epiphany Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Why not say a fat cat billionaire who stuffs it under his mattress? Not just that, what about speculation, derivatives, offshore trusts and tax havens. Yes, we get a lot of tax from banks. Yes many shareholders are ordinary people saving for their retirement. And? Why not minimise the former and maximise profit for the latter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Why not say a fat cat billionaire who stuffs it under his mattress? I don't think they would stuff it under their mattress somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Banks have always used FBR - your point was? Not true, you can have full reserve banking, it would create a much slower growing economy though... Actually I'm not even convinced about that. The advantage of FR is that it makes the market more liquid, that and only that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Not just that, what about speculation, derivatives, offshore trusts and tax havens. Yes, we get a lot of tax from banks. Yes many shareholders are ordinary people saving for their retirement. And? Why not minimise the former and maximise profit for the latter? This is a whole different debate to "how money is created" and properly belongs on a new thread. We're talking re-distribution of wealth now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I don't need to try again, you've just agreed that your example was broken and doesn't explain the current system. No I didn't, and it wasn't just my example. You're now just starting to sound like a troll, or at least someone who can't read. I posted a very specific example of the problem I've been talking about for the past few pages. Why not respond directly to that example and show me exactly how it's broken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 This is a whole different debate to "how money is created" and properly belongs on a new thread. We're talking re-distribution of wealth now. I think the two are linked. More public stakeholdership of banking profits = more redistribution of wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Not true, you can have full reserve banking, it would create a much slower growing economy though... Actually I'm not even convinced about that. The advantage of FR is that it makes the market more liquid, that and only that. Full reserve banking would surely mean banks would have to keep 100% of their reserves as cash or something easily converted to cash. That would suck nearly all liquidity out of the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I think the two are linked. More public stakeholdership of banking profits = more redistribution of wealth. It isn't just banks that make profits - and what percentage of bank turnover is profit, and how much ££ would this mean to each individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 It isn't just banks that make profits But it is just banks that (legally) create money - the means of exhange and therefore the means to wealth creation, life and liberty. That to me sounds like a public utility. It's private profit from the creation of this utility that everyone has no choice but to use that creates an unnecessary burden on the economy. - and what percentage of bank turnover is profit, and how much ££ would this mean to each individual. I don't know, it obviously varies depending on their performance, but as long as it's more than zero, the principle is valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 But it is just banks that (legally) create money - the means of exhange and therefore the means to wealth creation, life and liberty. That to me sounds like a public utility. It's private profit from the creation of this utility that everyone has no choice but to use that creates an unnecessary burden on the economy. Errrrrrr - I think you are looking at things the wrong way round a lot of the time. Much wealth is created by taking raw materials, adding a manafacturing process and labour, and selling the product - which neccesitates having a "means of exchange" ie it was the wealth creation that drove the need to have "money" once we get past the stage of barter. We don't have much choice about using food, heat or water either. Are you also advocating nationalisation of power companies, water companies, farms etc. All make profits - an unecessary burden on the economy in your view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.