09:56 26-2-2014, Stanley Mulaik:
>Le Fed non poteva crear moneta e dar lo directemente al Tresoreria.
Hic tu usa le verbo 'poter' naturalmente in le senso 'non ser
permite'. Ma il es etiam ver in le senso de 'non ser possibile'.
Lo in supra NON es como le mechanismo de creation de moneta
functione. Le creation de moneta es le _consequentia_ de dar
moneta (moneta prestate!), dunque on non primer crea moneta que
postea da al alcuno.
Un del rationes es que moneta IN un banco per definition non es
moneta! http://rudhar.com/economi/monydebt/en/019claim.htm
>Durante que le bancas private crea moneta de nihilo equalmente,
Si e non. Il es un paradoxo. Si, le bancos crea moneta, sed NON
deveni plus ric per crear lo!
http://rudhar.com/economi/monydebt/en/011clfnd.htm
>le moneta es create per prestatos a clientes del bancas. Le
>moneta existeva in circulation fin que le debito esseva repagate.
Si.
>Contrari a vostre assertion que il es impossibile que le bancas
>non presta lor depositos in iste processo de prestatura, le
>bancas american non realmente presta lor depositos.
>
>Vide
>http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2014/01/21/banks-dont-lend-out-reserves/
Of course they do not lend out reserves, that's why they are
calles reserves. (There are two totally different kinds, by the
way, capital reserves and cash reserves. The latter is meant here.)
The article states:
==
This is because when a bank creates a new loan, it also creates a
new balancing deposit. It creates this "from thin air", not from
existing money: banks do not "lend out" existing deposits, as is
commonly thought.
==
Not true, it DOES lend out existing deposits, AND it creates
money in the process. This simple statement show that the author
doesn't understand the whole issue, so should I really read the
rest? Well, I do anyway. A lot of what follows in the article IS
correct.
"Well, that's amazing. Loans + excess reserves = deposits. "
Yes, of course it is, how ever could it not be? Debit equals
credit, always.
"When the Fed buys private sector assets from investors, it not
only creates new deposits, it creates new reserves. "
True, see Modern Money Mechanics, 1961.
>>>E ergo: nove debitos.
>>
>>Non. Le Fed ha le poter crear nove moneta de nihilo.
Si e no. Ergo: no. Articulo 22.
>Alcuno debe
>crear lo. Illo non ha existite pro semper. E quando illo lo crea
>le Fed non debe alcuno pro illo. Illo es pur moneta sin un
>creditor.
Impossibile e non ver. Debit equals credit, ALWAYS, also in the
Fed's balance sheets.
>Isto es proque il es bon que le Fed pote crear le moneta necesse
>pro redemer le debitos.
Non, illo es IMPOSSIBILE. Per definition.
>Le Fed accumula alcun valores del Tresoreria
>de bancas. Illo los obtene per comprar con nove moneta crea de
>nihilo.
Si e no. Il es un paradoxo. Lege mi articulos, totes. E lege
Modern Money Mechanics.
>Nostre moneta non es fixate a alcun altere moneta.
Non es ver. Le 'balance sheet' ... balancio, in interlingua,
semper es in equilibrio, es in balancia, como ja dice le parola.
Le Fed ha un balancio toto como cata altere banco a cata altere
interprisa.
>Moneta create == nove prestos. Sempre.
>
>Possibilemente solmente in Europa, mais non in le Statos Unite.
Si, proque iste essentia del systema es le plus clar explicate in
le documento Modern Money Mechanics, que tracta del situation in
America in 1961 (con modernisationes in detalios).
Toto isto seque de duo simple punctos:
- Le definition de moneta
- Double entry accounting (Luca Pacioli, 1494, Summa de
arithmetica, geometria, proportioni et proportionalità)
Como dice le articulo
http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2014/01/21/banks-dont-lend-out-reserves/
==
When the Fed buys private sector assets from investors, it not
only creates new deposits, it creates new reserves. This is
because a new deposit (liability) in a bank must be balanced by
an equivalent asset. When banks create deposits by lending, the
equivalent asset is a loan. When the Fed creates deposits by
buying assets, the equivalent asset is an increase in reserves,
also newly created.
==
Ergo lo que tu diceva:
==
E quando illo lo crea le Fed non debe alcuno pro illo. Illo es
pur moneta sin un creditor.
==
non es ver.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2014/01/21/banks-dont-lend-out-reserves/
"Banks
<http://www.standardandpoors.com/spf/upload/Ratings_US/Repeat_After_Me_8_14_13.pdf>cannot
and do not "lend out" reserves – or deposits, for that matter. "
Correcte.
>Isto es le problema con aquelle systema. Tu systema ha
>difficultate in crear nove moneta.
Non es 'mi systema', il existe solmente un systema, e il es le
mesme in omne mundo. As I said, it all follows from the
definition of money (money = claims of the public on banks), and
double bookkeeping (http://rudhar.com/economi/boekhoud/prcacten.htm).
> >Si, e le moneta via a China, que le presta retro a America.
> >America prefere prestar moneta de China e le sheiks del petroleo,
> >in vice de pagar impostos.
>
>Le moneta non es usate pro fundar
>nostre governamento. Isto es un mytho. Mais per comprar lor benes
>e petroleo, nos balancia nostre budgetos contra expendituras
>deficitari.
Si, clarmente.
> >Un prediction erronee.
>
>Que occurre in Espania e Italia e Grecia?
Governments overspending and overborrowing. Same as what the USA
is doing, except that they are bailed out by the Chinese. As long
as they are willing.
>Bon! Nos non discute solmente interlingua. Le poteres debe esser
>felice.
Exactamente. Pro me il es le primer vice que scribe super le
thema in interlingua e non es facile. Hinc le anglese occasional.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ressources sur interlingua: http://rudhar.com/lingtics/intrlnga.htm
--
Pro leger le archivos e pro modificar o cancellar le subscription:
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/interlng.html
|
