REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Limits of State Power

POSTED BY: SERGEANTX
UPDATED: Monday, May 25, 2009 08:03
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 25368
PAGE 7 of 8

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:59 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
http://carolynbaker.net/site/content/view/95/

"Banks create money, not from their own earnings or from the funds deposited by customers, but from the borrowers' promises to repay loans. Most importantly, borrowers not only promise to repay, but to repay with interest, and the bank writes the amount of money of both into the borrower's account."

http://www.discusseconomics.com/banking/where-do-banks-get-their-money/

"Turns out money creation sometimes appears out of thin air. All banks lend based on a reserve ratio of their deposit: they must keep a certain % of each deposit at the bank but can lend out the rest. Of course, the whole system is dependent on a) the bank being responsible with lending, b) everyone not defaulting on their loans. If these two things happen eventually the system collapses which is what we're seeing in the current market."


Posting nonsense from other websites doesn't suddenly make it true. Hell even your last quote doesn't support you, it says that it appears from thin air, but then fails to back up that assertion (it goes into some convoluted mathematics, but purely fails to prove anything).

In fact the "All banks lend based on a reserve ratio of their deposit: they must keep a certain % of each deposit at the bank but can lend out the rest" part supports what I've been saying.

Here's what happens when someone, anyone, makes up money on the spot: Zimbabwe. If money just appears from nowhere, then money becomes worthless. It's a concept so simple it even found it's way into the Hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy. Money only has value, because it has a finite supply, if it can be made up on the spot and written into a ledger, then money no longer has a finite supply, therefore it has no value.

Even if you take their rather convoluted example, it doesn't support what you said.

Ask yourself, if a private bank can just make money, why is forgery a crime? If a private bank can do it, why not a private individual with a printing press?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:03 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
So if you agree that monopolization is an inherent economic force, and you don't like government control... how do you propose creating and maintaining real competition?



Well, I don't agree that monopolies are inherent. But, let's assume Marx was right. In that case we can vigorously disrupt monopolies when they occur. My point is, that's not what we're doing. What we do is intervene at all levels in a way that actual supports corporate domination. Can't we at least agree such policies need to end?

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:21 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Well, I don't agree that monopolies are inherent
I've just described several powerful mechanisms by which monopolies form from economics alone and many examples, as well as the general sweep of history, and all you can say is... "I don't agree"? You haven't addressed any of those points and this is where I think you go off into a belief-system.
Quote:

But, let's assume Marx was right
Everything I know about monopolization I learned from studying standard economics and history, not Marx. Economies of scale, Investopedia:
www.investopedia.com/articles/03/012703.asp
For balance, here are the diseconomies of scale
www.investopedia.com/terms/d/diseconomiesofscale.asp There are far fewer diseconomies of scale than economies of scale.
Quote:

In that case we can vigorously disrupt monopolies when they occur.
How??? You need SOMETHING other than economic forces. But you don't like government. So, what are your options?
Quote:

Can't we at least agree such policies need to end?
You don't hear me supporting corporations, nor corporate control of government, do you? Of course we can agree; I've been agreeing on that point all along. What I'm proposing is something more active than just not fostering monopolies. I'm actually suggesting a complete revamp of the system to prevent ANY sort of power centralization, whether that power is the law, money, or the power of the pulpit.


----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:43 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Citizen

I think you are arguing just because. Surely you have heard of capital ratio, capitalization etc ?

"The capital ratio is the percentage of a bank's capital to its risk-weighted assets."

Oddly enough, those 'assets' are outstanding loans the bank has made. Generally, banks are required to be between 4% and 8% capitalized - in other words, to have 4% to 8% of the value of outstanding loans in actual cash.

The rest is just made up out of thin air.

***************************************************************

As for interbank loans - they do not cover the value of all of the loans made. They are done to assure a bank meets its minimum percentage reserve.

"Banks are required to hold reserves, a monetary amount equal to a pre-set percentage of all outstanding loans and obligations. Reserves must be liquid such as cash, financial instruments that can be quickly used to cover withdrawals and other demands on the bank. ... When banks’ reserves drop below legal limits, they must borrow to make up the deficit."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:12 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Just as a quick post to the problem of money creation: The only "real money" that banks have on-hand (aside from whatever is in the safe-deposit boxes!) is their tier one capital. That capital is not rumor, but solid. It is fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_capital

Beyond that, a bank's value gets fuzzy. Perhaps we are arguing definitional terms, but I do get the point that speculation encourages debt, which injects a very money-like burst of consumption and demand. All without a single extra dollar bill being printed. If that isn't money creation I don't know what is.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:13 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I think you are arguing just because. Surely you have heard of capital ratio, capitalization etc ?


