Global capitalism and 21st century fascism

[CDNBear]

You mean the decision not the transcripts.

If you want, you can paypal me the money, I'll order them from the Minnesota State Law Library.

The appeal that the original Justice said was invalid, the verdict wasn't actually nullified anagreement was reached before trial at the appeal...

They were vacated by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

...Daly was disbarred for tax evasion and nothing to do with this case.

No he wasn't.

Of course the original JURY verdict remains and has never been challanged legally, even the appeal was based upon the authority of the Justice to void the contract.

Nope. The lower court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.

Until a court actually hears it you can't make that judgement.

Yes I can.

I could at this point go into how the bankers own the govt and therefore the courts but I won't.

You just did, and it says volumes about your argument. You fall in line with these clowns...

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/lawedge.html

Way to clip quotes to enable your argument.

I clipped that quote at a coma, the end of that thought.

I know the asset that backs the loan is the promise to pay (loan agreement), you guys think the bank has real, tangible assets to back the loan.

No I don't. If you didn't ignore my posts that better explain how the system works, then the semi nonsensical stuff you're peddling, you'd know that.

 

[captain morgan]

Separate and quite different, somewhat parralell in some regards and far from it in many others.

Agreed, however, the regulations for the BOC are the fundamental rules by which all institutions (that rely on the BOC) must comply... Even you can't dispute that reality.

If you are unable to see that the loan/mortgage agreement is considered as an asset on the balance sheet and that it is used to monetize the loan there is no point. You don't believe fractional reserve exists and you don't believe canada has a zero reserve in effect so no point in going further. You seem to think that we have a full-reserve system and banks can't loan past their real assets, feel free to continue believing that but you are wrong.

SO what? We moved on from that a long time ago. Fact is, when the bank assumes another obligation on behalf of a client, it alters their ratios and that must be recognized through their obligations via the BOC. I can see where you are coming from on this in terms of a "balance sheet must balance", but the BOC still requires the account to be collateralized/securitized according to regulations (read ratio) and that must be satisfied (read down payment in part or whole).

If it was as simple as a 1st year student's balance sheet entry, then every bank could lend an infinite amount of money... Are ya gettin' it yet?

You kind of have it backwards, I have full title to the property and the bank has a registered charge against it. Have you ever looked at the title to you home.

... Yet you can't sell the home without settling the account with the bank... Further, in the event that you default on the mortgage, does the property default to the title holder or the group that really owns the property?

You'd understand this if you had studied finance or really owned multiple homes like you said you do.

You didn't bother to read anything did you? Try again.

Money creation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No I didn't.... I don't put a lot of stock in wiki or Gilligans Corner for that matter.... Get back to me when you have a real source from an authority, OK?

The money is created from your signature on the repayment agreement which gives it value as an asset to the bank. I don't expect you to try to actually understand it since you would have to admit your error

Wrong (despite wiki saying otherwise)... The money is pledged as per my signature... My sig does not create the money.

1,830,000 results in the google search. If you want to go through them all to prove yourself wrong go ahead, but here are a couple for your consideration.
Publications and Research - Bank of Canada

About 20,600,000 results (0.15 seconds) when I googled the phrase "Political Nick is Wrong"

If you want to go through them all to prove my point, please be my guest.

Google

The elimination, between 1992 and 1994, of reserve requirements on all bank accounts in Canada has removed the need for banks to discriminate between demand ...

Again, we have already visited this... Based on the fact that the Charters/Commercial banks/lenders rely on the BOC to (essentially) act as their underwriter, by virtue of the fact that they are the lender-of-last-resort AND THEY HAVE A RESERVE REQUIREMENT as stipulated in the Act, the Charters/Commercial lenders also have this policy if they want to use the BOC.

If the BOC and the US Federal Reserve aren't good enough sources for you you are obviously beyond hope.

Those are excellent sources (they ain't wiki for a start).. Study them AND apply those elements to the actual practice/demands of the Charters/Commercial lenders.

By giving loans when they don't have the full reserve...or even any of it.

