Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Why Fractional Reserve Banking is Dangerous (American Banking News)

  1. #1

    Why Fractional Reserve Banking is Dangerous (American Banking News)

    http://www.americanbankingnews.com/2...deral-reserve/

    Editorial: Fractional Reserve Banking and the Federal Reserve
    September 3rd, 2009 • Related • Filed Under • by Gary


    I was reading the other day that the idea of getting rid of the Federal Reserve was based on faulty assertions that the booms and busts we’ve experienced since its inception in 1914, also happened during the 1800s, largely undermining that argument in the eyes of that particular writer.

    The reason that writer was wrong was he didn’t take into account one of the other main culprits of the boom and bust cycles: fractional reserve banking, which was the cause behind the problems experienced in boom and bust periods during that time period, and still is today.

    Basically what the Federal Reserve has done in the past, and does today, is protect the fractional reserve banking system from completely failing and its faults being exposed by printing money and bailing them out, which was the original reason it was created by big bankers – for big banks.

    Just look at who is being bailed out in our current economic environment, and you can see that the smaller banks will be allowed to fail, but the larger banks have already been bailed out, even if some like Citigroup are just barely hanging on.

    I’m going to accurately simplify fractional reserve banking in order for you to understand why it’s so dangerous, weak and a poor banking system to use.

    Essentially how it works, is anyone can invest $100 into a bank and get a receipt. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, a small portion of that is sent to the Federal Reserve to be held interest-free, while the remaining 90 percent can be loaned out. That is called being held in reserve, which stands at 10 percent, but in a number of cases has been under 5 percent in practice.

    So while the depositor assumes his money is in the bank and available for use whenever the depositor wants it, in reality all but approximately 10 percent of it has been loaned out. This is a problem because the money is loaned out for longer periods of time, while the depositor could want it now.

    When you get enough depositors wanting their money now, it’s called a run on the bank, and the weak underbelly of the fractional banking system is revealed, in that they don’t have the money on hand to pay back.

    Some might at this time wonder why the gold standard didn’t work during the time it was instituted, and booms and busts continued to happen. That’s easy. They simply printed out more money than the gold they had in their vaults, making the gold standard basically a joke in that it was set in place but not adhered to.

    Even today, some extraordinarily ignorant and clueless financial writers call this a failure of capitalism and free markets. The truth is that it’s a failure of a fractional reserve banking system which has been trying to hide its weaknesses because of those who love power who want to attempt to control people through its machinations. These types of power-hungry people have always hated the consumer for that reason, and their making decisions which truly are the free market, as long as it isn’t interfered with by the government, as it has been for a long time.

    Essentially fractional reserve banking is making promises to depositors it simply can’t keep. Just think of it as your money being tied up long term in a way that you may not get access to it short term. Historically, the U.S. government has protected this fraudulent practice at the expense of depositors, and continue to do it to this day.

    This is why we have we have had endless booms and busts when the fractional reserve banking system emerged in America, and we will have until we get rid of it, and its cousin the Federal Reserve.

    What the Federal Reserve does is just take it to a higher level where they just ramp up the printing presses and pour money into the system whenever the banks extend themselves too far, which is every time you see the boom and bust cycle happening. That won’t stop until these things are changed.

    One place you can read about all this is in the upcoming book by Ron Paul called “End the Fed,” which deals with many of these issues.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I've had to debunk this numerous times here, and us Paulites look dumber each time we trot out "FRB IS BAD !!!111one"

    It's not. At all. Unsecured lending is bad - which is where I give out money in exchange for nothing more than a promise to pay. Secured lending in FRB is OK, because the loan is backed by a promise to pay AND a saleable asset that has a lien on it. If in a completely secured FRB system, if everyone comes in and demands their money, you simply go to the market and sell all of the loans(which you smartly didn't make at more than 80% LTV), give everyone their money, and everyone goes home happy. If you're lending unsecured, you can't sell the loans for anything approaching par and your bank gets shut down by the FDIC.

    The solution is "don't loan for more than 80% of the purchased/liened assets' value" and "you must hold 100% of the value of any unsecured loan in cash."

    So basically, only unsecured loans should be 100% full reserve banking, FRB is fine for secured loans backed by capital equipment, land, houses, etc.

    People thinking that "ALL FRB IS BAD!" need to quiet down and think before they make us all look like uninformed loons.
    Last edited by fgd; 09-04-2009 at 08:48 AM.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by fgd View Post
    I've had to debunk this numerous times here, and us Paulites look dumber each time we trot out "FRB IS BAD !!!111one"

    It's not. At all. Unsecured lending is bad - which is where I give out money in exchange for nothing more than a promise to pay. Secured lending in FRB is OK, because the loan is backed by a promise to pay AND a saleable asset that has a lien on it. If in a completely secured FRB system, if everyone comes in and demands their money, you simply go to the market and sell all of the loans(which you smartly didn't make at more than 80% LTV), give everyone their money, and everyone goes home happy. If you're lending unsecured, you can't sell the loans for anything approaching par and your bank calls in the FDIC.

