of various individuals, depending on what the spending is targeted towards.
Look to the UK. Read the paper I keep sending you.

 

[g5000]

Of course the government can always print more money. This will benefit some and hurt others.

The only people harmed if the government stopped letting entities use bonds is people looking to park dollars in a very safe place, and banks would be angry as well.

Not really. Anyone owning dollars or assets denominated in dollars would be harmed.

Please, explain.

If the government prints more money, the quantity of money obviously goes up, thus the price falls. It's simple economics.

So those who hold dollars or dollar denominated assets will be harmed.

Absolute nonsense. Claiming that increasing the money supply will lead to crippling inflation is absolute nonsense. Mandatory reading:
Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation!
Also, the only way I can think of that the money supply increasing leads to considerable inflation is when demand exceeds available supply, causing prices to rise. Remember what happened with oil? A classic example of this, nothing to do with the money supply.

A total crock of shit. Not only are you demonstrating ignorance of how money works, but the commodities markets, too.

Printing $19 trillion would destroy the dollar. Plain and simple. If it didn't, then the Fed would have already done it.

The Fed was able to print nearly $3 trillion and get away with it without inflation only because the velocity of money at the time was ground nearly to a halt. So it was like printing $3 trillion and then burying it in the backyard. No inflationary effect.

But as soon as the economy begins heating up, it will be like digging up that $3 trillion and moving it around, and that will cause inflation, which will force the Fed to sell their bonds and burn the $3 trillion. This will only work if their bonds aren't upside down at that point, which I believe is a very real possibility.

Nonetheless, printing our $19 trillion debt would absolutely destroy the dollar, sluggish velocity or not.

As for oil prices, there is very little correlation between commodities and the money supply. Hell, sometimes there isn't even correlation to demand!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I already accept that banks have to follow requirements put on them by the government.

Great. That's not your error.

the money in the deposits, the majority, comes from commercial bank loans in the first place

And the money for the loans, come from deposits in the first place.

Loans are responsible for virtually all deposits.

Virtually, but not all.

Todd, you've literally just admitted that loans are responsible for virtually all deposits. So, here's where it really gets interesting: You're telling me banks are stuck using deposits created by commercial bank loans to fund loans? Think about that... Loans created the initial deposits.

Todd, you've literally just admitted that loans are responsible for virtually all deposits.
For, I don't know, the twelfth time, I've never denied that loans are most of the money supply.
A bank still needs a deposit before it can loan.

You're telling me banks are stuck using deposits created by commercial bank loans to fund loans?

Tell me other sources of funds banks can use to make loans.

The money created from deficit spending is one possible source. Or they don't use a source at all. (This may not apply to US banks since we have certain requirements though.)

The money created from deficit spending is one possible source.

A bank gets access to money from deficit spending to make loans?
How do they do that?

Or they don't use a source at all.

I'm more interested in banks that don't bounce their loan checks.

Money from deficit spending flows into the domestic private sector. It ends up in the hands of various individuals, depending on what the spending is targeted towards.
Look to the UK. Read the paper I keep sending you.

Money from deficit spending flows into the domestic private sector. It ends up in the hands of various individuals, depending on what the spending is targeted towards.

Doesn't help the bank that needs to loan.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only people harmed if the government stopped letting entities use bonds is people looking to park dollars in a very safe place, and banks would be angry as well.

Not really. Anyone owning dollars or assets denominated in dollars would be harmed.

Please, explain.

If the government prints more money, the quantity of money obviously goes up, thus the price falls. It's simple economics.

So those who hold dollars or dollar denominated assets will be harmed.

Absolute nonsense. Claiming that increasing the money supply will lead to crippling inflation is absolute nonsense. Mandatory reading:
Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation!
Also, the only way I can think of that the money supply increasing leads to considerable inflation is when demand exceeds available supply, causing prices to rise. Remember what happened with oil? A classic example of this, nothing to do with the money supply.

A total crock of shit. Not only are you demonstrating ignorance of how money works, but the commodities markets, too.

Printing $19 trillion would destroy the dollar. Plain and simple.

The Fed was able to print nearly $3 trillion and get away with it without inflation only because the velocity of money at the time was ground nearly to a halt. So it was like printing $3 trillion and then burying it in the backyard. No inflationary effect.

