Cyprus-Forum.com

[Robin Hood]

I'm sorry but the inaccuracies that have been listed here are way off. Entertaining, but way off.

On the thread generally or just the links above? If you have knowledge I and others don't have why not share it?

[DT.]

I'm sorry but the inaccuracies that have been listed here are way off. Entertaining, but way off.

On the thread generally or just the links above? If you have knowledge I and others don't have why not share it?

No collateral taken into account in the banks books? How do you think their Core tier 1 ratio is calculated if there are no risk weighted assets?

loans created with no capital??? A banks loan to deposit ratio is critical in understanding the condition of a bank. Why would that even be necessary if loans moved independent of deposits?

I'm not sure where to start....it's pretty much all wrong.

[erolz66]

I'm not sure where to start....it's pretty much all wrong.

Is it wrong to say most (90+%) 'money creation' and the role that plays in the general 'money supply' is today done by private banks through extending credit, following their own best interests and is not done by central banks based on what the economy in general needs at any given point in the cycle ? Is it wrong to say that the % of money that exists in economies that is created by Central bank direct vs that created by private bank via lending is at ratios never seen before historically, in 'favour' of that created by private banks? That there is a tendency for such banks to 'lend too much too widely' when the economy in general would actually benefit from them lending less in more target ways and for more targeted purposes if they were not just following their own narrows needs and to lend too little to narrowly when the economy generally would benefit most from them lending more ? Is it wrong to say that the trend from say the 70's to today as far as Central Banks direct regulatory 'means' to influence and direct when and how these banks lend has been a trend of ever less such tools or effective tools available to them over time? Is it wrong to say that historic 'tools' of Central Banks like setting the the interest base rate, that historically could and did impact how much and to whom and for what private Banks did or did not lend, have proven massively less effective post 2008 (and even before 2008) ?

There is a few you could start with should you feel so inclined I suggest. Are all of these things pretty much wrong as well ?

[supporttheunderdog]

I'm sorry but the inaccuracies that have been listed here are way off. Entertaining, but way off.

On the thread generally or just the links above? If you have knowledge I and others don't have why not share it?

No collateral taken into account in the banks books? How do you think their Core tier 1 ratio is calculated if there are no risk weighted assets?

loans created with no capital??? A banks loan to deposit ratio is critical in understanding the condition of a bank. Why would that even be necessary if loans moved independent of deposits?

I'm not sure where to start....it's pretty much all wrong.

g

Am I correct in thinking a lot is covered in Basel II and/or Basel III, in particular risk weighted loans to capital ratios where the ratio has got to be above a limit, the bigger the percent the more capital it has relative to the loans, so theortically bankers cannot keep creating money?

[Robin Hood]

DT:

No collateral taken into account in the banks books? How do you think their Core tier 1 ratio is calculated if there are no risk weighted assets?

loans created with no capital??? A banks loan to deposit ratio is critical in understanding the condition of a bank. Why would that even be necessary if loans moved independent of deposits?

I'm not sure where to start....it's pretty much all wrong.

Your background is very obviously accounting rather than economics? I will reply in detail later but (busy tomorrow) ........ collateral has absolutely NOTHING to do with the creation of money ..... nor does Core tier 1 or any other facet of the way banks present their finances. We all know accounting can manipulate the figures to present almost any thing that is required .... providing it is legal.

If you want to argue that capital is required to make loans ......... then you must disagree with the BoE , The FED , The Bundesbank and various respected economists? The loan to deposit ratio varies from Bank to Bank, the BoE makes it clear, very clear ...... ".... loans create deposits not the other way round!" Put simply, loans need to be created before there can be a deposit; This creates debt and in the process creates the same amount of new money in another account. Look at the bar graphs on the BoE bulletin ...... it could not be clearer!

Banks provide credit in exactly the same way as credit card companies, they grant you a credit limit, they do not put money into your account they simply give you credit.

We are dealing with a single aspect ..... money/currency creation. I don't think collateral/tier 1/M1 -M4/ liquidity/risk weighing/ leverage etc. is mentioned in the BoE bulletin on the subject or in the papers on research into the subject by Prof. Werner and other economists, because in the context of money creation they are irrelevant. These are things the banks do AFTER the numbers on the books have been created, it does not cover the process that created the money in the first place.

[Robin Hood]

STUD:

Am I correct in thinking a lot is covered in Basel II and/or Basel III, in particular risk weighted loans to capital ratios where the ratio has got to be above a limit, the bigger the percent the more capital it has relative to the loans, so theortically bankers cannot keep creating money?

Same as I said to DT ..... this all comes AFTER the process of creating the commodity called money. I believe Werner refers to Basle II/III but only to question its validity as it makes assumptions which have been proved to be questionable. These are the regulations, limits and conditions set by the banks to prevent the excesses that would occur if they were not in existance but really has no effect on the process money creation.

[Get Real!]

I'm sorry but the inaccuracies that have been listed here are way off. Entertaining, but way off.

On the thread generally or just the links above? If you have knowledge I and others don't have why not share it?

No collateral taken into account in the banks books? How do you think their Core tier 1 ratio is calculated if there are no risk weighted assets?

loans created with no capital??? A banks loan to deposit ratio is critical in understanding the condition of a bank. Why would that even be necessary if loans moved independent of deposits?

I'm not sure where to start....it's pretty much all wrong.

Robin Hood is like Paphitis' twin...

As if one lafazanis wasn't enough on the forum...

[Paphitis]

I'm not sure where to start....it's pretty much all wrong.