    The solution is "don't loan for more than 80% of the purchased/liened assets' value" and "you must hold 100% of the value of any unsecured loan in cash."

    So basically, only unsecured loans should be 100% full reserve banking, FRB is fine for secured loans backed by capital equipment, land, houses, etc.

    People thinking that "ALL FRB IS BAD!" need to quiet down and think before they make us all look like uninformed loons.
    so, I get money the bank creates from nothing- I use my house to secure the loan.
    I can't pay it back- they get my house.
    The bank created the money out of nothing- and got something back for it.
    Not bad.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    so, I get money the bank creates from nothing- I use my house to secure the loan.
    I can't pay it back- they get my house.
    The bank created the money out of nothing- and got something back for it.
    Not bad.
    Rgh. Again. No.

    The bank manufactures through their labor (loan officers) and capital (buildings, computer systems) a saleable asset (loan note) backed by a non-divisible, non-fungible asset (your house) and your promise to pay. Just like a car manufacturer making cars.

    They hold this asset in their vault and give you the money to buy the house. They can sell this asset to get immediate cash, or retain it for the income stream. No money is "created from nothing". Not one cent.

    Banks simply manufacture loans. Sometimes those loans are worth something, when they're made against real assets. Sometimes those loans are crap. Banks can get greedy and make crap loans, just like Yugo makes crap cars. Make enough crap loans and you go out of business like Yugo.

    Booms and busts aren't caused by FRB, they're caused by unsecured lending and too-cheap money.

    Therefore IHMO, "ALL FRB = BAD!!!!" simply detracts from the real fight against the Fed - they make money too cheap and back it with nothing but the US Government's promise to pay.
    Last edited by fgd; 09-04-2009 at 09:08 AM.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by fgd View Post
    Rgh. Again. No.

    The bank manufactures through their labor (loan officers) and capital (buildings, computer systems) a saleable asset (loan note) backed by your house and your promise to pay. Just like a car manufacturer making cars.

    They hold this asset in their vault and give you the money to buy the house. They can sell this asset to get immediate cash, or retain it for the income stream. No money is "created from nothing". Not one cent.

    Banks simply manufacture loans. Sometimes those loans are worth something, when they're made against real assets. Sometimes those loans are crap. Banks can get greedy and make crap loans, just like Yugo makes crap cars. Make enough crap loans and you go out of business like Yugo.

    Booms and busts aren't caused by FRB, they're caused by unsecured lending and too-cheap money.

    Therefore IHMO, "ALL FRB = BAD!!!!" simply detracts from the real fight against the Fed - they make money too cheap and back it with nothing but the US Government's promise to pay.
    I'm talking about- I OWN my home. I paid for with MY labor.
    To get a loan- I have to secure it with MY HOME.

    The bank doesn't loan me someone else's hard labor(deposit). They loan me money they created out of nothing, and then require my home if I can't pay back the fake money.

    If I ran this scam on you- you would be pissed.
    I loan you counterfiet money and then take your real assets if you can't pay it back.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    I'm talking about- I OWN my home. I paid for with MY labor.
    To get a loan- I have to secure it with MY HOME.

    The bank doesn't loan me someone else's hard labor(deposit). They loan me money they created out of nothing, and then require my home if I can't pay back the fake money.

    If I ran this scam on you- you would be pissed.
    I loan you counterfiet money and then take your real assets if you can't pay it back.
    I'm out of this thread. If you or anyone else doesn't get it by now, I can only hope that you're not using your view on FRB to attempt to persuade anyone to join our cause.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by fgd View Post
    I'm out of this thread. If you or anyone else doesn't get it by now, I can only hope that you're not using your view on FRB to attempt to persuade anyone to join our cause.
    I rather have honest dealings with honest money.
    Hope that isn't too hard for you to handle.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler



Similar Threads

  1. Yes, Fractional Reserve Banking Again
    By hazek in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 03-17-2013, 03:02 PM
  2. So, fractional reserve banking.
    By georgiaboy in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 12-14-2012, 10:41 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-08-2010, 07:45 AM
  4. How is Fractional Reserve Banking Fraudulent?
    By The_Orlonater in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: 12-29-2008, 01:33 AM
  5. Fractional reserve banking ???
    By fatjohn in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-16-2008, 02:37 AM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •