OT: Goodbye to the American Dream

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 3 September 2015 00:38:22 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 11:53:11 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 11:29:30 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 9:00:40 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 03:09:06 UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

Printing currency won't help.

The cure isn't printing currency, it's borrowing it from the rich, who aren't investing it for themselves, and spending the money on government-funded projects.

Question: after you 'borrow' it, and raise taxes to pay it back, who pays
those taxes? (secret decoder below)

.sunineg ,morf 'deworrob' uoy elpoep eht ,yhW

But the people now have jobs and pay taxes, so it's a win-win situation.. Unless you are rich capitalist, who had wanted everybody poorer than himself to go bankrupt and be forced to sell him all their assets in a buyers market.

I'll assume you're trolling, not just incapable of doing sums.

It's not borrowing at all. That's simply a lie.

You are starting to sound like krw.

If my choice of words constitutes a lie do tell us what words you would use to describe the process. The business of selling government bonds isn't theft, though some may feel it to be a confidence trick.

You've proposed money was 'borrowed' from 'rich people.' If true,
it would have to be paid back by taxes. Whose taxes? Mostly 'rich'
people--they pay the lion's share.

So what. They also profit most when the economy is running properly, utilising all the resources that it could. Leaving the economy in recession or depression also costs them money, but they rely on the government to organise the rescue operations that get the economy out of recession - it's exactly the kind of community-based service that benefit the whole community (though the richer members benefit most) and which the community - as a whole - ought to fund, despite Bastiat's reservations.

> It's not 'borrowed' if they're the ones forced to make the payments.

How does that stop it from being "borrowed"?

The rich have a democratic right to object to government actions they don't like, just as twenty-year-olds had a democratic right to object to be conscripted and sent off to fight in Vietnam, but it's all perfectly legal and morally defensible.

But they never bought bonds anyhow, you made that up.

It's too complicated for you, Bill.

True. I do like to keep the argument comprehensible.

'Aren't investing it for themselves' - that notion disqualifies you from
further comment.

If they had invested it for themselves - as opposed to dumping it in a bank account to earn derisory interest - they wouldn't have been able to put their hands on the money to use it to buy government bonds.

The Federal Reserve bought the bonds. That's why they have $4 trillion.
Not imaginary 'rich' people. It's how the government prints money.

The bonds exist, and the Feds own lots of them, but there is a market in government bonds, and real people do buy them. If your "moral" claims were correct, the market in government bonds would have collapsed overnight, and every bond ever issued would now be worthless.

It all too complicated for you James.

> 'Rich' people bought stocks, which is why they've gotten all the gains.

The stock market has gone up (or was going up until recently) because the US economy has been running more or less normally, which happens to be a gain for the whole population, not just the rich (although because the US is organised to favour the people who own the country it does favour the rich more).

> You're confused about the process, uninformed, and assuming non-facts.

Sadly, I'm not confused in the way that you'd like me to be, and I'm not prepared to ignore the facts that you'd like to brush under the carpet. I can still tell a hawk from a handsaw, a skill that you had rinsed out of your brain some time ago.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 3 September 2015 00:57:00 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 8:07:59 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 11:38:48 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

You seem to be looking at a different graph. Mine declines to a low point, $4B around 1933, rises to $9B - a bit above the 1929 level - in 1937, drops precipitously back to $6B in 1937 - clearly, back then everybody believed that stimulus spending worked - but not back to the $4B 1933 level, and started rising again in 1938.


It is not at all clear to me that everybody believed that stimulus spending worked. The statement that they did believe is a Non Sequitur . Another explanation could be that the natural state of the economy is to grow. And that the return to growth would have happened with or without the stimulus.

That was my point. Bill's extrapolating that if a man fell and skinned his
knee, he could never have gotten up and walked away on his own, but would've
fallen clean through the center of the Earth had the government not rescued
him (by heaping debt on his shoulders).

