what!? how does the distortion of demand deposits which multiply present titles to money entail that time deposits that are properly matched (i.e. dont multiply present claims to money) distort???
Because they are the same thing. They produce the same number of claims. One is simply unspecified as to the date of withdrawal. A dollar bill is a present claim to money. A demand deposit is not.
you are wrong. count the claims. money gets deposited into a demand account. what parties own the money? count them for me…
A demand deposit is simply placing your property in a special type of warehouse, much like getting a coat-check ticket or valet ticket. It’s a bailment. Period.
The depositor owns a claim for money to be delivered at an unspecified future date. I don’t know how many times I can go through this. I don’t know the legal name for the bank’s “ownership” status but it is irrelevant.
Assume the bank knows with perfect certainty when depositors will want to withdraw their money. Being profit maximizing agents, they will issue loans of the correct volume and duration to accommodate the demands of the depositors. This would mean the reserve ratio would be exactly equal to the ratio of “warehouse” money and money in time deposits under the 100% reserve scheme if depositors knew exactly when they would need the money. That is all the reserve ratio is- the ratio of “warehouse receipts” to time deposits.
In real life depositors don’t know when they will need the money and so they benefit from the flexibility of demand deposits. This flexibility is not generally a problem for banks because deposits and withdrawals are uncorrelated across all depositors and so a withdrawal by one depositor is usually offset by deposits by others. Therefore fractional demand deposits are a win-win except in the case of bank runs.
Again, is this what you think it should be considered or is this actually what it is? Legally, a demand deposit is not considered a warehouse claim nor is treated like one by banks and depositors.
when you ask people to assume the impossible you will not convince them. how you can convince yourself is a mystery to me too.
if i have a demand deposit. the money is there on demand for me. it is mine. the whole time. when is it not mine? i always have the right to withdraw it. i never dont have that right. hence i am the only right claimant to it. any other person with a claim to it, simultaneous with my constant claim to it (like a loan recipient) paradoxically contradicts that truth.
you know legally, taxation is not considered theft nor is treated as such by the (monopoly) institutions that ‘defend private property’ (sic)
enlightening.
Notice I relax this assumption later on.
False. The depositor owns a claim check to his or her property, just like getting a receipt from a warehouse. I don’t know how many times I can go through this until you grasp it. It’s a warehouse. It’s not a loan. You don’t loan your items to a warehouse. You give it to them simply for possession so they can protect it. Period. You’re not loaning it to them. I don’t know how many times I must explain that. You’re transferring possession, not ownership or any other title to do anything with the money other than keep it safe for a fee. Period.
Legally jews had no real standing in Nazi Germany. So please don’t try legal positivism.
recipe:
first assume that pigs can fly.
then prove something irrelevant from that
finally, relax the opening assumption and baldly make unsupported statement.
You can say “period” as many times as you want; it doesn’t strengthen the argument.
Read any bank contract you have ever signed. I’m sure none of them mention the term warehouse. There is little to no history of demand deposits legally being considered warehouse receipts. Ask most people and they understand their money is being loaned out. If people know the money isn’t being used as warehouse receipts and it is in the contract that they are not being used as warhouse receipts, then they are not warehouse receipts. Period.
or in other words people are never offered demand deposits.
Never. You have no money. You have claims against the bank. The bank does with its whatever it wants. Loans out non, a fraction or all of it.
it’s a gift economy !!!
Assertions.
Where is you proof? Which must include your refutation of Kinsella.
scineram, is kinsella your friedn or your foe? he says FRB is an economic nonsense…
And that the fraud charge is legal nonsense.
im just asking you to motivate me to argue against kinsella for you. is kinsella stating precisely the argument you would state? or would i waste my time refuting him, since if i did so you might deny that he represented your thoughts…