Yeah, that must be it. Or maybe you're just arguing just because?
Quote:


Oddly enough, those 'assets' are outstanding loans the bank has made. Generally, banks are required to be between 4% and 8% capitalized - in other words, to have 4% to 8% of the value of outstanding loans in actual cash.

The rest is just made up out of thin air.


Perhaps you don't understand capitalisation? It's not "you have to have this much, and the rest you can just make up".

Capitalisation just means they have to keep a reserve, a percentage of a total amount of money that has been deposited, and I'm pretty sure it has to keep a reserve of it's deposits, not loans, so people with accounts can withdraw their money. There's a requirement to cover your deposits, because that's money you might have to pay out. Why would you need a percentage of your outward loans in reserve, that doesn't even begin to make sense.

So in actuality, banks are required to keep a certain percentage of deposits in cash, while the remained of those deposits can be loaned out (hey now, isn't that what I've been saying?). Banks have to have the money to loan it, they can't make it up, they just can't, and the closest you've come to showing they can, only shows your own misunderstanding of the source material, frankly.

The only possible way for banks to "create" money is the multiplier effect, which is a systemic issue, not one of banks "making up money". It's also an apparent effect, rather than the litteral one you claim.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:22 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Citizen

READ THIS:

"Banks are required to hold reserves, a monetary amount equal to a pre-set percentage of all outstanding loans and obligations (NOTE: NOT a percentage of deposits). Reserves must be liquid such as cash, financial instruments that can be quickly used to cover withdrawals and other demands on the bank (NOTE: these are to cover daily CASH transactions made at the bank.). ... When banks’ reserves drop below legal limits, they must borrow to make up the deficit."


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:44 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Citizen

READ THIS:

"Banks are required to hold reserves, a monetary amount equal to a pre-set percentage of all outstanding loans and obligations (NOTE: NOT a percentage of deposits). Reserves must be liquid such as cash, financial instruments that can be quickly used to cover withdrawals and other demands on the bank (NOTE: these are to cover daily CASH transactions made at the bank.). ... When banks’ reserves drop below legal limits, they must borrow to make up the deficit."


Rue

READ THIS:
The reserve requirement (or required reserve ratio) is a bank regulation that sets the minimum reserves each bank must hold to customer deposits and notes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement

My quote even comes with a cite.

Again, why would they have to keep a percentage of the loans they've made? That makes no sense whatsoever. The cash transactions will be made on the money deposited at the bank, not loaned by it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:57 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Not the same as capitalization ratio, is it ?

Now, what were we talking about ? Oh yes - capitalization ratio. Cash on hand compared to assets, which, oddly, are outstanding loans, reserve notes and other IOUs.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Citizen- You're confusing reserve requirements with capitalization requirements. Reserve requirements have to do with deposits; typically they are fiat money held against a sudden increase in w/drawals. Capitalization requirements limit the amount of loans a bank can make and is based on the stocks and retained earnings, but has nothing to do with actual bank deposits.
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:11 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Not the same as capitalization ratio, is it ?

Now, what were we talking about ? Oh yes - capitalization ratio. Cash on hand compared to assets, which, oddly, are outstanding loans, reserve notes and other IOUs.


You saying so, not the same thing as proof is it.

Ok, actually, I haven't got a clue what you're going on about. Sounds like you've taken "Capital Ratio" and "Reserve Requirements" and mashed them together.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:13 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Capitalization requirements limit the amount of loans a bank can make and is based on the stocks and retained earnings, but has nothing to do with actual bank deposits.


Not really, I was responding to what Rue seemed to be babbling on about. Rue's calling it Capitalisation, but it sure doesn't sound like it. The only percentage of anything that a bank must keep in capital is the Reserve requirement. In essence I think it's Rue getting the two confused.