The Great Depression may be represented as a economic stumble, but the economy didn't "skin its knee" - it looked much more like something that had broken it's leg.

It lay there, shrinking at 6% per year, for three years, until Roosevelt came along and used his New Deal to put a splint on the injured limb.

The natural order is for methods of production to improve with time, worker
populations to grow, and economies to recover.

But from 1930 to 1933, the US economy shrank at 6% per year.

Stimulus--taking cash from parts of the economy and dumping it on others--
is just an expeditious way of misallocating society's capital (& ultimately
an expropriation).

Keynes point of view was that having potential investors leave money in the bank, rather than investing it, was also a misallocation.

Roosevelt's New Deal may not have put that money to work in the best way possible, but it did use it better than it had been used before, and the economy recovered at close to 6% per year under his regime.

> Borrowing the money is the same, shifted in time, which fools Bills.

I've never argued that stimulus spending doesn't come at a cost. It's just that the cost is less than the cost of doing nothing.

James Arthur's "being fooled" is very like krw's "lies". It denotes that something has been said that James Arthur disagrees with - and since he's been fooled by some of the most nonsensical economic theories known to man, it's got to be seen as a back-handed compliment.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 1:31:54 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:29:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 9:00:40 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 03:09:06 UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 15:44:20 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

The first year my wife and I were married we earned $18,000, we saved
$6,000*. You can live on less than you earn.

That makes you a rich person deferring consumption for investment.


Average family income is around $53,000. But 30% live on $40,000, that
means the average family could trim there expenses and save $13,000 a
year, do this and invest for 30 years and you are wealthy.

And the wealthy have to stash their wealth somewhere, so they invest.

Not in a recession, which is the core of Keynes insight.

If a culture consumes 100% of its earnings and invests zero, their
productivity will deteriorate.

As it does in a depression. US productivity shrank 25% during the Great Depression.

Printing currency won't help.

The cure isn't printing currency, it's borrowing it from the rich, who aren't investing it for themselves, and spending the money on government-funded projects.

Question: after you 'borrow' it, and raise taxes to pay it back, who pays
those taxes? (secret decoder below)

.sunineg ,morf 'deworrob' uoy elpoep eht ,yhW

It's not borrowing at all. That's simply a lie.

'Aren't investing it for themselves' - that notion disqualifies you from
further comment.


Why do you bother with Sloman? He is full-time nasty, full-time
downer, endlessly pompous, and doesn't design electronics.

Good question. Ever the optimist, I can't help but imagine he's got
a particle of earnest good faith.

Skimming some of the older threads, he's either loony or trolling,
the latter making more sense.

Thanks for the reminder--I'd been away a while.

Have you ever had 'B'-series CMOS ordinary gate outputs go hi-Z? I've
got some HCF4093B's that won't drive 47K past Vdd/2. Two parts,
both fresh from the tube. Weird.


Cheers,
James

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 3 September 2015 03:31:54 UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:29:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 9:00:40 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 03:09:06 UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 15:44:20 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

The first year my wife and I were married we earned $18,000, we saved
$6,000*. You can live on less than you earn.

That makes you a rich person deferring consumption for investment.


Average family income is around $53,000. But 30% live on $40,000, that
means the average family could trim there expenses and save $13,000 a
year, do this and invest for 30 years and you are wealthy.

And the wealthy have to stash their wealth somewhere, so they invest..

Not in a recession, which is the core of Keynes insight.

If a culture consumes 100% of its earnings and invests zero, their
productivity will deteriorate.

As it does in a depression. US productivity shrank 25% during the Great Depression.

Printing currency won't help.

The cure isn't printing currency, it's borrowing it from the rich, who aren't investing it for themselves, and spending the money on government-funded projects.

Question: after you 'borrow' it, and raise taxes to pay it back, who pays
those taxes? (secret decoder below)

.sunineg ,morf 'deworrob' uoy elpoep eht ,yhW

It's not borrowing at all. That's simply a lie.

