help pls: fractional reserve loan: balance sheet & money supply step by step

Case 3 You spend the whole 100K on snake oil and default on the loan.

Is the net affect on the economy zero if the Government just prints another 100k and gives it back to bank?

Of course, the money never existed in the first place. The central bank' simply lends arithmetic, which the banks multiply by twelve in the fractional reserve lending racket. The fact that at any stage it is called 'debt' is merely the swindle that the duly bought and paid-for 'law' says we have to repay.. It takes a pretty mad monkey to acquiesce to that, and most certainly rapacious hyenas to inflict such rodent garbage.

Do you want to know who these hyenas are, and how they manage to craft such 'laws' into existence and impose them on us?

"alan" escribió en el mensaje de noticias news:51f56b6a$0$1169$ snipped-for-privacy@news.zen.co.uk...

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---

I'm not sure why some people object to fractional reserve banking.

The problem with banking, whether Islamic or conventional, is that money which is loaned by a bank comes back to the bank again.

Sometimes more quickly and sometimes more slowly, sometimes directly and sometimes via one or more other banks, but it comes back.

The recipient of the loan may use it to pay another customer of the same bank, in which case the money immediately appears as a new deposit for that bank, or the money may flow back and forth through other banks, returning after a delay (unless people stop dealing with the originating bank).

That's a bit different from the situation of an individual who makes a loan.

If banks were to treat the returning money as new money which they could immediately and without limit loan out again, the money involved in later loan(s) would *also* return to the bank(s).

That could mean an endless and infinite increase in the money supply. (It would also be very dangerous).

So there has to be some mechanism for limiting the total amount of lending. Fractional reserve lending is probably the cleverest way to do it automatically. But the fraction has to be a sensible one.

100% reserve means the bank makes no loans, earns no money, and goes bust. 50% reserve is very safe - the banks are only allowed to lend 50% of the money they started with, and only 50% of the money which returns to them, so the most they can lend is 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16........ of what they started with. In total, that amounts to the whole of what they began with. Which is pretty safe, but means that money is tight and loans are hard to come by. 10% is _maybe_ fairly safe, but it does mean that the banks loan out in total 10 times the money they began with.

Of course there are all kinds of complications which a non-banker (and probably quite a few bankers) can't hope to understand. I know I only have a vague outline of how some of it works, and for some reason there don't seem to be any good primers from which one could learn. But fractional reserve banking is probably better than someone waking up each morning, looking over a few figures, and telling the banks 'today you can collectively loan no more than 1 trillion'. Would you trust Osborne to get that right on a daily basis?

If you're saying that it's all smoke and mirrors, I agree. But there has to be some way to negotiate the exchange of goods and services, there have to be laws to regulate it, and something which has evolved over thousands of years is likely to work better than something dreamed up yesterday. Which is not to say that refinements are unnecessary, though those who benefit from the present arrangements would probably disagree.