Is it wrong to say most (90+%) 'money creation' and the role that plays in the general 'money supply' is today done by private banks through extending credit, following their own best interests and is not done by central banks based on what the economy in general needs at any given point in the cycle ? Is it wrong to say that the % of money that exists in economies that is created by Central bank direct vs that created by private bank via lending is at ratios never seen before historically, in 'favour' of that created by private banks? That there is a tendency for such banks to 'lend too much too widely' when the economy in general would actually benefit from them lending less in more target ways and for more targeted purposes if they were not just following their own narrows needs and to lend too little to narrowly when the economy generally would benefit most from them lending more ? Is it wrong to say that the trend from say the 70's to today as far as Central Banks direct regulatory 'means' to influence and direct when and how these banks lend has been a trend of ever less such tools or effective tools available to them over time? Is it wrong to say that historic 'tools' of Central Banks like setting the the interest base rate, that historically could and did impact how much and to whom and for what private Banks did or did not lend, have proven massively less effective post 2008 (and even before 2008) ?

There is a few you could start with should you feel so inclined I suggest. Are all of these things pretty much wrong as well ?

Lend less in more target ways means less lending to the middle and lower classes.

gee whiz, but they can't seem to take a trick now can they? The super wealthy will be the targeted means the bankers will always favour.

Talk about cutting your own nose.

As a general rule, the more activity the Bank can help generate, the better off we all are.

In addition, none of you have any clue what you're talking about. You can't have a Central Bank as the sole means of extending credit and on top of that managing fiscal policy, and interest rates. If you can't see what is wrong with this, then I don't know what to say.

Mate, why on earth would anyone in their right mind just want 1 Bank instead of thousands? What will happen when that 1 Bank collapses? How will they decide who gets credit and who doesn't?

No, our current system is highly evolved and working very well. We will stay as we are thank you very much, but if you want to create your own North Korean utopia then go right ahead. But the rest of the world continues as is. The industry is too big now.

Our Banks are too strong thank heavens for that. And they do a lot more good than people are willing to give them credit for. You don't hear about the good, just the bad.

[Paphitis]

I'm sorry but the inaccuracies that have been listed here are way off. Entertaining, but way off.

On the thread generally or just the links above? If you have knowledge I and others don't have why not share it?

No collateral taken into account in the banks books? How do you think their Core tier 1 ratio is calculated if there are no risk weighted assets?

loans created with no capital??? A banks loan to deposit ratio is critical in understanding the condition of a bank. Why would that even be necessary if loans moved independent of deposits?

I'm not sure where to start....it's pretty much all wrong.

At last!!!!

Someone who knows the industry inside out and knows what he is talking about.

Go right ahead DT and destroy that stupid Robin Hood and the fallacies he pushes about Banks being able to self fund themselves and create money from thin air as opposed to extending credit and IOUs!

[Paphitis]

Just to prove that it is not just me that believes that the money the banks create, they do so from nothing more than a data entry into an account.

Germany’s central bank – the Deutsche Bundesbank (German for German Federal Bank) – has admitted in writing that banks create credit out of thin air.

“In other words, money is created as book-entry by purchasing assets or entering credits on the left side of the balance-sheet and corresponding deposits on the right side. In other words, credit is created out of thin air.”

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/03/german-central-bank-admits-that-credit-is-created-out-of-thin-air.html

Speech Frankfurt

Money creation and responsibility - Speech at the 18th colloquium of the Institute for Bank-Historical Research (IBF) in Frankfurt - 18.09.2012 Dr Jens Weidmann President of the Deutsche Bundesbank

“Indeed, the fact that central banks can create money out of thin air, so to speak, is something that many observers are likely to find surprising and strange, perhaps mystical and dreamlike, too – or even nightmarish.”

https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/EN/Reden/2012/2012_09_20_weidmann_money_creaktion_and_responsibility.html


An interesting article on Income Tax ....US amended the Constitution with the 16th Amendment in 1913 .... the year the FED came into being!

You only need income tax if the Government borrows what they need from private commercial banks. The way the amendment was voted in is also an interesting story ..... the day of the vote The Senate had all gone home for a bank holiday and it was voted in by just a handful of people (4-5?) ..... all bankers!!!!!

http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_Income_Tax%3A_Root_of_all_Evil/50525/0/38/38/Y/M.html

In detail – the original 1954 speech.

https://fee.org/resources/the-income-tax-root-of-all-evil/ very long!!!


From the Daily Mail ........

Revealed: The Government’s hidden 'time bomb’ of debt that would cost EVERY Briton an astonishing £53,000 to pay off.

Read the comments under the article! You can see how so few people have even the remotest concept about the origin of the debt nor that the government BORROW’s it from commercial banks, at interest and that it is always the taxpayers that foot the bill. The government could just as easily create the money they need through their Central Bank, in the same way the banks do it and it would be free of both debt and interest. They could even pay off most of the existing debt almost overnight and it wouldn’t cost a dime. You play by the same rules as the commercial banks! Simple.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3545479/The-Government-s-hidden-time-bomb-debt-cost-Briton-astonishing-53-000-defuse.html#readerCommentsCommand-message-field

Say bye bye now dude.

All your theories and false narratives are about to be destroyed by a Back Room Financial expert and Banking consultant!

You're fucked now you acrimonious bitter shit!

I hope you learn from this! Because we don't need hundreds of anti Banking threads that you're renowned for.

Seems to me that you have a personal vendetta.