621–630 of 746 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where does this Etherium-meme(?) come from? I’ve seen several people writing Etherium and Monaro instead of Ethereum and Monero on mailing lists, but never understood what it means and where it comes from.
Since when is bad spelling a meme?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, when you take a loan out of a bank, the bank doesn't "create deposits" that it loans to you. The bank loans you existing deposits. The method by which banks end up creating money is less dramatic than you think. I wrote a long-form explainer here: https://www.attejuvonen.fi/money-out-of-thin-air/
Not at all. When you get a loan, the bank creates a liability and deposit out of thin air. The deposit is a "demand deposit", which is effectively equivalent and fungible to central-bank-backed currency (hence the term "money" usually applies to both, though they are different things). The bank needs no existing customer deposits to create a demand deposit and liability in your account. You should run through your ex…
Furthermore, it's not clear to me how you believe that the BoE article contradicts what I'm saying. I'm under the impression that you (along with most other people) are simply misunderstanding what you are reading here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I take it her last name isn't the Ellison right? If so, that could be a hint.
Megan Ellison produces movies
> SEC Chair old boss at MIT is the father of Caroline Ellison who is the Co CEO of Alameda research.
Crookedness all around.
[1] https://twitter.com/WhaleChart/status/1590955151472353280
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Always good to find another MMTer out in the wild ;)
This has absolutely nothing to do with MMT.
But also qnt is clearly well versed in MMT which is what I was referring to.
That's the exact example why cryptos solved no problems at all. Centralized institutions are there for a reason, and obviously cryptos failed to recognize that. And soon exchanges were created which are in the exact role of banks etc. they swore to remove but with almost no regulations. I would be surprised if no such things happen at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because it is all built on greed and a lot of lies. The only time you actually are part of the trustless system is when you are sole custodian of any private keys necessary to access the coins. The issue with this is that a whole lot of people have no idea what it is, how it works, how to be part of the system and how to keep keys secure and safe at the same time. And it is fine. People can't know everything.…
What about if you buy something you thought you understood, but that’s only because you were lied to?
I can try to seek "justice", but this rarely happens with cons that really know what they are doing. It is what I call victim thinking. That you do something stupid and then get bailed out by some authority.
From the article: "FTX Chief Executive Sam Bankman-Fried said in investor meetings this week that Alameda owes FTX about $10 billion, people familiar with the matter said. FTX extended loans to Alameda using money that customers had deposited on the exchange for trading purposes, a decision that Mr. Bankman-Fried described as a poor judgment call, one of the people said." In the FTX International terms of service ( h…
Banks don't actually even 'lend out' customer deposits. That's a very common misconception. In modern bank operations, incoming fund transfers (which involve deposits) do provide liquidity that help allow the bank to be able to lend, but banks are actually levering up capital (paid-up share capital, retained earnings, etc.) to lend. The primary limit on how much they are able to lend (by Basel III regulations) is a m…
"Assets = Liabilities + Equity" But if the liabilities are mostly deposits, then it's the deposits that allow it to be a levered business at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more accurate to say they loan out a multiple of deposits based on the inverse of the fraction (the "money multiplier"). If someone puts 1 million in the bank and the fractional reserve is 20 percent, they can now create loans of up to 4 million. Such that the reserve is 20 percent of their total assets of 5 million (= 4 million loans + 1 million cash).
No, fractional reserve means that they can lend out $800K of the $1M deposited, even though the $1M is still counted as the depositor's money and also $800K is a available to lend. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> fulminate Hearby nominated as word of the day. Excellent.
Diablo 2 taught me this. Along with my other favourite word: Gargantuan.
Notably, the book reads in a very modern way, it's a bit shocking to know it was written in the 1700s when stylistically, and according to its vocabulary, it feels so very modern.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re creating a lot of confusion by ignoring cash accounting (the physical dollar I give a bank is then given to a homeowner as a mortgage) and talking about GAAP accounting, without making it clear that is what you are doing (the jargon only makes things worse). Like sure, it’s loan to capital ratio that matters but as you point out: > Bank runs are a liquidity problem because the bank's assets aren't all liquid e…
But there aren't dollars given to banks mostly. Cash is a tiny fraction of the money banks handle. Most of the payment volume is millions of electronics messages between banks to debit and credit numbers in people's accounts, and only at certain times of the day the net of that (a far, far smaller amount of reserves) are actually moved. It's actually the other way around - trying to follow a physical dollar just make…
But in practice when people say they 'pay cash' for something large like a house or a car, they are usually effecting a bank transfer (well, in Korea at least). I understand that under the hood in the US this is an IOU between banks, but to the depositor there is no difference whether the money is cash or bits. What matters is whether the bank has the liquidity to provide upon request.