Doesn't this make the creation of money, to some extent, a Ponzi scheme - which crashes down when too many bad loans are made (such as for the creation of the dot.coms)?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The concept is meaningful only as a rate--the rate of flow of loans in the aggregate as compared to the
Dear William.
Certainly that is how it is supposed to operate here under our bank charter acts.
More honoured in the breech.
It is fraud not matter what language is used.
Ken.
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY
On Friday 22 Aug 2003 5:52 pm, Bill wrote:
A single bank in a multi-bank system does not create
net new deposits by itself when it grants loans. The
concept applies to the banking system acting in
unified whole as if it were one big bank with many
branches.
--
Dear William.
Like most people that have been exposed to Social Credit ideas, and have not
rejected them, I accepted for a long time the statement you repeat that Loans
create deposits, and the repayment of loans cancels deposits, meant that money,
after its creation, could be considered
Douglas certainly wasn't the first to observe that
loans create deposits, though he did much to promote
the concept among his contemporaries. The math by
the way is from Douglas not me. Most economists--
especially those who call themselves Post
Keynesian, now accept the concept.
A single
