You guys all ought to read The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G edward Griffin. I contains the entire history of fractional banking and its consequences. May it race to the top of your to-read list. By the way, I don't sell it, I'm just sayin.
Best Wishes, Philip Dru dot com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Gunning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:19 PM Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Canada' experiment with social credit > Victor Bridger wrote: > > > As I have said repeatedly to the extent that I am beginning to sound > > like a cracked record. > > (a) Banks do create credit which when drawn upon and used becomes money. > > (b) Banks are limited by regulatory authorities to the extent to which > > they can continue to create credit. > > (c) The measures of control have altered over the years from an LGS > > Ratio (Deposits to Loans) to Statutory Reserve Deposit requirements to > > the Prime Asset Ratio. > > (d) None of the above negates the argument that banks do create the > > major portion of the nation's money supply. > > (e) Banks do not /give /money they /lend /it. > > (f) How banks can increase their lending and maintain their liquidity > > requirements can be the result of a number of factors. Government > > deficit spending, the Central Bank's action of buying and selling > > government securities, a favourable balance of trade, Capital (money) > > inflow for investments or speculation, or simply by a bank borrowing > > off shore. > > (g) The fact remains that bank's do create the major portion of the > > nation's money supply. In Australia this is currently (it does vary > > slightly) about 97% > > > > I do not understand why this is continually denied, sidestepped or > > hidden under a maize of verbiage > > Vic Bridger > > > Vic, I don't think that anyone would deny that banks create money. The > issue is /not/ whether banks have created money in the past. They have. > Nor is the issue whether most of modern money is bank-created. It is. > Indeed, this borders on a truism, since economists distinguish a bank > from other intermediaries by the fact that a bank has the power to > create money. > > However, as you recognize, in the modern banking system, the power is > limited. The error we have been discussing is that of neglecting the > fact that in the modern banking system, the action of money creation by > one bank is normally offset by another action of money destruction by > another bank. Don't you agree? > > Now it is possible for the banking system, through central bank policy, > to increase the quantity of money. But when this occurs it is always the > consequence of a conscious decision by the monetary authorities, > typically a central bank. This is precisely how the subsidy plan (you > have not given me a good reason to change the standard economic > terminology) would be financed. It is also possible for money > substitutes to replace money in some transactions, and vice versa. But > this is not what we have been discussing. > > It is not evident how your final "fact" is relevant. Why do you think it > is important? > > -- > Pat Gunning, Feng Chia University, Taiwan; > New book: UNDERSTANDING DEMOCRACY > http://www.constitution.org/pd/gunning/votehtm/cove&buy.htm > Web pages on Praxeological Economics, Democracy, Taiwan, Ludwig von Mises, Austrian > Economics, and my University Classes; > http://www.constitution.org/pd/gunning/welcome.htm > and > http://knight.fcu.edu.tw/~gunning/welcome.htm > > > > > --^---------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^----------------------------------------------------------------