'Aren't investing it for themselves' - that notion disqualifies you from
further comment.

Why do you bother with Sloman? He is full-time nasty, full-time
downer, endlessly pompous, and doesn't design electronics.

And that's a pretty pompous statement ... Johm Larkin finds any post that doesn't flatter him nasty, and an downer.

Not that John Larkin designs electronics - he evolves electronics, and thinks that endless tinkering constitutes design.

For the record, I am designing electronics (if not at this instant) and hope eventually to have a design that's worth publishing. John Larkin's "design" cycle takes two weeks on average. Mine has always been several years, and it seems to have slowed down as I've got older, and more aware of how complicated the the process can be.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 3 September 2015 13:28:19 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 1:31:54 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:29:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 9:00:40 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 03:09:06 UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 15:44:20 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

The first year my wife and I were married we earned $18,000, we saved
$6,000*. You can live on less than you earn.

That makes you a rich person deferring consumption for investment.


Average family income is around $53,000. But 30% live on $40,000, that
means the average family could trim there expenses and save $13,000 a
year, do this and invest for 30 years and you are wealthy.

And the wealthy have to stash their wealth somewhere, so they invest.

Not in a recession, which is the core of Keynes insight.

If a culture consumes 100% of its earnings and invests zero, their
productivity will deteriorate.

As it does in a depression. US productivity shrank 25% during the Great Depression.

Printing currency won't help.

The cure isn't printing currency, it's borrowing it from the rich, who aren't investing it for themselves, and spending the money on government-funded projects.

Question: after you 'borrow' it, and raise taxes to pay it back, who pays
those taxes? (secret decoder below)

.sunineg ,morf 'deworrob' uoy elpoep eht ,yhW

It's not borrowing at all. That's simply a lie.

'Aren't investing it for themselves' - that notion disqualifies you from
further comment.


Why do you bother with Sloman? He is full-time nasty, full-time
downer, endlessly pompous, and doesn't design electronics.

Good question. Ever the optimist, I can't help but imagine he's got
a particle of earnest good faith.

Skimming some of the older threads, he's either loony or trolling,
the latter making more sense.

Thanks for the reminder--I'd been away a while.

Have you ever had 'B'-series CMOS ordinary gate outputs go hi-Z? I've
got some HCF4093B's that won't drive 47K past Vdd/2. Two parts,
both fresh from the tube. Weird.

The output pull-up transistor has to have blown up or gotten disconnected. Take off the packaging and look at the relevant transistor with an electron microscope.

There may be a break in the Vdd tracking. Corrosion can do that, or a really fierce electrostatic discharge.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 3 September 2015 01:44:01 UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 9:13:11 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


I don't have to - I assume that I'm interacting with people who are in the habit of inferring cause from effect. James Arthur refuses to succumb to this confusion of correlation with causation - his Tea Party friends would stop talking to him if he did something that revealed him as inadequately indoctrinated - but most people feel free to use their common sense.

i do not happen to believe your cause and effect. So while you do not have to explain , not doing so lower your credibility.

I've got zero credibility with James Arthur, because I don't believe his brand of economic nonsense.

If you can't see that having an economy shrinking at 6% per before the New Deal was put into action and then seeing it expand at about 6% per is a persuasive argument that economic stimulus worked, you have to be either pretty stupid, or to have had your brain washed at the same laundry that removed any trace of common sense from James Arthur's thinking.

If the economy had not been stimulated, at some point it would have recovered anyway.

But it was stimulated from 1933 on, and did recover.

Unfortunately we have no way of running various scenarios and seeing what would have happened.

Sure. It's a great pity that the experiment wasn't allowed to run it's course.
Of course, Germany might then have won WW2, so I'm happy enough with the real world outcome.

I'm not sure which region of cloud-cuckoo-land you are talking about, but you are vying with Jim Thompson for being out of touch with reality, and with Sarah Palin for being in touch with your inner reactionary.

Why use logic when you can slander.

Nothing slanderous about that. James Arthur admires Sarah Palin, even if I don't. I can scarcely be blamed for exposing James Arthur to hatred, ridicule and contempt when he's posting ridiculously contemptible nonsense, designed to win him popularity with right-wing nitwits

Well I think it is slanderous and I suspect most of the readers here feel the > same.

I rather doubt that they do, if only because most of them know enough about the law to be aware that slander is spoken and ephemeral, and stuff that is published and retrievable is libel.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 11:28:19 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 1:31:54 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

Why do you bother with Sloman? He is full-time nasty, full-time
downer, endlessly pompous, and doesn't design electronics.

Good question. Ever the optimist, I can't help but imagine he's got
a particle of earnest good faith.

Skimming some of the older threads, he's either loony or trolling,
the latter making more sense.

Thanks for the reminder--I'd been away a while.

Have you ever had 'B'-series CMOS ordinary gate outputs go hi-Z? I've
got some HCF4093B's that won't drive 47K past Vdd/2. Two parts,
both fresh from the tube. Weird.

Found it. Vdd trace had an invisible hairline open.

Cheers,
James

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 3 September 2015 14:34:51 UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 20:28:13 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 1:31:54 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:29:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 9:00:40 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 03:09:06 UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 15:44:20 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

The first year my wife and I were married we earned $18,000, we saved
$6,000*. You can live on less than you earn.

That makes you a rich person deferring consumption for investment.


Average family income is around $53,000. But 30% live on $40,000, that
means the average family could trim there expenses and save $13,000 a
year, do this and invest for 30 years and you are wealthy.

And the wealthy have to stash their wealth somewhere, so they invest.

Not in a recession, which is the core of Keynes insight.

If a culture consumes 100% of its earnings and invests zero, their
productivity will deteriorate.

As it does in a depression. US productivity shrank 25% during the Great Depression.

Printing currency won't help.

The cure isn't printing currency, it's borrowing it from the rich, who aren't investing it for themselves, and spending the money on government-funded projects.

Question: after you 'borrow' it, and raise taxes to pay it back, who pays
those taxes? (secret decoder below)

.sunineg ,morf 'deworrob' uoy elpoep eht ,yhW

It's not borrowing at all. That's simply a lie.

'Aren't investing it for themselves' - that notion disqualifies you from
further comment.


Why do you bother with Sloman? He is full-time nasty, full-time
downer, endlessly pompous, and doesn't design electronics.

Good question. Ever the optimist, I can't help but imagine he's got
a particle of earnest good faith.

There's been so sign of humanity for years now. Just grim, clumsy
insults. Why do people like that bother to live?

John Larkin doesn't get the light, subtle insults.

Skimming some of the older threads, he's either loony or trolling,
the latter making more sense.

Thanks for the reminder--I'd been away a while.

Have you ever had 'B'-series CMOS ordinary gate outputs go hi-Z? I've
got some HCF4093B's that won't drive 47K past Vdd/2. Two parts,
both fresh from the tube. Weird.

No, but I don't use much 4K-series logic. None in stock, actually.

It is a bit old-fashioned but there are always applications - if not many of them - for small lumps of old-fashioned logic. James Arthur is clearly into the old-fashioned bit, even if logic tends to escape him.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 20:28:13 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 1:31:54 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:29:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 9:00:40 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 03:09:06 UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 15:44:20 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

The first year my wife and I were married we earned $18,000, we saved
$6,000*. You can live on less than you earn.

That makes you a rich person deferring consumption for investment.


Average family income is around $53,000. But 30% live on $40,000, that
means the average family could trim there expenses and save $13,000 a
year, do this and invest for 30 years and you are wealthy.

And the wealthy have to stash their wealth somewhere, so they invest.

Not in a recession, which is the core of Keynes insight.

If a culture consumes 100% of its earnings and invests zero, their
productivity will deteriorate.

As it does in a depression. US productivity shrank 25% during the Great Depression.

Printing currency won't help.

The cure isn't printing currency, it's borrowing it from the rich, who aren't investing it for themselves, and spending the money on government-funded projects.

Question: after you 'borrow' it, and raise taxes to pay it back, who pays
those taxes? (secret decoder below)

.sunineg ,morf 'deworrob' uoy elpoep eht ,yhW

It's not borrowing at all. That's simply a lie.

'Aren't investing it for themselves' - that notion disqualifies you from
further comment.


Why do you bother with Sloman? He is full-time nasty, full-time
downer, endlessly pompous, and doesn't design electronics.

Good question. Ever the optimist, I can't help but imagine he's got
a particle of earnest good faith.

There's been so sign of humanity for years now. Just grim, clumsy
insults. Why do people like that bother to live?

Skimming some of the older threads, he's either loony or trolling,
the latter making more sense.

Thanks for the reminder--I'd been away a while.

Have you ever had 'B'-series CMOS ordinary gate outputs go hi-Z? I've
got some HCF4093B's that won't drive 47K past Vdd/2. Two parts,
both fresh from the tube. Weird.

No, but I don't use much 4K-series logic. None in stock, actually.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Doe]

It's not just thanks to Obama. And it's worse than just losing the American
dream. There is a distinct possibility that our civilization is going to
collapse within 50 years or so. No more partisan politics. We're likely to
take much of the rest of the world with us too, so spectators shouldn't be
cheering. It's going to be a horrible place to die in.

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 11:15:28 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Keynes point of view was that having potential investors leave money in the bank, rather than investing it, was also a misallocation.


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Please tell me how leaving money in the bank keeps it from being borrowed and invested.

Dan

 

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 12:34:51 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 20:28:13 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

Have you ever had 'B'-series CMOS ordinary gate outputs go hi-Z? I've
got some HCF4093B's that won't drive 47K past Vdd/2. Two parts,
both fresh from the tube. Weird.



No, but I don't use much 4K-series logic. None in stock, actually.

I'm doing an itty-bitty controller that runs off 4xAA, or maybe +9v. The
old CMOS saves wasting Iq in a regulator.

The Vdd trace was sneakily open, so the part was running off the base
current of a PNP it's supposed to drive. There are oscillators and
timers afoot switching things that affected the faux-power, so that made
for some entertaining interactions.

CMOS is marvelous--runs on popcorn farts.

Cheers,
James

 

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 11:32:51 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 07:21:44 -0700 (PDT), "dcas...@krl.org" wrote:

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 11:15:28 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


Keynes point of view was that having potential investors leave money in the bank, rather than investing it, was also a misallocation.


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Please tell me how leaving money in the bank keeps it from being borrowed and invested.

Dan

Banks have gigantic matresses in their vaults.

Air mattresses!

Cheers,
James

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 4 September 2015 00:21:55 UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 11:15:28 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


Keynes point of view was that having potential investors leave money in the bank, rather than investing it, was also a misallocation.

Please tell me how leaving money in the bank keeps it from being borrowed and invested.

The bank would have had to lend it to somebody else before it could be invested.

Banks don't usually go around directly investing depositor's money - it's thought of as a bit too risky.

The problem wasn't that it couldn't be invested, but rather that the people who could - and probably should - have invested it had chosen to leave it in the bank.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 4 September 2015 01:32:51 UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 07:21:44 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 11:15:28 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


Keynes point of view was that having potential investors leave money in the bank, rather than investing it, was also a misallocation.


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Please tell me how leaving money in the bank keeps it from being borrowed and invested.

Dan

Banks have gigantic mattresses in their vaults.