But as soon as the economy begins heating up, it will be like digging up that $3 trillion and moving it around, and that will cause inflation, which will force the Fed to sell their bonds and burn the $3 trillion. This will only work if their bonds aren't upside down at that point, which I believe is a very real possibility.

Nonetheless, printing our $19 trillion debt would absolutely destroy the dollar, sluggish velocity or not.

As for oil prices, there is very little correlation between commodities and the money supply.

But as soon as the economy begins heating up, it will be like digging up that $3 trillion and moving it around, and that will cause inflation,

They keep increasing capital requirements on the banks and then wonder why banks don't lend.

This will only work if their bonds aren't upside down at that point,

Why would that make it not work?

 

[imawhosure]

The only people harmed if the government stopped letting entities use bonds is people looking to park dollars in a very safe place, and banks would be angry as well.

Not really. Anyone owning dollars or assets denominated in dollars would be harmed.

Please, explain.

If the government prints more money, the quantity of money obviously goes up, thus the price falls. It's simple economics.

So those who hold dollars or dollar denominated assets will be harmed.

Absolute nonsense. Claiming that increasing the money supply will lead to crippling inflation is absolute nonsense. Mandatory reading:
Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation!
Also, the only way I can think of that the money supply increasing leads to considerable inflation is when demand exceeds available supply, causing prices to rise. Remember what happened with oil? A classic example of this, nothing to do with the money supply.

A total crock of shit. Not only are you demonstrating ignorance of how money works, but the commodities markets, too.

Printing $19 trillion would destroy the dollar. Plain and simple. If it didn't, then the Fed would have already done it.

The Fed was able to print nearly $3 trillion and get away with it without inflation only because the velocity of money at the time was ground nearly to a halt. So it was like printing $3 trillion and then burying it in the backyard. No inflationary effect.

But as soon as the economy begins heating up, it will be like digging up that $3 trillion and moving it around, and that will cause inflation, which will force the Fed to sell their bonds and burn the $3 trillion. This will only work if their bonds aren't upside down at that point, which I believe is a very real possibility.

Nonetheless, printing our $19 trillion debt would absolutely destroy the dollar, sluggish velocity or not.

As for oil prices, there is very little correlation between commodities and the money supply. Hell, sometimes there isn't even correlation to demand!

Todd, you've literally just admitted that loans are responsible for virtually all deposits. So, here's where it really gets interesting: You're telling me banks are stuck using deposits created by commercial bank loans to fund loans? Think about that... Loans created the initial deposits.

Todd, you've literally just admitted that loans are responsible for virtually all deposits.
For, I don't know, the twelfth time, I've never denied that loans are most of the money supply.
A bank still needs a deposit before it can loan.

You're telling me banks are stuck using deposits created by commercial bank loans to fund loans?

Tell me other sources of funds banks can use to make loans.

The money created from deficit spending is one possible source. Or they don't use a source at all. (This may not apply to US banks since we have certain requirements though.)

The money created from deficit spending is one possible source.

A bank gets access to money from deficit spending to make loans?
How do they do that?

Or they don't use a source at all.

I'm more interested in banks that don't bounce their loan checks.

Money from deficit spending flows into the domestic private sector. It ends up in the hands of various individuals, depending on what the spending is targeted towards.
Look to the UK. Read the paper I keep sending you.

Money from deficit spending flows into the domestic private sector. It ends up in the hands of various individuals, depending on what the spending is targeted towards.

Doesn't help the bank that needs to loan.

The OP author is an economic illiterate. All I want to know is----------> if he went to high school and college, and what were the names of those 2 institutions. I want to insure none of my grandkids go to either place. And if he did attend any sort of college, that college should have its license revoked, or at the very least the professor who taught him/her this garbage, be fired instantly, tenured or not!

 

[The Rabbi]

Not really. Anyone owning dollars or assets denominated in dollars would be harmed.

Please, explain.

If the government prints more money, the quantity of money obviously goes up, thus the price falls. It's simple economics.

So those who hold dollars or dollar denominated assets will be harmed.

Absolute nonsense. Claiming that increasing the money supply will lead to crippling inflation is absolute nonsense. Mandatory reading:
Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation!
Also, the only way I can think of that the money supply increasing leads to considerable inflation is when demand exceeds available supply, causing prices to rise. Remember what happened with oil? A classic example of this, nothing to do with the money supply.

A total crock of shit. Not only are you demonstrating ignorance of how money works, but the commodities markets, too.

Printing $19 trillion would destroy the dollar. Plain and simple. If it didn't, then the Fed would have already done it.

The Fed was able to print nearly $3 trillion and get away with it without inflation only because the velocity of money at the time was ground nearly to a halt. So it was like printing $3 trillion and then burying it in the backyard. No inflationary effect.

But as soon as the economy begins heating up, it will be like digging up that $3 trillion and moving it around, and that will cause inflation, which will force the Fed to sell their bonds and burn the $3 trillion. This will only work if their bonds aren't upside down at that point, which I believe is a very real possibility.

Nonetheless, printing our $19 trillion debt would absolutely destroy the dollar, sluggish velocity or not.

As for oil prices, there is very little correlation between commodities and the money supply. Hell, sometimes there isn't even correlation to demand!

Todd, you've literally just admitted that loans are responsible for virtually all deposits.
For, I don't know, the twelfth time, I've never denied that loans are most of the money supply.
A bank still needs a deposit before it can loan.

You're telling me banks are stuck using deposits created by commercial bank loans to fund loans?

Tell me other sources of funds banks can use to make loans.

The money created from deficit spending is one possible source. Or they don't use a source at all. (This may not apply to US banks since we have certain requirements though.)

The money created from deficit spending is one possible source.

A bank gets access to money from deficit spending to make loans?
How do they do that?

Or they don't use a source at all.

I'm more interested in banks that don't bounce their loan checks.

Money from deficit spending flows into the domestic private sector. It ends up in the hands of various individuals, depending on what the spending is targeted towards.
Look to the UK. Read the paper I keep sending you.

Money from deficit spending flows into the domestic private sector. It ends up in the hands of various individuals, depending on what the spending is targeted towards.

Doesn't help the bank that needs to loan.

The OP author is an economic illiterate. All I want to know is----------> if he went to high school and college, and what were the names of those 2 institutions. I want to insure none of my grandkids go to either place. And if he did attend any sort of college, that college should have its license revoked, or at the very least the professor who taught him/her this garbage, be fired instantly, tenured or not!

He learned all of this watching conspiracy videos on YouTube.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Please, explain.

If the government prints more money, the quantity of money obviously goes up, thus the price falls. It's simple economics.

So those who hold dollars or dollar denominated assets will be harmed.

Absolute nonsense. Claiming that increasing the money supply will lead to crippling inflation is absolute nonsense. Mandatory reading:
Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation!
Also, the only way I can think of that the money supply increasing leads to considerable inflation is when demand exceeds available supply, causing prices to rise. Remember what happened with oil? A classic example of this, nothing to do with the money supply.

A total crock of shit. Not only are you demonstrating ignorance of how money works, but the commodities markets, too.

Printing $19 trillion would destroy the dollar. Plain and simple. If it didn't, then the Fed would have already done it.

The Fed was able to print nearly $3 trillion and get away with it without inflation only because the velocity of money at the time was ground nearly to a halt. So it was like printing $3 trillion and then burying it in the backyard. No inflationary effect.

But as soon as the economy begins heating up, it will be like digging up that $3 trillion and moving it around, and that will cause inflation, which will force the Fed to sell their bonds and burn the $3 trillion. This will only work if their bonds aren't upside down at that point, which I believe is a very real possibility.

Nonetheless, printing our $19 trillion debt would absolutely destroy the dollar, sluggish velocity or not.

As for oil prices, there is very little correlation between commodities and the money supply. Hell, sometimes there isn't even correlation to demand!

The money created from deficit spending is one possible source. Or they don't use a source at all. (This may not apply to US banks since we have certain requirements though.)

The money created from deficit spending is one possible source.

A bank gets access to money from deficit spending to make loans?
How do they do that?

Or they don't use a source at all.

I'm more interested in banks that don't bounce their loan checks.

Money from deficit spending flows into the domestic private sector. It ends up in the hands of various individuals, depending on what the spending is targeted towards.
Look to the UK. Read the paper I keep sending you.

Money from deficit spending flows into the domestic private sector. It ends up in the hands of various individuals, depending on what the spending is targeted towards.

Doesn't help the bank that needs to loan.