I'm still curious where this imaginary money is coming from, even what you're saying doesn't support that. Seems the only thin air it's coming from is Rue's imagination.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:31 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Citizen, dont' let snark get in the way of discussion. Rue is correct, banks have two entirely different requirements placed on them. One is the reserve requirement
Quote:

Amount of money and liquid assets that Federal Reserve System member banks must hold in cash or on deposit with the Federal Reserve System, usually a specified percentage of their demand deposits and time deposits. also called Federal Reserve requirement and reserve ratio.
The reserve requirement has to do with the Federal Reserve.
www.investorwords.com/4207/reserve_requirement.html

The other, which is an entirely DIFFERENT requirement, is the capitalization ratio.
Quote:

The capitalization ratio measures the debt component of a company's capital structure, or capitalization (i.e., the sum of long-term debt liabilities and shareholders' equity) to support a company's operations and growth. Long-term debt is divided by the sum of long-term debt and shareholders' equity. This ratio is considered to be one of the more meaningful of the "debt" ratios - it delivers the key insight into a company's use of leverage.
www.investopedia.com/university/ratios/debt/ratio4.asp
In THIS sense, the bank operates just like any other business which issues stocks. The capitalization ratio was set for the EU in Basel, and by the Fed in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_requirement

They are two entirely different things.


----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:38 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

In that case we can vigorously disrupt monopolies when they occur.
How??? You need SOMETHING other than economic forces. But you don't like government. So, what are your options?


Did you read my post? Go ahead, use the government to bust up monopolies. Go hog wild - send in g-men to gun down any CEO whose company gets more than 90% market share. As long as interference in the economy is constrained to busting up monopolies, I don't see a lot of harm in that.
Quote:

Quote:

Can't we at least agree such policies need to end?
You don't hear me supporting corporations, nor corporate control of government, do you?



Not directly. But you don't seem to recognize they way corporations use government to interfere with the economy on their behalf. And much of the regulation and "oversight" you argue for does exactly that.

Quote:

I'm actually suggesting a complete revamp of the system to prevent ANY sort of power centralization, whether that power is the law, money, or the power of the pulpit.


So, its sounds like it's not really monopolies you're opposed to, but any differential in the success of competing companies. What exactly constitutes centralization of power? Are all companies guaranteed an equal market share regardless of performance? Who decides which companies succeed and which ones fail?

Honestly, this is where you need to get specific. You want to replace market forces with government control, yet you never really answer the "who decides?" questions. Care to give it a shot?

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:41 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Citizen, dont' let snark get in the way of discussion. Rue is correct, banks have two entirely different requirements placed on them. One is the reserve requirement


Except what Rue is describing isn't a capitalisation ratio. The Capitalisation ratio doesn't say anything about keeping money in reserve, it's about how much of the Banks loans can be made up from borrowing, and how much has to be backed by the companies own shareholder equity.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:13 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Citizen

Nowhere is a bank required to back its loans 100% either with deposits, investors, or with loans from other banks, as you claim.

They do, indeed, create money out of nowhere.


So, let's do this your way. Find me the quote, regulation, definition, calculation ... that shows banks MUST have 100% of their loans backed by deposits, investors, or loans from other banks.


I'll wait, but probably not more than a week.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

But you don't seem to recognize they way corporations use government to interfere with the economy on their behalf. And much of the regulation and "oversight" you argue for does exactly that.
I have more than once suggested that the corporate form be abolished, business and personal taxes be treated exactly the same, the right to privacy of people from business be the same as businesses from people, that theft laws be equalized (stealing from a corporation is an automatic felony no matter how small the amount), copyrights and patents be done away with etc. I know how binding arbitration often works against the little guy. I want the bailouts to stop. I have pointed out the role of police and troops in strikebreaking, and that many of our foreign wars had more to do with making the world safe for capitalism, not democracy. I suspect I have at least as thorough knowledge about business abuse of law as you. If you haven't heard me say these things, you haven't been listening.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:20 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Citizen

Nowhere is a bank required to back its loans 100% either by deposits or with loans from other banks, as you claim.

They do, indeed, create money out of nowhere.


Yes they are. The best you've got is the multiplier effect, and that's nothing like what you claim. Banks don't and can't magic money into existence at a whim as you claim (and have singularly failed to back up in any way shape or form).

EDIT:
Quote:

So, let's do this your way. Find me the quote, regulation, definition, calculation ... that shows banks MUST have 100% of their loans backed by deposits, investors, or loans from other banks.

I'll wait, but probably not more than a week.


Ahh, typical Rue. Rue makes a claim its a fact, and the fact Rue said it is all the evidence required. I dismiss the claim I have to come up with reams of evidence to dismiss the (probably made up on the spot) RueFact.

Since my statement is "Banks can't lend money they don't have", and yours is "banks can create money with magic fairy dust", it would seem it's your job to back up your claim. Since you rarely do so, I won't hold my breath.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Rue makes a claim its a fact, and the fact Rue said it is all the evidence required
It wasn't Rue.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:31 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
It wasn't Rue.


Quote:

Originally posted by RUE:
They do, indeed, create money out of nowhere.


Care to try again?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:33 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I have more than once suggested that the corporate form be abolished, business and personal taxes be treated exactly the same, the right to privacy of people from business be the same as businesses from people, that theft laws be equalized (stealing from a corporation is an automatic felony no matter how small the amount), copyrights and patents be done away with etc. I know how binding arbitration often works against the little guy. I want the bailouts to stop. I have also pointed out many of our foreign wars had more to do with making the world safe for capitalism, not democracy. I suspect I have at least as thorough knowledge about business abuse of law as you. If you haven't heard me say these things, you haven't been listening.



Fair enough. Though I think you know I'm talking about regulation and "oversight" that operates under the guise of "consumer protection", yet operates more to protect the vested interests of entrenched business than anything else. I seem to recall you've operated a small business at one time or another, so I assume you've dealt with the overhead created by unnecessary regulation schemes.

Anyway, I'll figure you're on my side when it comes to getting corporate influence out of legislation.

Now, what about my "who decides?" questions?

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


back later

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:50 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Banks can't lend money they don't have" doesn't require any proof on your part, Citizen ? Everyone else's assertions require some kind of proof, but yours don't ? Isn't that just a tad - hypocritical ?

BTW - both SignyM and I have provided you with definitions that show that banks are not required to 100% back their loans with actual cash. As for you - you've got nothing.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:16 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"Banks can't lend money they don't have" doesn't require any proof on your part, Citizen ? Everyone else's assertions require some kind of proof, but yours don't ? Isn't that just a tad - hypocritical ?


You're the one doing it Rue, and yes you are being a hypocrite.

And clearly, at least in your mind, everyone (or at least you) doesn't have to back up their assertions, clearly in your mind the only people who have to back up their assertions are those you don't agree with. I can't say I'm surprised, it would seem to be your standard MO.
Quote:


BTW - both SignyM and I have provided you with definitions that show that banks are not required to 100% back their loans with actual cash. As for you - you've got nothing.


On the contrary, clearly you've got nothing as per usual. Except more RueFacts of course, not that I expect better from someone who is basically AURaptor for the Democrats.

All you've provided is definitions that show banks don't have to back their loans with their own money, which shit, is something I said myself (I know you didn't read it though, not liking to listen to anything you disagree with). Not once have you shown even a little evidence that indicates that they invent money from the ether. I've yet to see any evidence that any bank has ever purposefully and legally added extra zeros to their ledger. The fact you claim your 'evidence' proves things it clearly doesn't, is absolutely nothing new for you.

Also, the existence of Reserve requirements and Capital requirements implies banks can't make up money from nowhere. Why would they NEED a reserve if they can just invent cash on demand? Obviously they wouldn't.

If they could just invent money whenever they wanted, as you erroneously claim, there'd be no need for the bailouts, because a bank couldn't go bust. Since banks can and do run out of money, clearly they can't create money on a whim. Neither have you managed to argue against the fact that IF banks could create money on a whim, then money would have no value. Preferring to skirt around the issue, post out of context quotes without cites, and claim what opinion pieces and definitions you have posted, prove things they don't even begin to support.

You claim that banks can create money out of thin air, but you've only proved that you can't create an argument out of the same medium.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:32 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/creditcrunch.php

Banks Create the Money They Lend

Bankers will tell you that they do not create money. At a 10% reserve requirement, they simply lend out 90% of their deposits. The catch is that their “deposits” include the money they have written into their customers’ accounts as loans. That is how loans are made: numbers are simply written into the accounts of borrowers, as many reputable authorities have attested. Here are two of them, dating back to when officials were either more aware of what was going on or more open about it:

[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.

– Robert B. Anderson, Treasury Secretary under Eisenhower, in an interview reported in the August 31, 1959 issue of U.S. News and World Report

“Do private banks issue money today? Yes. Although banks no longer have the right to issue bank notes, they can create money in the form of bank deposits when they lend money to businesses, or buy securities. . . . The important thing to remember is that when banks lend money they don’t necessarily take it from anyone else to lend. Thus they ‘create’ it.

– Congressman Wright Patman, Money Facts (House Committee on Banking and Currency, 1964)



The process by which banks create money was detailed in a revealing booklet put out by the Chicago Federal Reserve titled Modern Money Mechanics.2 The booklet was periodically revised until 1992, when it had reached 50 pages long. It is written in somewhat difficult prose, but here are a few relevant passages:

“The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks.” [p3]

Translation: banks create money.

“In the absence of legal reserve requirements, banks can build up deposits by increasing loans and investments so long as they keep enough currency on hand to redeem whatever amounts the holders of deposits want to convert into currency.” [p3]

Translation: banks can create as much money as they want by writing loans into their borrowers’ accounts, limited only by (a) legal reserve requirements (money that must be held in reserve – traditionally about 10% of outstanding deposits and loans) or (b) the amount of money they will need to keep on hand to pay any depositors who might come for their money (also traditionally about 10%).

“Banks may increase the balances in their reserve accounts by depositing checks and proceeds from electronic funds transfers as well as currency.” [p4]


There is more, well documented and annotated. I suggest you read it.



***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:34 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


And you still have nothing to back up your assertions.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:07 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Ah, Rue, I see you beat me to the post.
Quote:

Banks create money in the economy by making loans
from How Stuff Works
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/banking/bank1.htm

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Now, what about my "who decides?" questions?
I don't have a direct answer. I can't point to "who" because I'm more interested in "how". How does power concentrate? How can we keep it from concentrating? So my answer is - everybody. And nobody.

You can't distribute power by creating a centralized overseer... bc haven't you just centralized power? I want to push decision-making, revenue distribution, communication, ethics to the lowest possible level. Every function should be governed by a board drawn from its members. There should be no office of "President". I know I've explained this several times already so I'm not going to re-explain it again, but hopefully this refreshes your memory.

HOW do we get "there" from "here"?

Well, I doubt that corporations would tolerate wholesale abandonment of the concept, so the best thing would be to chip away at corporate privilege while instituting better shareholder and employee representation, and at the same time encouraging the formation of cooperatives by creating better business forms (paradigms and contracts beyond the direct-democracy form currently allowed by law).

AFA government is concerned, there are two things that MUST happen: the media MUST allow ample free time/ space for viable candidates at the national and state level. Money is an overwhelmingly corrupting and winnowing influence. One of the reasons third parties don't get a fair vote is because they don't get exposure. NOTHING WILL HAPPEN UNTIL THAT HAPPENS! The second is that election process (including registration) must be fair, open and auditable. Eventually, we should go to the popular vote.

Those would be MY "baby steps".




----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:44 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Now, what about my "who decides?" questions?
I don't have a direct answer. I can't point to "who" because I'm more interested in "how". How does power concentrate? How can we keep it from concentrating? So my answer is - everybody. And nobody.



"How" is fine. But I'm not sure you got my questions. You've proposed to eliminate profit as a deciding factor in determining who wins and loses. (And by "wins" and "loses", I'm referring to which companies succeed and continue operations, and which ones don't.) You've also stated the desire to task the government with preventing "concentrations of power", so I'm interested how we detect a concentration of power and curtail it. I'm also interested in what you're definition of an unacceptable concentration of power is. You seem to be talking about something more commonplace than an actual monopoly.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:47 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
And you still have nothing to back up your assertions.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.


Neither do you, you've got opinions you're portraying as fact. But as usual your standard for evidence (when you think it supports you) proves you're no scientist.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:52 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Ah, Rue, I see you beat me to the post.
Quote:

Banks create money in the economy by making loans
from How Stuff Works
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/banking/bank1.htm


All that's talking about is the Multiplier effect, which I've already dealt with and is a far cry from the purposeful and conscious decision to create any arbitrary amount of money that the bank wants on demand. The multiplier effect doesn't literally increase the money supply either, it gives the effect or appearance of an increase. But either way it's completely unlike what Rue is proposing, and has singularly failed to even begin to back up. It's interesting that Rue wants reams of statute books to refute, but accepts opinions if they support, shows the real level of Rue's discerning when it comes to evidence. I can't help it if Rue doesn't understand the subject matter, and is too arrogant to learn.

The fact I mentioned the multiplier effect by name, and it wasn't picked up on, the fact that I used examples that don't consider the multiplier effect, and no one said "but the money is created elsewhere", the fact that the multiplier effect is not the banks consciously loaning imaginary money that they've purposefully made up on the spot, as Rue is trying to claim, fairly proves that it wasn't the multiplier effect Rue was talking about. Bringing it up now (especially since I've already noted it) is nothing more than a Red Herring, but does fit in nicely with Rue's general dishonest posting style, so there's that I suppose. Perhaps Rue will pounce on the Multiplier effect now that you've brought it up, even though it's clearly not what Rue was talking about, it seems Rue thinks it's better to appear right, than to be honest.

Perhaps people have heard about the Multiplier effect, and have got the mechanism all backwards, can't blame me for that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 21, 2009 3:31 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Also, I would like to know what alternatives you propose.



Tell you what. I'm gonna start another thread about health insurance; trying to come up with requirements, and leaving the ideology out.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 21, 2009 5:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Citizen, if I have $1 and apply the multiplier effect to it, I have the equivalent of $1 * X. Rue and I talked about this offline. She read through a pdf which talked SPECIFICALLY about how banks lend out MORE MONEY THAN THEY HAVE. This wasn't some sort of bogus wild-hair opinion, it was a historical document from (I think) the Eisenhower Administration which traced how all of this began (back to the day of gold scrip).

It would help if you wouldn't get so damn snarky, because even if you had a point (which I don't think you do) it gets lost in the muddle.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 21, 2009 5:10 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You've also stated the desire to task the government with preventing "concentrations of power", so I'm interested how we detect a concentration of power and curtail it. I'm also interested in what you're definition of an unacceptable concentration of power is.
I haven't thought that far ahead. I'll give it some thought and let you know.
Quote:

You seem to be talking about something more commonplace than an actual monopoly.
yes.


----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 21, 2009 6:02 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Citizen, if I have $1 and apply the multiplier effect to it, I have the equivalent of $1 * X.


I specifically spoke about the multiplier effect. It's not, in anyway shape or form what Rue was proposing. Neither is it creating money from nowhere, it's giving the effect of having more money in the system, not actually literally creating more money in the system, which again is what Rue claims.

The multiplier effect is a quirk of bank accounting that allows the effect of literal currency to be greater than it's supply would suggest. This gives the effect of having more money than there is, but in reality all that is happening is that the same unit of currency is being lent more than once. It is nothing more mysterious than lending money that has been lent to you, it's an amplification of the effect of literal funds, which is by no means the same thing as creating funds out of thin air.

That is a wholly different mechanism to what Rue is talking about, which is banks saying "we don't have enough money to cover this loan, just lend it anyway and say we did". And, as I said, I've mentioned the multiplier effect at least twice, and no one picked up on it, so going to that now smacks of nothing more than a red herring.
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Rue and I talked about this offline. She read through a pdf which talked SPECIFICALLY about how banks lend out MORE MONEY THAN THEY HAVE. This wasn't some sort of bogus wild-hair opinion, it was a historical document from (I think) the Eisenhower Administration which traced how all of this began (back to the day of gold scrip).


I'm glad you and Rue talked off line, but given how much misinterpreting of stuff Rue has done so far, I'll take what this PDF does or doesn't prove under my own advisement. Besides, I really can't be expected to know the contents of your private off line communications now can I? I can only comment on what has been presented here, and what has been presented here are a few opinions from various people, and what appears to be the misrepresentations of the multiplier effect.
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
It would help if you wouldn't get so damn snarky, because even if you had a point (which I don't think you do) it gets lost in the muddle.


Rue gets snarky, no problem, Rue gets it back big issue? Snark seems to be Rue's standard operating procedure, these days I see little need to converse with her in any other mode. I'll admit I give Rue little leeway, but I've frankly grown bored of the lies and misrepresentations, not too mention outright insults, that inevitably spring forth when one finds oneself in disagreement with Rue.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 21, 2009 6:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

the effect of literal currency to be greater than it's supply would suggest. This gives the effect of having more money than there is, but in reality all that is happening is that the same unit of currency is being lent more than once.
Well, then we agree.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 21, 2009 6:49 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


SHITizen

"Must I explain it again?"
"Posting nonsense from other websites doesn't suddenly make it true."
"Ok, actually, I haven't got a clue what you're going on about. Sounds like you've taken "Capital Ratio" and "Reserve Requirements" and mashed them together."


This isn't snark ? Dooood - you started it. Expect it back.


Fuck you.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 21, 2009 6:52 AM

SERGEANTX


go rue!

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 21, 2009 6:56 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, then we agree.


Depends what we're agreeing on. That the multiplier effect exists and gives the effect of more money in the system, but doesn't in fact create money, then yes. That Banks can just at a whim decide to invent money, by lending more money than they have on their books for instance, then no.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 21, 2009 6:56 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Oh, BTW SHITizen

If you follow the references, like, for example, Modern Money Mechanics put out by the Chicago Federal Reserve, you will find quotes like this:
"Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money.
More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment."

It goes further to explicitly state (in long-winded prose that I will not reproduce here) that BANKS CREATE MONEY by lending money out of thin air. But I suppose that's just the 'opinion' of the federal reserve bank, eh ?

Meanwhile, you STILL have nothing. And, you are wrong.

Fuck you.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:07 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
SHITizen

This isn't snark ? Dooood - you started it. Expect it back.

Fuck you.


SHITizen, how very original. Of course coming up with an insult your self is well beyond your proved meagre mental facilities.

Well fuck you too, you vapid waste of congealed excrement. Considering your one and only mode is that of monumental and unremitting cunt, considering that the closest you ever get to being even a little worthwhile is outright lies and insults, you're the last to judge. In essence, you and AURaptor really are the same person, the only difference is you're stuck up the arse of the Democrats, while he's up the Republicans.

As someone who constantly demands unreasonable amounts of supporting evidence, it really is amazing how you seldom provide anything even approaching evidence, just more vacuous RueFacts.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:12 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Oh, BTW SHITizen

If you follow the references, like, for example, Modern Money Mechanics put out by the Chicago Federal Reserve, you will find quotes like this:
"Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money.
More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment."

It goes further to explicitly state (in long-winded prose that I will not reproduce here) that BANKS CREATE MONEY by lending money out of thin air. But I suppose that's just the 'opinion' of the federal reserve bank, eh ?

Meanwhile, you STILL have nothing. And, you are wrong.

Fuck you.


And as usual you lie about your sources and prove you've never had a thought in your empty head. It's not in the least talking about what you claim.

What is truly amazing is that your tiny ignorant mind can't seem to process that I've already dealt with that, and also shown how it doesn't, in fact, support what you've claimed. That is I've already dealt with the Multiplier effect, and already shown that the process is nothing like what you claim. And in response all you've managed to do is drag up more quotes that you misrepresent and claim they prove things they don't.

Still not seeing anything that even begins to refute anything I've said, not that that is anything new. Truly you still have nothing, no matter how much you protest otherwise.

Oh and I wouldn't fuck your syphilitic arse with someone else's.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:13 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
go rue!


What, she promised you a freebie did she?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:42 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
go rue!


What, she promised you a freebie did she?



eewwwwwww!

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:46 PM

JKIDDO


CITIZEN: Okay, so on reflection this is what happens. Let's say that a bank gets a $100,0000 deposit. It has to keep a 10% reserve, but loans out $90,000 to Customer A.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that this Customer A redeposits his $90,000 in the same bank. The bank then loans it out again to Customer B up to its reserve limit, which is 90% of $90,000 or $81,000. Customer B redeposits his $81,000 in the bank, which loans it out again, this time to customer C, who gets a $73,000 loan. Customer C deposits in the bank, which loans it out again to Customer D, who gets a $65,000 loan.

Without doing the infinite loop to negligible amounts, the bank has just loaned out $309,000 of an original $100,000 deposit. Is that a "multiplier effect", or has the bank just created money? Or are the two concepts one and the same?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 22, 2009 1:21 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by JKiddo:
CITIZEN: Okay, so on reflection this is what happens. Let's say that a bank gets a $100,0000 deposit. It has to keep a 10% reserve, but loans out $90,000 to Customer A.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that this Customer A redeposits his $90,000 in the same bank. The bank then loans it out again to Customer B up to its reserve limit, which is 90% of $90,000 or $81,000. Customer B redeposits his $81,000 in the bank, which loans it out again, this time to customer C, who gets a $73,000 loan. Customer C deposits in the bank, which loans it out again to Customer D, who gets a $65,000 loan.

Without doing the infinite loop to negligible amounts, the bank has just loaned out $309,000 of an original $100,000 deposit. Is that a "multiplier effect", or has the bank just created money? Or are the two concepts one and the same?


Ok, fair enough. Yeah that's the multiplier effect. It gives the appearance of money being created, but it hasn't been. When you deposit money in an account, it's a lot like an informal loan, you give the bank the money, they do with it as they please, but have to pay you interest and also return that money on demand. So Customer A has lent them $100,000, they lend $90,000 on, which gets lent back to them, which they then lend on, which gets lent back, ad infinitum.

But no money has been created. The apparent supply has increased, because the same dollar has been lent out and back and out again a number of times, but the literal amount of money in the system remains the same.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 22, 2009 5:46 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Alright then, we DO agree. It was a definitional issue. My point tho, and Rue's too I think, is that the EFFECT is as if money has been created. The apparent money supply has been increased, which stimulates demand and causes inflation. And that was the original point: Inflation has ALREADY happened. With the collapse of real estate and banking systems everywhere the net effect was a decrease in available capital (through deleveraging) which is deflation. Therefore, printing more dollars will cause inflation ONLY IF it more than replaces the money that was "lost".

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 22, 2009 5:54 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
printing more dollars will cause inflation ONLY IF it more than replaces the money that was "lost".



That seems reasonable. It would also indicate that the inflationary effects of the spending will be delayed until lending resumes, at which point we could expect them to kick in relative to the amount lending recovers. I guess we're assuming, or perhaps hoping, that lending won't rebound to the pre-crash levels.

SergeantX

"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 22, 2009 9:44 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Therefore, printing more dollars will cause inflation ONLY IF it more than replaces the money that was "lost".


It will cause inflation relative to the current position. The question would be, would that inflation, in the context of deflating wages, increasing unemployment and general economic milieu, when deflating prices are part of an economic process of equilibrium, cause more harm than good?

The multiplier effect doesn't increase or decrease the value of individual units of currency, certainly not the way printing more actual money will.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 23, 2009 12:57 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I also see that the conflict is there with private insurance as well, and the capacity to sue when things go wrong, hence laws get made to reduce the chances of payouts being made.



But private insurance companies don't have the ability to control people themselves. They can only do that by manipulating government - and we need to put a stop to that.


I disagree. Private insurance companies are there to make money, end of story. I am only speaking of where I live, but its quite common for private insurers to increase premiums for people who indulge in risky behaviours (ie smokers) or refuse insurance all together for people in high risk categories (ie sick or disabled). That's both controlling in nature, as well as once again being a system that is advantageous for those who are healthy and well off and sucks for the disadvantaged.

Quote:

Regardless of who pays (public monies vs private monies), people have become very poor at taking responsibility for their own decisions regarding their lives, and seek to blame and receive due compensation when things go wrong.


Quote:

Are you saying we should indulge this habit? Most of the safety net programs do just that. In response, we crank up the nanny-state to force them to behave responsibly (as the state defines it). Not only is the whole cycle unnecessary, but it trashes the concept of constitutionally limited government in the process.

The nanny state is also a response to people's private litigation, which can also be a response to lack of a safety net, rather than having one. How many people in the US sue because its the only way they can afford medical treatment?

Quote:

You and I have had this conversation many times before, serg. You are an idealist, I am not. I think the conflict exists but we can do the best we can, and sometimes it can work okay.


Quote:

Honestly, that assumption seems far more idealistic to me. The pragmatic reality is that such policies will expand caretaker government and diminish personal responsibility.

I dunno about that Serg. Have you seen any personal responsibility indexes lately? Do countries with more government programs have citizens who take less personal responsibility?

I'd probably say that people take less responsibility in western nations in general, regardless of how intervening governments are or not, simply because we are now fully ensconced in the 'cult of the individual' and individual rights. My 'rights' as often cited here in this thread, take precedence over all else and all others. The most important thing is 'my right' to do as I please.

Well in my experience, people having rights does not automatically translate into them taking responsibility.

My beef with your arguments, are that we are too interconnected and too populated to live the way you suggest. If it were the wild west again, maybe, but it doesn't work in the sophisticated, technological society, facing massive issues regarding resources, population and climate change that we have (for better or worse) created. Some decisions, some organisation of the way things get done, is better served by larger entities than 'the individual'. My preference is for that entity to at least be a democratically elected and accountable. And sometimes what the individual wants is just not possible.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL