Exactly, whether the bank is committing fraud depends entirely upon the terms expressed. Therefore FRB cannot be inherently fraudulent.
If you let someone borrow your car, is it OK for them to drive it as long as you don’t find out about it?
Why else would they borrow it?
Why else would I let them borrow my car?
Heh yea, I worded that wrong. I meant it more in the sense of vallet parking, or warehousing. Where, they agree to hold your car for safekeeping, but not to drive it (or add milleage, et cetera). Now that my premise is clarified, would you be OK with them driving your car if you didn’t find out about it (the contract explicitely states that they cannot drive your car)?
but the bankers are people who hold scinerams position; obfuscators
Enjoy your lifeboat situation.
Go do some research on Swiss Re and Munich Re.
How long have they been around? [;)]
Are you arguing that the market cannot provide checks and balances? That certainly seems to be an implication of what you are saying.
Depends, what’s the offered interest rate? I certainly wouldn’t let them do it for free.
No. I’m not so sure contracts explicitly say what you think they do. I certainly don’t put money in my chequing account and receive interest and assume its simply sitting in a warehouse. But under such an agreement it definitely isn’t OK.
Is it or is it not possible?
I just asked a question about fraud. But, on the contrary, I think the market is more than capable of providing checks and balances on both insurance and banking.
Shame on them then. Particularly for dragging FRB through the mud.
Well, you’re a very informed guy. But assumptions are meaningless when there is a contract and the contract explicitly implies “demand deposit”.
Yes, shame of them for defrauding everyone. But there would be no FRB without these “obfuscations”. FRB relies on the illusion of demand deposits. without “obfuscation”, the public would seize to see them as demand deposits. The days of having the cake and eating it at the same time would be over.
I don’t know how you even know what bank I’m a member of but lets see this contract then. As “demand deposit” can mean two different things, and I’m not sure how anything can be explicitly implied.
And if you mutually agreed on the rate, you would effectively surrender the use of your car for a certain amount of time. That would be a time deposit and not a demand deposit.
“Enjoy your lifeboat situation.” - What do you think that implies?
Did you do any research? How long have these companies been around for?
Yes.
How relevant do you think it is in regards to the original question?
Heard it already, patiently waiting for evidence.
That’s a physical impossibility, obviously FRB isn’t.
Excuse me; explicitly stated.
You’re back to the same obfuscation you just condemned. two different things for demand deposits? why two? why not three or a hundred?
Demand deposit as understood by the public and defined in the contract means redeemable on demand. But It is not according to your own testimony. You said so yourself when you introduced the concept of deferral of payment as a possible clause in the contract. So don’t obfuscate. Which concept (not words) are we talking about. If it is your concept, then it is not demand deposit as defined by traditional FRB and how the public understands it. Your concept no longer applies to FRB.
Evidence for what? That oranges would not sell as apples?
You know this debate is circular and endless. This will not be settled on logical grounds.