The OP author is an economic illiterate. All I want to know is----------> if he went to high school and college, and what were the names of those 2 institutions. I want to insure none of my grandkids go to either place. And if he did attend any sort of college, that college should have its license revoked, or at the very least the professor who taught him/her this garbage, be fired instantly, tenured or not!

He learned all of this watching conspiracy videos on YouTube.

I suppose Alan and Ben are also illiterates..

 

[The Rabbi]

If the government prints more money, the quantity of money obviously goes up, thus the price falls. It's simple economics.

So those who hold dollars or dollar denominated assets will be harmed.

Absolute nonsense. Claiming that increasing the money supply will lead to crippling inflation is absolute nonsense. Mandatory reading:
Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation!
Also, the only way I can think of that the money supply increasing leads to considerable inflation is when demand exceeds available supply, causing prices to rise. Remember what happened with oil? A classic example of this, nothing to do with the money supply.

A total crock of shit. Not only are you demonstrating ignorance of how money works, but the commodities markets, too.

Printing $19 trillion would destroy the dollar. Plain and simple. If it didn't, then the Fed would have already done it.

The Fed was able to print nearly $3 trillion and get away with it without inflation only because the velocity of money at the time was ground nearly to a halt. So it was like printing $3 trillion and then burying it in the backyard. No inflationary effect.

But as soon as the economy begins heating up, it will be like digging up that $3 trillion and moving it around, and that will cause inflation, which will force the Fed to sell their bonds and burn the $3 trillion. This will only work if their bonds aren't upside down at that point, which I believe is a very real possibility.

Nonetheless, printing our $19 trillion debt would absolutely destroy the dollar, sluggish velocity or not.

As for oil prices, there is very little correlation between commodities and the money supply. Hell, sometimes there isn't even correlation to demand!

The money created from deficit spending is one possible source.

A bank gets access to money from deficit spending to make loans?
How do they do that?

Or they don't use a source at all.

I'm more interested in banks that don't bounce their loan checks.

Money from deficit spending flows into the domestic private sector. It ends up in the hands of various individuals, depending on what the spending is targeted towards.
Look to the UK. Read the paper I keep sending you.

Money from deficit spending flows into the domestic private sector. It ends up in the hands of various individuals, depending on what the spending is targeted towards.

Doesn't help the bank that needs to loan.

The OP author is an economic illiterate. All I want to know is----------> if he went to high school and college, and what were the names of those 2 institutions. I want to insure none of my grandkids go to either place. And if he did attend any sort of college, that college should have its license revoked, or at the very least the professor who taught him/her this garbage, be fired instantly, tenured or not!

He learned all of this watching conspiracy videos on YouTube.

I suppose Alan and Ben are also illiterates..

Two clips taken out of context don't mean much. Unless you're stupid.
Bernanke presided over the worst Fed policy decisions ever.

 

[imawhosure]

If the government prints more money, the quantity of money obviously goes up, thus the price falls. It's simple economics.

So those who hold dollars or dollar denominated assets will be harmed.

Absolute nonsense. Claiming that increasing the money supply will lead to crippling inflation is absolute nonsense. Mandatory reading:
Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation!
Also, the only way I can think of that the money supply increasing leads to considerable inflation is when demand exceeds available supply, causing prices to rise. Remember what happened with oil? A classic example of this, nothing to do with the money supply.

A total crock of shit. Not only are you demonstrating ignorance of how money works, but the commodities markets, too.

Printing $19 trillion would destroy the dollar. Plain and simple. If it didn't, then the Fed would have already done it.

The Fed was able to print nearly $3 trillion and get away with it without inflation only because the velocity of money at the time was ground nearly to a halt. So it was like printing $3 trillion and then burying it in the backyard. No inflationary effect.

But as soon as the economy begins heating up, it will be like digging up that $3 trillion and moving it around, and that will cause inflation, which will force the Fed to sell their bonds and burn the $3 trillion. This will only work if their bonds aren't upside down at that point, which I believe is a very real possibility.

Nonetheless, printing our $19 trillion debt would absolutely destroy the dollar, sluggish velocity or not.

As for oil prices, there is very little correlation between commodities and the money supply. Hell, sometimes there isn't even correlation to demand!

The money created from deficit spending is one possible source.

A bank gets access to money from deficit spending to make loans?
How do they do that?

Or they don't use a source at all.