John Larkin is about as well-informed about banks as he is about anthropogenic global warming, though that particular myth isn't one I've seen in the Murdoch press.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 08:25:30 +0000 (UTC), John Doe
<always.look@message.header> Gave us:

It's not just thanks to Obama. And it's worse than just losing the American
dream. There is a distinct possibility that our civilization is going to
collapse within 50 years or so. No more partisan politics. We're likely to
take much of the rest of the world with us too, so spectators shouldn't be
cheering. It's going to be a horrible place to die in.

Maybe you should watch the TV series "Mr. Robot".

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 12:01:53 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Please tell me how leaving money in the bank keeps it from being borrowed and invested.

The bank would have had to lend it to somebody else before it could be invested.

That is pretty much what I asked about. Notice the word " borrewed " in my post.

Banks don't usually go around directly investing depositor's money - it's thought of as a bit too risky.

Never tried to imply that. Note I said " borrowed and invested ".

The problem wasn't that it couldn't be invested, but rather that the people who could - and probably should - have invested it had chosen to leave it in the bank.

But banks lend out money. There is no leaving money in the bank. Regardless of Larkin's post about mattresses., Banks do not leave money in the vault.

Dan

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 07:21:44 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
<dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 11:15:28 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


Keynes point of view was that having potential investors leave money in the bank, rather than investing it, was also a misallocation.


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Please tell me how leaving money in the bank keeps it from being borrowed and invested.

Dan

Banks have gigantic matresses in their vaults.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

Den torsdag den 3. september 2015 kl. 20.24.16 UTC+2 skrev Dave Platt:

In article <f2fe66f3-7ebd-4a9e-8cab-ef789afaf6da@googlegroups.com>,
dcaster@krl.org <dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

But banks lend out money. There is no leaving money in the bank. Regardless of Larkin's post about
mattresses., Banks do not leave money in the vault.

Banks don't leave *all* of the money in the vault.

They do, in general, leave *some* of the money in the vault, as they
are required to do so by law.

The amount they have to leave vaulted (either as cash, or as a deposit
with the Federal Reserve Bank) depends on the amount of "net
transaction liability" they have - basically, the value of the
deposits they've received from customers that they can be called to
pay on short notice.

Current requirements: if their net liability is less than $14.5
million there's no requirement. Between $14.5 million and $103.6
million, 3%. Over $103.6 million, 10%.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm

I imagine that even small banks and S&Ls and credit unions will want
to keep enough cash on hand to satisfy any reasonable payout request
promptly, even if they fall within the 0%-reserve requirement limit.
Turning away customers who want their money, and "closing the doors"
for a few days, tends to trigger panics. Even a rumor that a bank is
going insolvent can trigger a rush of withdrawals, drain the cash
reserves on hand, and turn a rumor into a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Here all the banks have a foundation that guarantee ~EURO 100000 per person
per bank, at the height of the crisis it was upped to unlimited


-Lasse

 

[Dave Platt]

In article <f2fe66f3-7ebd-4a9e-8cab-ef789afaf6da@googlegroups.com>,
dcaster@krl.org <dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

But banks lend out money. There is no leaving money in the bank. Regardless of Larkin's post about
mattresses., Banks do not leave money in the vault.

Banks don't leave *all* of the money in the vault.

They do, in general, leave *some* of the money in the vault, as they
are required to do so by law.

The amount they have to leave vaulted (either as cash, or as a deposit
with the Federal Reserve Bank) depends on the amount of "net
transaction liability" they have - basically, the value of the
deposits they've received from customers that they can be called to
pay on short notice.

Current requirements: if their net liability is less than $14.5
million there's no requirement. Between $14.5 million and $103.6
million, 3%. Over $103.6 million, 10%.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm

I imagine that even small banks and S&Ls and credit unions will want
to keep enough cash on hand to satisfy any reasonable payout request
promptly, even if they fall within the 0%-reserve requirement limit.
Turning away customers who want their money, and "closing the doors"
for a few days, tends to trigger panics. Even a rumor that a bank is
going insolvent can trigger a rush of withdrawals, drain the cash
reserves on hand, and turn a rumor into a self-fulfilling prophesy.