But aren't you the guy that says there is no reserve required? Why would that comment even be anywhere on your radar.

Face it, if the BOC is the lender-of -last-resort AND a Charter/Commercial has no reserve limitations, they can basically lend out an infinite amount of cash and default to the BOC is the sh*t hits the fan... Doen't make any sense does it Toni... Perhaps you're just a slow learner.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Agreed, however, the regulations for the BOC are the fundamental rules by which all institutions (that rely on the BOC) must comply... Even you can't dispute that reality.

What reality? That the BOC has a reserve requirement, you bet it does. That chartered and private banks don't, you bet they don't. If the private banks had to follow the BOC act then the Bank act would be unneccessary or just read 'see BOC act'.

SO what? We moved on from that a long time ago. Fact is, when the bank assumes another obligation on behalf of a client, it alters their ratios and that must be recognized through their obligations via the BOC. I can see where you are coming from on this in terms of a "balance sheet must balance", but the BOC still requires the account to be collateralized/securitized according to regulations (read ratio) and that must be satisfied (read down payment in part or whole).

You are still assuming there is a required ratio, under zero reserve there isn't.

If it was as simple as a 1st year student's balance sheet entry, then every bank could lend an infinite amount of money... Are ya gettin' it yet?

That's exactly what they can do. Are YOU gettin' it yet????

... Yet you can't sell the home without settling the account with the bank... Further, in the event that you default on the mortgage, does the property default to the title holder or the group that really owns the property?

I can sell the home if I find someone willing to pay me before the transfer of title, the land title office will not register a transfer of title without me settling the account and the bank removing the charge. And it does not 'default' to the bank, they have to go to court and have that possesion ordered and that order can be fought on many grounds. I clearly understand it more than you .

No I didn't.... I don't put a lot of stock in wiki or Gilligans Corner for that matter.... Get back to me when you have a real source from an authority, OK?

I already did and you still don't believe it, commercial banks create money through lending If they don't create it where does it come from einstein? Is the concept to tough for you?

Wrong (despite wiki saying otherwise)... The money is pledged as per my signature... My sig does not create the money.

See above.

Again, we have already visited this... Based on the fact that the Charters/Commercial banks/lenders rely on the BOC to (essentially) act as their underwriter, by virtue of the fact that they are the lender-of-last-resort AND THEY HAVE A RESERVE REQUIREMENT as stipulated in the Act, the Charters/Commercial lenders also have this policy if they want to use the BOC.

The regs you keep putting forward a related to transactions between the banks and the BOC or from bank to bank, they have nothing to do with commercial lending to the public. A bank has NO reserve requirement regarding to its commercial lending. If it were as you keep trying to put forward they would't be able to lend anything without a continuous stream of capital injection.

Think about this for a minute. In fiscal 2009 RBC showed net losses in the billions mainly due to collapsing markets and real estate prices, but they were still able to loan $250 billion out. Under your theory they would have had to show that $250 billion in gains before they could lend it, in fact they would have had to gain much more because all of their assets were losing value. So please do explain your version of this.

You still don't get it do you?.. You must be a slow learner

You spelled 'I' wrong, but don't worry you'll catch on one day...maybe.

 

[captain morgan]

What reality? That the BOC has a reserve requirement, you bet it does. That chartered and private banks don't, you bet they don't. If the private banks had to follow the BOC act then the Bank act would be unneccessary or just read 'see BOC act'.

Let's look at this from the reverse angle. If the BOC does not require any collateral/security from the Retail/Charter/Commercial banks, why would the BOC have a reserve requirement for itself?

However, knowing that the BOC does have a reserve requirement AND the BOC controls money supply, dictates interest rates (to banks) and (essentially) underwrites the Retail/Charter/Commercial banks; are you stating that the BOC contributes that reserve requirement on behalf of the Retail/Charter/Commercial banks?

That's right.. The BOC does not do that... So, where does the $$ come from?

You are still assuming there is a required ratio, under zero reserve there isn't.

Uuuumm, yeah, but I'd call it a minimum ratio that gauges solvency... Contrary to your belief, Retail/Charter/Commercial banks can not just "create money from thin air" and lend out infinite amounts.