I'm more interested in banks that don't bounce their loan checks.

Money from deficit spending flows into the domestic private sector. It ends up in the hands of various individuals, depending on what the spending is targeted towards.
Look to the UK. Read the paper I keep sending you.

Money from deficit spending flows into the domestic private sector. It ends up in the hands of various individuals, depending on what the spending is targeted towards.

Doesn't help the bank that needs to loan.

The OP author is an economic illiterate. All I want to know is----------> if he went to high school and college, and what were the names of those 2 institutions. I want to insure none of my grandkids go to either place. And if he did attend any sort of college, that college should have its license revoked, or at the very least the professor who taught him/her this garbage, be fired instantly, tenured or not!

He learned all of this watching conspiracy videos on YouTube.

I suppose Alan and Ben are also illiterates..

Play the whole clip, not the edited one. Besides that, the best economist in the last 50 years was Friedman. Why don't you look up what he has to say!

 

[Mac1958]

First of all, Greenspan wasn't suggesting that we print more money. He was simply pointing out a fact that we make it appear out of nowhere. I'm sure he would not advocate such a strategy.

Secondly, I find it ironic that Greenspan would be talking about currency after he held interest rates down for so long. He also refused to regulate the securities that were such an integral part of the Meltdown. He even himself admitted that he couldn't figure out how CMO's work.

He should be in hiding.
.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

What is wrong with allowing competing currencies? If the dollar is so good then it should be able to be the best currency in the same way the post office is better than the UPS.

 

[The Rabbi]

What is wrong with allowing competing currencies? If the dollar is so good then it should be able to be the best currency in the same way the post office is better than the UPS.

Who says you cant have competing currencies?
It happens the dollar is the reserve currency of the world for various reasons. For now, anyway.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is wrong with allowing competing currencies? If the dollar is so good then it should be able to be the best currency in the same way the post office is better than the UPS.

You're free to buy Euros or Yen.
Go for it.

 

[Contumacious]

If the government prints more money, the quantity of money obviously goes up, thus the price falls. It's simple economics.

So those who hold dollars or dollar denominated assets will be harmed.

Absolute nonsense. Claiming that increasing the money supply will lead to crippling inflation is absolute nonsense. Mandatory reading:
Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation!
Also, the only way I can think of that the money supply increasing leads to considerable inflation is when demand exceeds available supply, causing prices to rise. Remember what happened with oil? A classic example of this, nothing to do with the money supply.

A total crock of shit. Not only are you demonstrating ignorance of how money works, but the commodities markets, too.

Printing $19 trillion would destroy the dollar. Plain and simple. If it didn't, then the Fed would have already done it.

The Fed was able to print nearly $3 trillion and get away with it without inflation only because the velocity of money at the time was ground nearly to a halt. So it was like printing $3 trillion and then burying it in the backyard. No inflationary effect.

But as soon as the economy begins heating up, it will be like digging up that $3 trillion and moving it around, and that will cause inflation, which will force the Fed to sell their bonds and burn the $3 trillion. This will only work if their bonds aren't upside down at that point, which I believe is a very real possibility.

Nonetheless, printing our $19 trillion debt would absolutely destroy the dollar, sluggish velocity or not.

As for oil prices, there is very little correlation between commodities and the money supply. Hell, sometimes there isn't even correlation to demand!

The money created from deficit spending is one possible source.

A bank gets access to money from deficit spending to make loans?
How do they do that?

Or they don't use a source at all.

I'm more interested in banks that don't bounce their loan checks.

Money from deficit spending flows into the domestic private sector. It ends up in the hands of various individuals, depending on what the spending is targeted towards.
Look to the UK. Read the paper I keep sending you.

Money from deficit spending flows into the domestic private sector. It ends up in the hands of various individuals, depending on what the spending is targeted towards.

Doesn't help the bank that needs to loan.

The OP author is an economic illiterate. All I want to know is----------> if he went to high school and college, and what were the names of those 2 institutions. I want to insure none of my grandkids go to either place. And if he did attend any sort of college, that college should have its license revoked, or at the very least the professor who taught him/her this garbage, be fired instantly, tenured or not!

He learned all of this watching conspiracy videos on YouTube.

I suppose Alan and Ben are also illiterates..

No sir, they are not illiterates

They are dishonest , they are criminals

.