But that not what banks do. Bank create the money they loan you by writing down those numbers in their books. If they loan you three numbers, as soon as time and interest kick in they have a court enforceable contract that you have pay back more than what was created, or you are forced into foreclosure.
I do hope you realize that 100% of our money today is 100% backed.
In truth some banks DON’T have to meet any reserve requirement, and in more truth their reserves only consist of more promises to pay (they don’t actually have anything in reserve). Most reserves consist of a book keeping entry (numbers).
“Any bank incorporated by special law of any State or of the United States or organized under the general laws of any State or of the United States and having an unimpaired capital sufficient to entitle it to become a national banking association under the provisions of the existing laws may. by the vote of the shareholders owning not less than fifty-one per centum of the capital stock of such bank or banking association, with the approval of the Comptroller of the Currency be converted into a national banking association, with any name approved by the Comptroller of the Currency”
I’m glad you looked up how a state chartered bank can become a national bank but that has nothing to do with what our conversation was about.
Every Federal reserve bank shall maintain reserves in gold or lawful money of not less than thirty-five per centum against its deposits and reserves in gold of not less than forty per centum against its Federal reserve notes in actual circulation, and not offset by gold or lawful money deposited with the Federal reserve agent
The fact is that the Federal Reserve Banks do not deal in gold anymore. Do you really believe that the banking system hasn’t changed its rules to benifit themselves in the 100 years?
Bottom line is, we don’t use reserves for money and they aren’t part of the circulating medium of exchange.
You may not believe that they have put up your property for colleteral but that is what the law states. Also, What do you think the government put up as collateral in order to obtain that Bond? Have you ever “studied” anything besides some theory and maybe the actual facts of what is actually going on?
The collateral that the government has put up is your private property, and this has to change.
Do you realize that the loan money is the only source of the money? There is no money until someboby borrows it and at that point in time the banks create that money as a book keeping entry and only create the principle. As soon as time and interest kick in the debt grows but the money supply does not making it impossible for everyone to get out of debt.
Faith isn’t a backing.
Money != debt.
but your property is.
If that were true then the time and interest would grow our money supply and we would have a money supply of 57 trillion.
Our money only comes into exsistance as an interest bearing loan and once time and interest kick in, the debt grows but the money supply does not.
If you really believe that money is debt, then gold/silver under the 1792 coinage act could not be money because nobody owed on that money.
Credit is what we use for money but it really can’t be money. Money is what is used to pay debts, credit is what you owe.
What’s up with quotes and wrong authors these days? That wasn’t me :o
Irrelevent to the point. But to answer, it’s traded into circulation just like anything else. How did iphone’s get into circulation?
No offense but this is really a dumb comment you’ve provided us. If there is a static quantity of money prices adjust to that supply.
If an orange sellsman cannot sell his oranges because there is “Not enough Money” as you say. Than his oranges are priced too expensive and he will have to lower his price. What he doesn’t do is go to a government and ask them to create new money into existence. Thats just stupid talk.
Your statement really proves you know nothing about what your talking about.
This comment is non-sequitur and also makes a false assumption about my personal life. Since you cannot fathom the fundamentals of economics you resort to attacking my person, ad homonim.
This is just a plain stupid lie. The cost of business is various variables and different for each industry. The cost of doing business’s has nothing to do with taxation. On a free market there would be no taxation. It’s a whole other topic all together and yet another non-sequitur post by you.
How does food enter circulation? How do ipods, iphones, tires, cars, fuel, any just about anything enter circulation? By trade. Are you really that dumb?
Why does new money need to be spent? the “Author” likes to make up stuff when he writes and just assumes everyone will beleive his lies.
This is factually incorrect. Historically incorrect, empirically incorrect, and theoretically incorrect. You might as well be telling me the moon is made of cheese. Stop making stuff up. Your on a forum of generally well read people, we won’t believe asinine posts like these. especially by someone who’s been refuted like 30 times now.
Your terminology is so lost here. The cost of doing business has nothing to do with monetary theory. I would laugh if it weren’t so sad…
Which book? I think your lieing to be honest. So you may have read one economics book, and you quiet reading at what page 300? That doesn’t change the fact that your still trying to solve calculus without the order of operations. What book did you read so we can scrutinize your selection and matching author. 
Austrian economists focus on the root cause. You just refuse to read. And business’s create wealth, they don’t create money. Business’s create new “REAL” wealth. They create steel, they create consumer goods, they create various things. Business’s don’t create “Money”.
You don’t even know or understand what the principles of gold and silver is. And for the 20th time there has always been enough gold and silver. Your just a folly who can’t think for himself.
You have to prove to us that there is not enough gold and silver. Until then stop making the statement that it’s true. This is a forum of people who don’t live in delusional land as you do. We live in reality and we know the difference between facts and fairy tails, unlike you. From here on out just assume that we are unanimously agreed on this forum that there is enough gold/silver. If you disagree with us thats fine, your error. But repeating yourself over and over and over won’t make your fallacies any less fallacious.
You are still trying to solve calculus without the order of operations. You refuse to learn the order of operations and have admitted to it. Therefore no one should take you seriously.
A basis for your argument ignores the simplicity of the Federal Reserve system.
The Federal Reserve system started out as a partially backed currency converting a smaller amount of gold into a larger amount of nothing. The system failed when people demanded their gold.
Government then eliminated the requirement for the Federal Reserve system to redeem their payable on demand instruments in gold.
Government later granted the Federal Reserve system a monopoly on legal tender creation.
Government later severed the direct relationship between the currency and gold dissolving Bretton Woods.
The Federal Reserve system is by its nature a fractional reserve banking system that has incrementally become what it is today. Your arguments solely against the creation of credit by the Federal Reserve are not arguments against the Federal Reserve system. They are arguments against government intervention and the lack of competition to the Federal Reserve system.
Please refer me to a state chartered bank that is not denominated in Federal Reserve notes.
Please cite the law you are referring to that gives your argument substance. Private property is not the collateral. If you stated people are collateral I would not disagree because productivity is taxed.
Explain, and this had better not be “your property is collateral for the debt”, because money is not debt.
How about an explanation other than money != debt, money is not debt, etc.
I explained my position in detail and added a chart. I tire of people just stating money != debt with no explanation.
How exactly do the federal reserve notes in your possession not represent a government obligation?
what are the government obliged to do? make you pancakes?
Steal your pancakes…
Money isn’t debt and debt isn’t money, in so far as the two terms are defined. Money is the medium of exchange. In our system, it can come into existence when someone goes into debt, but this is not the same thing as saying “money is debt”.
And even in our system, one can go into debt without money being created. If I loan $4 to my friend to be paid back in an hour, I haven’t actually created money and no money is destroyed upon repayment. So debt doesn’t necessarily increase the money supply; and an increase in the money supply doesn’t necessaily mean new debt was created. The Treasury could easily print up a bunch of bills if it really wanted to and increase the supply of paper floating around.
In our federal reserve system please cite an example of money that comes into existence that does not represent debt.
I’m not entirely sure if there is any money that doesn’t come into existence as debt in our system, but it isn’t impossible for money to come into existence without debt. That’s all I was trying to get at. I’m not an expert on what exactly our money supply is composed of. It would be very easy for the Treasury to simply print up some bills rather than have the federal reserve buy Treasury bonds with money it creates out of thin air, but as of now, I don’t believe this happens (and certainly not on any significant scale).
Either way, it isn’t a system that Austrians support.
The point here is that Money crank here, AKA TOm and his friends want to replace the Federal Reserve system with the Congressional Reserve system. Both systems operate identically the same and both will be corrupt.
The other point here is that Tom comes to incorrect conclusions on why we had financial turmoil. Last I checked it was the Austrian’s and their theory of the business cycle which predicted this mess. Not Money cranks, and last I checked the only “school of economics” calling themselves “Money as Dept” know next to nothing about economics itself and have no real literature to backup most of their claims.
Also if the treasury prints new money by lending it to banks. I’m talking paper money. And banks come clean on their loans what happens to that paper money? Does it shrink out of existence? Does the fed throw it into a large kiln and burn in? No because money itself is NOT dept and need not come into existence from dept.
Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. And please note that I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT FRNs. I am talking about money qua money.