That's exactly what they can do. Are YOU gettin' it yet????

See above

I can sell the home if I find someone willing to pay me before the transfer of title, the land title office will not register a transfer of title without me settling the account and the bank removing the charge.

Sure they could, they would be giving you the money and not receiving the house until title transfer... Generally speaking, your lawyer won't let that happen.

You'll understand this more when you become a home owner.

And it does not 'default' to the bank, they have to go to court and have that possesion ordered and that order can be fought on many grounds. I clearly understand it more than you .

The holder of the mortgage has the first charge against the property. The mortgage holder can then dispose of the asset to settle the debt and if there is anything left over, you can pay your legal bill from it. Go to court all you like, but you'll still lose your house and owe money for the legal defense

I already did and you still don't believe it, commercial banks create money through lending If they don't create it where does it come from einstein? Is the concept to tough for you?

I still don't read wiki or Gilligan's Island of Financial Facts (or whatever the hell you posted)

See above.

See above

The regs you keep putting forward a related to transactions between the banks and the BOC or from bank to bank, they have nothing to do with commercial lending to the public. A bank has NO reserve requirement regarding to its commercial lending. If it were as you keep trying to put forward they would't be able to lend anything without a continuous stream of capital injection.

Of course I am quoting those regs, the BOC controls the money supply and interest rates to the retail/commercial banks. It is immaterial who they loan to, they still must comply with the caveats stipulated by the BOC if they choose to rely on the BOC.

Oh, and regarding the continuous stream of capital... Why do you need a down payment on a loan, if the banks can just "create money out of thin air" they wouldn't need anything down.

You're running around without wearing your helmet again, aren't you.

Think about this for a minute. In fiscal 2009 RBC showed net losses in the billions mainly due to collapsing markets and real estate prices, but they were still able to loan $250 billion out. Under your theory they would have had to show that $250 billion in gains before they could lend it, in fact they would have had to gain much more because all of their assets were losing value. So please do explain your version of this.

Let's use your theory then. Considering that the Charters/Commercial lenders don't have a reserve requirement AND (apparently) they are not bound by any rules of the BOC, I suppose that it is conceivable that I can toodle on down to my local branch and get a loan/mortgage to buy all of downtown Vancouver. Hell, they just "create the money out of thin air" according to your deeply insightful theory.

In fact, I after securing my mortgage, I will negotiate another loan to pay down the mortgage over the next 100 years... Afterall, they can just "create the money out of thin air" without any worries about reserve requirements.... And all this with the knowledge that the BOC will contribute on my behalf, to accomodate their specific reserve requirements.

Gosh, Maybe I'll buy NYC, Tokyo and London while I'm at it... It's as easy as just "creating the money out of thin air".

You spelled 'I' wrong, but don't worry you'll catch on one day...maybe.

Nope, I spelled it correctly... BTW genius, you might revisit who the comment was directed at before you stick your foot in your mouth.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Let's look at this from the reverse angle. If the BOC does not require any collateral/security from the Retail/Charter/Commercial banks, why would the BOC have a reserve requirement for itself?

Because the BOC is owned by the people of canada and therefore has to have some guarantee as a function of government.

However, knowing that the BOC does have a reserve requirement AND the BOC controls money supply, dictates interest rates (to banks) and (essentially) underwrites the Retail/Charter/Commercial banks; are you stating that the BOC contributes that reserve requirement on behalf of the Retail/Charter/Commercial banks?

BOC only has the reserve requirement for its own transactions. What reserves the private banks have or keep is entirely up to their board of governers. I don't know where you get the idea that BOC is some insurance agency for the commercial banks but it is not.

That's right.. The BOC does not do that... So, where does the $$ come from?

Right, the BOC doesn't back any commercial banks, nor does it insure them or their investors. Under the law the commercial banks do not even have to keep a portion of the deposits in reserve if they don't want to, most do as they wouldn't have any customers if we couldn't withdraw cash but it is not required.

