|
goddamnedtwisto posted:It's not lending out money you haven't got, though? You have a contract with your depositors that a proportion of their money will be loaned out - your depositors are in effect loaning you their money at a low interest rate in exchange for a very low risk (a basically zero risk in modern central-banking systems of course) and an entitlement to withdraw it at any time. I mean if they're literally giving you gold coins they have been given and there is a finite supply of gold coins, then yes that's different, as you can not lend more gold than you have, though you could also interpret it that if they are promising to give that money back to anyone who asks for it then they are still creating money where it doesn't exist because they are offering the same money to two people in the hopes that only one of them asks for it at any moment in time. Some sort of quantum banking philosophy perhaps. It'd be like me paying for something by opening the self scan machine and running the same tenner through the scanner five times. And then saying that because tenners exist I have not actually done anything wrong. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Feb 7, 2021 |
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
Mebh posted:It's why I like this thread. It's nice to be challenged on stuff and it's why I try to post rather than hide because it's a safe space while at the same time a place where you all won't hesitate to call me out if I say something stupid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
Edinburgh is having a big power cut at the moment. Can't confirm if this is because of Brexit, but very likely this is because of Jeremy Corbyn. Will get Ian Murray on the line to confirm that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
Communist Bear posted:Edinburgh is having a big power cut at the moment. Actually it's because of independence
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Actually it's because of independence You win one rugby game and suddenly they take the power away from you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
David Baddiel is a knob
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
Dabir posted:David Baddiel is a knob With very few exceptions it seems a lot of the panel show circuit are all knobs. I kinda guessed that when I realised most of them were oxbridge graduates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
therattle posted:(FWIW I think RLB’s sacking on the basis of a weakly AS quote was bullshit too, and clearly Starmer taking an opportunity to fire her). That is obviously the case but you don't have to add those brackets caveats, your views are coherently lefty and incidentally jewish far more than they're defined by what establishment discourse and social orthodoxy judaism suggests they should be. Even when I go hard against the point I do appreciate your take you seem like an honest actor, you don't need to justify yourself like that the good faith is assumed, for me at least. big scary monsters posted:Look, I'd never claim Andrew Neil is a nonce, there really isn't enough evidence to support that. But I do think there would be value in an open, free and thorough exploration of the subject in a national newspaper. He's 100% in the establishment child rape crowd. The idea that Andrew Neil isn't a nonce is more logically absurd than the idea that Andrew Neil isn't a nonce.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Someone is posting David Baddiel's new book excerpts and... What a great example you found there, Mr Blackface. I'm sure I can't find any prominent examples of why you're wrong...oh... 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean if they're literally giving you gold coins they have been given and there is a finite supply of gold coins, then yes that's different, as you can not lend more gold than you have, though you could also interpret it that if they are promising to give that money back to anyone who asks for it then they are still creating money where it doesn't exist because they are offering the same money to two people in the hopes that only one of them asks for it at any moment in time. Some sort of quantum banking philosophy perhaps. No retail bank (at least no legal one) is lending out more money than they have in deposits, or even all the money they have in deposits (there's a *lot* of legitimate arguments to be had about how much reserve a bank should keep but that's irrelevant to this particular question, it's still a positive number), and the principle of a current account remains exactly the same whether it's gold Ducats or crumpled tenners that you deposit in it. All banks are indeed reliant on not everyone removing all of their money at once *because they have not created new money*, they have lent your money to someone else and rely on the fact that enough people will pay back their loans on time to balance the amount of withdrawals they have to process day to day. If they were creating new money, if everyone withdrew their money at once nothing at all would happen because all the deposits would still be sitting in the vaults collecting dust while the borrowers got their shiny new virtual money. Like I say, intrinsic to the concept of a retail bank is the understanding that they're not just stuffing your cash in a mattress, they *will* be lending out some proportion of it, because that's how they fund all of the functions that make them something other than a particularly roomy mattress - again, the better way of visualising it is to say that you're actually lending the cash you deposit to your bank at an extremely low interest rate (or nowadays a negative one because a lot of accounts have a service charge). However, unlike most loans, you can demand they repay you that money at any time. A savings account can pay out a higher interest rate because you accept that you lose some of the flexibility of withdrawal, and an investment account pays out even higher because you both lose the flexibility and also accept a greater degree of risk. It's possible you've got retail banking confused with investment banking (and god alone knows this is also something the banks themselves desperately want to do) where it's possible for a bank to have considerably more (potential) liability than they do reserves plus assets and accounts receivable, often to insane multiples, but - at least in theory - even then the total amount of money in the system remains constant if you could unwind all the positions at once (in practice not so much, hence 2007).
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
I dunno, to me conceptually liabilities = money, the bank makes itself liable to more money than they have in the theoretical big vault, and thus creates it, by offering a loan and also offering me the ability to withdraw my cash whenever, because it is assuring both me and the loan haver that both our balances will be available whenever we want them but they do not actually have enough cash to give us both that amount, which causes the money they have created to disappear if we both try to do it. As both our balances can stimulate economic activity, both amounts of money exist because we both believe they do, but if we both come to the bank and demand the money and they don't have enough actual notes to give us, or refuse to make the relevant electronic payments, then that collapses our belief in the exchange value of the money and so it is destroyed again. So the trick is ensuring that everyone believes all the money is real, and periodically people stop doing that because the banks keep taking the piss and then the government goes "oh no" and steps in to make people believe in the money again. But yeah, promising the same money to multiple people seems to me like it is creating money, but it is creating less believable money and if you do it too much the belief in money disappears and it causes a collapse. The money is treated as existing up until it doesn't. If everyone went around thinking that their loans or deposits weren't real because somebody else had them instead then it wouldn't work. It relies on you, practically, believing that all the money in your account is real, and all the money in your loans are real. And as long as you don't lend out too much at once, the economy stays predictable, and you have enough money to even out any wobbles, this belief works. But they can't stop lending out too much and the economy doesn't stay predictable. That might not be how they think of it but it's how I think of it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Feb 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 23:24
|
|
|
further more he is a cock, a dick and he's a right chode
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 23:25
|
|
|
Mebh posted:With very few exceptions it seems a lot of the panel show circuit are all knobs. I kinda guessed that when I realised most of them were oxbridge graduates. And the very few that aren't knobs, like Frankie Boyle, promptly left that scene once it reached knob critical mass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
Communist Bear posted:You win one rugby game and suddenly they take the power away from you. And what a game it was! I finished the replay earlier. Loved it. Vitamin P posted:That is obviously the case but you don't have to add those brackets caveats, your views are coherently lefty and incidentally jewish far more than they're defined by what establishment discourse and social orthodoxy judaism suggests they should be. Even when I go hard against the point I do appreciate your take you seem like an honest actor, you don't need to justify yourself like that the good faith is assumed, for me at least. Thanks. I really appreciate that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 00:55
|
|
|
therattle posted:I don’t think that is right. I believe that is covered under BOE capital adequacy regulations, which although not identical has the same effect. So, I'm not an expert on this, but my understanding is: Although capital requirements and reserve requirements both limit the amount of money banks can create, they are quite different. In the uk there are capital requirements, but not reserve requirements. Capital requirements are the amount of equity a financial institution must have in relation to its assets. If capital requirements are 5%, it means that a bank must have $1 in equity for every $20 dollars of assets. So if a bank is at the very limit of its capital requirements, then a customer deposits £10, this doesn't mean they can loan out another £200. The bank is contractually obliged to give the depositer their money back if they want it. This is different to the money put up by investors (the equity), because if the bank's loans go bad and lose money, then this loss can be absorbed by the equity. https://www.thirdway.org/memo/capital-requirements-and-bank-balance-sheets-reviewing-the-basics
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 02:18
|
|
|
lol at the idea that the audience applauds him for once, mentioning in an interview that Jimmy Savile was dodgy. “I did my part” he says. I hope he got his medal in the post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 02:49
|
|
|
Of course, Johnny's fine with it when his big pal Donny Trump does it. God, Johnny Rotten's loving insufferable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 04:55
|
|
|
New vid from Complaints on a Plate - a guy on YouTube who does really good vids. He only has like 600 subscribers right now and I can't remember how I found his stuff, but his stuff is particularly good. He did a big 45ish minute long vid on Corbyn and antisemitism which I highly recommend too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ikS50jArqQ
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 06:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/swgannon/status/1358676372999319552?s=20 A Professor of Moral Theology saying that the British Empire wasn't essentially racist or exploitative is the best thing I'll read this year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 10:18
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 10:23
|
|
|
The racism & exploitation was purely optional
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 10:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mattzarb/status/1357645273753919488 I've not heard of Michael Dugher before, but he seems like the perfect person to be leading the Betting and Gaming Council, 'a standards body committed to championing safer gambling.' (tldr: he has a habit of mocking gambling addicts, and also just being a nasty oval office in general).
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 10:42
|
|
|
The Perfect Element posted:https://twitter.com/mattzarb/status/1357645273753919488 He's a hard right ex-Labour MP too, if such a thing can be believed
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 10:58
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:https://twitter.com/swgannon/status/1358676372999319552?s=20 If we assume that the British Empire was an essentially racist endeavor, then surely that partially exonerates Rhodes, as he was just a cog in a racist machine. But if the Empire was not inherently racist, then Rhodes' explicitly racist and white supremacist plans to leave Kenya and Uganda with demographics (and social policy) similar to 1970s South Africa and South Africa with demographics similar to 1990s Kent were even more uniquely abhorrent? (It's both, the Empire was both white supremacist and Rhodes was uniquely awful among its proponents, but whitewashing the Empire makes Rhodes as an individual look worse, and vice versa.) e. Also Professor N. Biggar? Is Chappelle writing this? Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 11:05 on Feb 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 11:00
|
|
|
multijoe posted:He's a hard right ex-Labour MP too, if such a thing can be believed Michael Digger is the MP Chris Leslie is defending right before the "I'm afraaaaaaaaaaid" speech about the hard left He was also a shadow cabinet minister under Corbyn and the one who was leaking everything to the telegraph
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 11:48
|
|
|
ANYTHING YOU SOW posted:So, I'm not an expert on this, but my understanding is: You’re quite right. That’s why I said that capital adequacy had a similar effect to reserve requirements, not that they were the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 11:54
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Michael Digger is the MP Chris Leslie is defending right before the "I'm afraaaaaaaaaaid" speech about the hard left
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 12:05
|
|
|
Lol https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1358724659206905858?s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 12:09
|
|
|
multijoe posted:He's a hard right ex-Labour MP too, if such a thing can be believed It can't be believed often enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 12:10
|
|
|
30 points ahead of the greens
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 12:10
|
|
|
Love to see the Greens ahead of the Lib Dems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 12:13
|
|
|
Ugh, I have to physically go to my local medical practice to get registered, so I can get the coronavirus vaccine sometime down the line. Seems like a bad way to do stuff but so be it
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 12:17
|
|
|
Pop quiz: without looking it up who is the leader of the Lib Dems right now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 12:17
|
|
|
Necrothatcher posted:Pop quiz: without looking it up who is the leader of the Lib Dems right now? Ed "I will never apologize for the coalition" Davey
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 12:19
|
|
|
Necrothatcher posted:Pop quiz: without looking it up who is the leader of the Lib Dems right now? I only know because I heard Ed Davey on the radio within the last fortnight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 12:20
|
|
|
oh well - I was chatting with some politically-minded friends on Zoom and none of us could remember who it was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 12:24
|
|
|
let's wind up the harry potter people on twitter by calling him ed davis imo 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 12:28
|
|
|
Necrothatcher posted:oh well - I was chatting with some politically-minded friends on Zoom and none of us could remember who it was. I could probably name a higher percentage of Lib Dem MPs than Labour MPs. By naming four people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 12:28
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I only know because I heard Ed Davey on the radio within the last fortnight. I find it very hard to believe that anyone could hear Ed Davey on the radio and remember who he was even while he was talking, let alone up to a fortnight later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 12:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
Necrothatcher posted:oh well - I was chatting with some politically-minded friends on Zoom and none of us could remember who it was. I read an article about him and the Lib Dems yesterday and I couldn't remember.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2021 12:33
|
|