Contrary to your belief, Retail/Charter/Commercial banks can not just "create money from thin air" and lend out infinite amounts.

Contrary to your belief, if they want to loan trillions they can, and the money is created from writing the loan and bookkeeping entry. They don't run to the BOC and say print us a few billion bucks so we can make a loan. You are continually confusing the central bank and its function within government with the private commercial banks. Even the govt and BOC create money from nothing. When the govt issues $1 billion in bonds to finance something do you think they have that billion bucks stashed somewhere?

Sure they could, they would be giving you the money and not receiving the house until title transfer... Generally speaking, your lawyer won't let that happen.

Generally speaking THEIR lawyer would not let that happen. You have this innate ability to state everything backwards. My lawyer works for me and if someone is stupid enough to pay me cash for a house without any guarantee of title transfer that is their problem. They would of course, depending on the contract we all signed, have a legal recourse to get the cash back but if the guaranteee of title transfer was not in the contract they would be out the dough.
You'll understand this more when you become a home owner.

The holder of the mortgage has the first charge against the property. The mortgage holder can then dispose of the asset to settle the debt and if there is anything left over, you can pay your legal bill from it. Go to court all you like, but you'll still lose your house and owe money for the legal defense

Usually yes, but it not a simple default like you first portrayed. There are specific steps the mortgage holder has to go through including a court order for possession and sale which can be disputed if the mortgagee wants to. I'm just trying to make sure you have the facts straight. What is with your blind support for the banks anyway?

I still don't read wiki or Gilligan's Island of Financial Facts (or whatever the hell you posted)

Honestly I never heard of the gilligan thing either but the article was true. Of course you didn't believe the links from the BOC or the US Fed either so what do you want for a resource besides your boss at the bank?

Of course I am quoting those regs, the BOC controls the money supply and interest rates to the retail/commercial banks. It is immaterial who they loan to, they still must comply with the caveats stipulated by the BOC if they choose to rely on the BOC.

You are again confusing the BOC and its function of govt with a private bank. BOC sets the prime lending rate for itself only. That is why you see varying rates at all the banks, that is why high risk loans from private lenders carry rates the are 15 or 20% higher than BOC prime or even more.

Oh, and regarding the continuous stream of capital... Why do you need a down payment on a loan, if the banks can just "create money out of thin air" they wouldn't need anything down.

Funny, I didn't need anything down to buy my truck, went to my bank and told them I wanted $34k for a truck, walked out an hour later with a certified cheque. Have you never heard of a 'zero down' mortgage. You have to qualify for such products on your good credit but a downpayment is not a legal requirement.

Let's use your theory then. Considering that the Charters/Commercial lenders don't have a reserve requirement AND (apparently) they are not bound by any rules of the BOC, I suppose that it is conceivable that I can toodle on down to my local branch and get a loan/mortgage to buy all of downtown Vancouver. Hell, they just "create the money out of thin air" according to your deeply insightful theory.

Theoretically yes. I doubt you or I have that kind of credit considering they requirements of debt service ratio and credit score. Don't know what kind of income you need to qualify for a couple hundred billion but I know I don't got it.

In fact, I after securing my mortgage, I will negotiate another loan to pay down the mortgage over the next 100 years... Afterall, they can just "create the money out of thin air" without any worries about reserve requirements.... And all this with the knowledge that the BOC will contribute on my behalf, to accomodate their specific reserve requirements.

If you can find a bank to float you a 100 year loan to pay of your mortgage on downtown Vancouver you can do it, but don't think the BOC has anything to do with it. The BOC doesn't have anything to do with the reserves of the private banks. Untill you get over your illusion that the BOC controls all banking in Canada you will never get it.

Gosh, Maybe I'll buy NYC, Tokyo and London while I'm at it... It's as easy as just "creating the money out of thin air".

I would avoid Tokyo until the radiation is gone...not a good invesment at this time.


You amaze me that even when all, even Bear, agree that there is no reserve requirement for commercial lending in Canada and I have provided links to official govt websites that concur, you still want to argue the point.

 

[Angstrom]

So the only way to beat this thing is If everyone stops creating money out of thin air?
In other word no more loans of any kind.

 

[petros]

From : Fractional-Reserve Banking


Fractional-Reserve Banking is a financial system in which deposit-taking financial institutions like banks, are required to keep as a reserve only a small fraction of all the money deposited with them. When an individual or business deposits their money with a commercial bank, they lend the bank their money and the bank pays them interest on the loan. The money that has been deposited with the bank is used by the bank to originate loans for its customers who need financing. The deposit account owners who have lent their money to the bank, can withdraw their money at any time, but in reality at any given time only a small fraction of the money are being withdrawn simultaneously. The fact that not all depositors will demand their money at once has great implications, and is the main reason fractional-reserve banking is possible.

Most people have no idea how fractional-reserve banking works, but if the they understood its nature the fractional reserve banking will be exposed for what it is - a grand money-robbing scam imposed on the unsuspecting society. Lets see how fractional-reserve banking works.


How does Fractional-Reserve Banking Work?

Let’s see how fractional-reserve banking works. A customer of Bank #1 deposits $100 in his chequing account. The bank keeps the required reserve of 10% ($10) and lends the rest $90 to another bank customer. The second customer spends the $90 and this money ultimately ends in another chequing account at Bank #2. The Bank #2 keeps 10% ($9) of the deposit as a reserve and lends $81 to one of its customers. If this process continues 5 times in total we’ll have the following result.

The initial deposit of $100 magically ballooned to $468.5, creating $368.5 out of thin air through loans. Sounds like a Ponzi scheme? I’ll leave it to you to decide. As you can see your money is not actually in the bank, after you deposit it there. The $368.5 is money created by commercial banks, and they enter the economy and expand the money supply.


Why is Fractional-Reserve Banking Possible?

The fractional reserve banking is possible, because at any given time just a very small percentage of all deposited money is withdrawn. Furthermore the withdrawals are offset by new deposits. Most people keep their money in the bank most of the time (thinking that their money is secure there), which makes it easier for the banks to repay back money deposited with it on demand.


Bank Runs

What happens if the depositors of a particular bank lose faith in the ability of the bank to repay their deposits? If this happens the depositors will try to withdraw their money from the bank at the same time, but of course the bank will not able to repay them, because it actually keeps only fraction of the deposited money as reserves. Welcome to the wonderful world of fractional-reserve banking! This unpleasant situation is referred to as a bank run, and may cause the bank to fail unless the central bank act as a lender of last resort and bail out the bank.

Canada has a 0% Reserve requirement so money is indeed created out of thin air.

Still don't believe me? How about this?

457. (1) Subject to this section, a bank that was in existence immediately prior to the day this section comes into force shall maintain a primary reserve in the form of
(a) coins with a face value of two dollars or less that are current under the Currency Act;
(b) Bank of Canada notes; or
(c) deposits in Canadian currency with the Bank of Canada.

(2) Subject to subsection (4), the primary reserve referred to in subsection (1) shall not be less on average during any prescribed period than an amount equal to the average of the monthly levels of required primary reserves calculated for the month in which this section comes into force and for the preceding 11 months, as determined under section 208 of the Bank Act, being chapter B-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985.

(3) Where a bank to which this section applies has been, on the day this section comes into force, in existence for less than 12 months, the primary reserve referred to in subsection (1) shall not be less on average during any prescribed period than an amount equal to the average of the monthly levels of required primary reserves calculated for the month in which this section comes into force and for the preceding months it has been in existence, as determined under section 208 of the Bank Act, being chapter B-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985.

(4) On the first day of the first month following the month this section comes into force, the primary reserve referred to in subsection (2) shall be reduced by 3 per cent, and thereafter on the first day of the first month of each of the next three succeeding six month periods, the primary reserve as modified by this subsection shall be reduced by 3 per cent, and on the first day of the twenty-fifth month following the month in which this section comes into force, the primary reserve referred to in subsection (1) shall be nil.
…
​

 

[captain morgan]

Because the BOC is owned by the people of canada and therefore has to have some guarantee as a function of government.

That guarantee from the BOC to Canadians is useless unless it is secured in turn by the BOC's "clients".

Honestly Nick, the answer you offered does not really address the base question.

BOC only has the reserve requirement for its own transactions. What reserves the private banks have or keep is entirely up to their board of governers. I don't know where you get the idea that BOC is some insurance agency for the commercial banks but it is not.

.. And who does the BOC transact with?

If the BOC only transacted internally, they would have no need for a reserve requirement at all.

Contrary to your belief, if they want to loan trillions they can, and the money is created from writing the loan and bookkeeping entry. They don't run to the BOC and say print us a few billion bucks so we can make a loan. You are continually confusing the central bank and its function within government with the private commercial banks. Even the govt and BOC create money from nothing. When the govt issues $1 billion in bonds to finance something do you think they have that billion bucks stashed somewhere?

I wonder why that isn't happening? Hell, it's not as if there aren't a lot of high quality projects out there that need financing.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but my understanding is that you work in the oil/gas sector; presumably in the area of finance/economics (as per your uni studies)... Perhaps you can go to the head of the department and ask why your company doesn't get your bank to "create some money out of thin air" to pursue some major developments/acquisitions?

Why on Earth would they float bond issues, go public or seek cash infusions from the capital markets when their local banker is just itching and able to write trillions of dollars in loans through money they "create out of thin air"?

Answer this question and you'll likely settle this issue.

Generally speaking THEIR lawyer would not let that happen. You have this innate ability to state everything backwards. My lawyer works for me and if someone is stupid enough to pay me cash for a house without any guarantee of title transfer that is their problem. They would of course, depending on the contract we all signed, have a legal recourse to get the cash back but if the guaranteee of title transfer was not in the contract they would be out the dough.
You'll understand this more when you become a home owner.

Whatever.. With your perpetual focus on nit-picking incidental and semi-related details, I sometimes make a mistake. But no matter how you cut it, as long as you hold a mortgage on a property, the lender has first charge on the asset regardless of the name on the title.

Usually yes, but it not a simple default like you first portrayed. There are specific steps the mortgage holder has to go through including a court order for possession and sale which can be disputed if the mortgagee wants to. I'm just trying to make sure you have the facts straight. What is with your blind support for the banks anyway?

Whatever.. See above and if you don't believe me then stop paying the obligation on one of your many properties and see the results for yourself... You can even show the title document to the Sheriff when they come by to change the locks.

You are again confusing the BOC and its function of govt with a private bank. BOC sets the prime lending rate for itself only. That is why you see varying rates at all the banks, that is why high risk loans from private lenders carry rates the are 15 or 20% higher than BOC prime or even more.

No I am not Nick. The BOC still provides money to the Charters at the bank rate (hmmm, sounds almost like a loan, eh?).

You'd almost wonder why any Charter would take this money with an obligation to pay the rate when they can just "create money out of thin air" by virtue of a simple accounting entry?

Funny, I didn't need anything down to buy my truck, went to my bank and told them I wanted $34k for a truck, walked out an hour later with a certified cheque. Have you never heard of a 'zero down' mortgage. You have to qualify for such products on your good credit but a downpayment is not a legal requirement.

Yes... It's called collateral (real or implied / direct or indirect)... Now, extrapolate that very same dynamic to the relationship between an institution that deals directly with the BOC.

Theoretically yes. I doubt you or I have that kind of credit considering they requirements of debt service ratio and credit score. Don't know what kind of income you need to qualify for a couple hundred billion but I know I don't got it.

Ever heard of a zero-down mortgage using the asset to self-collateralize? It wouldn't matter anyways, my local branch can just "create some money out of thin air".

If you can find a bank to float you a 100 year loan to pay of your mortgage on downtown Vancouver you can do it, but don't think the BOC has anything to do with it. The BOC doesn't have anything to do with the reserves of the private banks. Untill you get over your illusion that the BOC controls all banking in Canada you will never get it.

The BOC (basically) controls the money supply, you'd better damn well hope that the BOC has something to say about my local branch just fabricating a few trillion dollars.

I would avoid Tokyo until the radiation is gone...not a good invesment at this time.

Now is the best time... Assets can be bought at a severe discount.

You amaze me that even when all, even Bear, agree that there is no reserve requirement for commercial lending in Canada and I have provided links to official govt websites that concur, you still want to argue the point.

Time to think outside the box Nick.. Again, you are welcome to put this very issue/question to the head of your dept (assuming you are in the finance dept) and get the answer.

Hint: Don't ask this question to close to your annual review.

 

[Machjo]

I'm all for stricter rules against fracional reserve banking. In as much as I am a free trader, we still need regulations.

 

[captain morgan]

I'm all for stricter rules against fracional reserve banking. In as much as I am a free trader, we still need regulations.

Canada has some very strict rules in place and this is one of the reasons that Canadian financial institutions were not as severely impacted as other nation's banks during the last downturn.

 

[petros]

No I am not Nick. The BOC still provides money to the Charters at the bank rate (hmmm, sounds almost like a loan, eh?).

No they don't.

 

[Machjo]

Canada has some very strict rules in place and this is one of the reasons that Canadian financial institutions were not as severely impacted as other nation's banks during the last downturn.

Then those rules need to remain in place and possibly even strengthened. Again, I'm all for free trade, but that does not mean an unregulated economy.

 

[petros]

There is no fractional reserve limit in Canada. The only time a the BOC is involved is if that money created needs to be issued as currency.

UK, Canada, Australia, and Sweden have a 0% reserve policy.


Look it up!

 

[Machjo]

There is no fractional reserve limit in Canada. The only time a the BOC is involved is if that money created needs to be issued as currency.

UK, Canada, Australia, and Sweden have a 0% reserve policy.


Look it up!

Well, if it's working and 0% seems to be fine and has not caused any problems then fine. But should we find that there is a future risk, then maybe not. As long as there is sufficient regulatin to avoid total meltdown. I'm not an expert there but again if 0% is fine and no risk, then leave it alone. Should experts feel it too risky, then we could look further into it.

 

[petros]

Working? No problems? What the hell are talking about? Did you miss out on the money from nothing scam known as derivatives?

 

[captain morgan]

There is no fractional reserve limit in Canada. The only time a the BOC is involved is if that money created needs to be issued as currency.

UK, Canada, Australia, and Sweden have a 0% reserve policy.


Look it up!

You ought to look up the BOC's reserve requirements... And yes, the BOC does provide capital to the institutions at bank rate... If the theory by Nick and Tonnington is correct that a bank can create money out of thin air, then there would be no relationships between the BOC and the institutions.

Ask yourself that question Petros, and while you're at it, ask yourself how the money gets in the system from the fed reserve (BOC).. Is it just given to the banks?

If you want the source doc, I posted the direct link to the Bank Act earlier in this thread.

 

[Machjo]

Working? No problems? What the hell are talking about? Did you miss out on the money from nothing scam known as derivatives?

Canada was not as hardly hit. But of course if the risk is there for the future, then perhaps we ought to reconsider 0%. I'm not opposing you here.

 

[captain morgan]

Working? No problems? What the hell are talking about? Did you miss out on the money from nothing scam known as derivatives?

That has as much to do with this issue as the poor Nigerian Prince that needs YOUR help to get millions out of the country.

 

[petros]

You ought to look up the BOC's reserve requirements... And yes, the BOC does provide capital to the institutions at bank rate... If the theory by Nick and Tonnington is correct that a bank can create money out of thin air, then there would be no relationships between the BOC and the institutions.

Ask yourself that question Petros, and while you're at it, ask yourself how the money gets in the system from the fed reserve (BOC).. Is it just given to the banks?

If you want the source doc, I posted the direct link to the Bank Act earlier in this thread.

So did I and reserve requirments are NIL as posted from the Bank Act

Don't confuse bank cash reserves with fraction reserve loans.

 

[captain morgan]

Great.. All you need to do is answer the question then.