|
|
#21
12-25-2006, 08:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A question to ACists about money.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Massive disinformation is committed to make regular people believe the fraud. True some of the more well informed understand what is going on, but do you really think the average person does. [/ QUOTE ] For someone so well informed you obviously have no clue about how the FDIC works. Deposit insurance is not "protected by the governements ability to print money", it is a real insurance fund like any other insurance fund. Banks are charged a premium commensurate to their level of risk and those premiums are held in accounts to pay for bank failures. New money isnt printed to replace lost assets. [/ QUOTE ] This is the funniest thing I've read all day. Hint: There are is far more money ledgered in people's accounts than there exists paper dollars to cover them. The reason the FDIC exists is to "insure" against bank runs. What exactly do you think would happen in the event of a run on the national banking system, when all the depositors show up demanding their money that doesn't exist? Get a clue or stop posting about these things. 
|
|
#22
12-25-2006, 08:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question to ACists about money.
What would happen if there was a massive bank failure. Would the premium cover this. I'm sure it covers small scattered bank failures every once in awhile, not an actual bank run.
Alot of insurance companies have reinsurance to prevent against improabable but costly events. What is the FDICs re-insurance?
|
|
#23
12-25-2006, 08:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question to ACists about money.
[ QUOTE ]
What would happen if there was a massive bank failure. Would the premium cover this. I'm sure it covers small scattered bank failures every once in awhile, not an actual bank run. Alot of insurance companies have reinsurance to prevent against improabable but costly events. What is the FDICs re-insurance? [/ QUOTE ] It's twofold. The printing press and the tax man.
|
|
#24
12-25-2006, 08:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question to ACists about money.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Massive disinformation is committed to make regular people believe the fraud. True some of the more well informed understand what is going on, but do you really think the average person does. [/ QUOTE ] For someone so well informed you obviously have no clue about how the FDIC works. Deposit insurance is not "protected by the governements ability to print money", it is a real insurance fund like any other insurance fund. Banks are charged a premium commensurate to their level of risk and those premiums are held in accounts to pay for bank failures. New money isnt printed to replace lost assets. [/ QUOTE ] This is the funniest thing I've read all day. Hint: There are is far more money ledgered in people's accounts than there exists paper dollars to cover them. The reason the FDIC exists is to "insure" against bank runs. What exactly do you think would happen in the event of a run on the national banking system, when all the depositors show up demanding their money that doesn't exist? Get a clue or stop posting about these things. [/ QUOTE ] Get a clue yourself. The current purpose of the FDIC is not for runs on the banks, its for failure of individual banks. you can start at page 57.
|
|
#25
12-25-2006, 08:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question to ACists about money.
[ QUOTE ]
What would happen if there was a massive bank failure. Would the premium cover this. I'm sure it covers small scattered bank failures every once in awhile, not an actual bank run. Alot of insurance companies have reinsurance to prevent against improabable but costly events. What is the FDICs re-insurance? [/ QUOTE ] Ahh, I see you retreated from your last post before I could respond. The whole point of having deposits insured is to prevent runs. There is no cause for panic when there is no risk of loss. The best example is the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 80s. If ever there was opportunity for panic in the modern banking era this was it, with S&L failures exceeding the reserves in the SAIF but there was no panic because of the guarantees. The SAIF borrowed short term and was able to repay the loans within 2-3 years from premiums.
|
|
#26
12-25-2006, 09:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question to ACists about money.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Gold has market value (through supply and demand). Banks store this commodity and give out receipts, and people use the receipts as money. When banks commit fraud (give out receipts for gold they do not have or are unable/unwilling to payout the gold for the receipts), are weeded out through competition. So there is a natural creation of a way of making sure banks are sovereign, as people would want to know about this. You yourself would never want to have receipts or gold storage with a fraudulent bank, because you stand to lose your money value or even all your money. [/ QUOTE ] I can't speak for anyone else, but I find it pretty annoying when you misuse fraudulent in this sense. FR banking isn't fraudulent because it's not deceptive. Bank accounts simply are not deposit receipts. This fact is publicly known. It just cannot be fraud if everyone knows what's going on. You can think it's bad or it's evil, but you shouldn't think that it's fraudulent. [/ QUOTE ] It ranks right up there with "taxation=theft" and "violent coercion". [/ QUOTE ] Thanks copernicus you've fullfilled your non-content trolling for this thread, move along now. [/ QUOTE ] Agreement with a post and providing additional examples of the same behavior isnt trolling. For that you might reread your own post (or the ones that got you time in the penalty box). [/ QUOTE ] I don't feel like getting in a flame war with a troll but just because an ACist might be wrong on an issue doesn't mean that any other ideas ACists have as a whole are wrong. I've yet to see anyone here explain logically that taxation isn't theft or that the state doesn't rely on violent coercion to achieve it's goals. But it is well within your right to be delusionally ignorant of that. I also think it's cute that you take a shot at me for being temp banned when you have been also. Merry Christmas
|
|
#27
12-25-2006, 09:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question to ACists about money.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Gold has market value (through supply and demand). Banks store this commodity and give out receipts, and people use the receipts as money. When banks commit fraud (give out receipts for gold they do not have or are unable/unwilling to payout the gold for the receipts), are weeded out through competition. So there is a natural creation of a way of making sure banks are sovereign, as people would want to know about this. You yourself would never want to have receipts or gold storage with a fraudulent bank, because you stand to lose your money value or even all your money. [/ QUOTE ] I can't speak for anyone else, but I find it pretty annoying when you misuse fraudulent in this sense. FR banking isn't fraudulent because it's not deceptive. Bank accounts simply are not deposit receipts. This fact is publicly known. It just cannot be fraud if everyone knows what's going on. You can think it's bad or it's evil, but you shouldn't think that it's fraudulent. [/ QUOTE ] It ranks right up there with "taxation=theft" and "violent coercion". [/ QUOTE ] Thanks copernicus you've fullfilled your non-content trolling for this thread, move along now. [/ QUOTE ] Agreement with a post and providing additional examples of the same behavior isnt trolling. For that you might reread your own post (or the ones that got you time in the penalty box). [/ QUOTE ] I don't feel like getting in a flame war with a troll but just because an ACist might be wrong on an issue doesn't mean that any other ideas ACists have as a whole are wrong. I've yet to see anyone here explain logically that taxation isn't theft or that the state doesn't rely on violent coercion to achieve it's goals. But it is well within your right to be delusionally ignorant of that. I also think it's cute that you take a shot at me for being temp banned when you have been also. Merry Christmas [/ QUOTE ] I didnt say the concepts were wrong (though I think they are) I said that the rhetoric is comparable. There is a difference. And I didnt take a shot at you for being banned, I suggested that given the at best pot meet kettle nature of your post you might need a reminder of why you were banned. Just looking out for your interests in the Christmas spirit.
|
|
#28
12-25-2006, 11:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question to ACists about money.
[ QUOTE ]
What would happen if there was a massive bank failure. Would the premium cover this. I'm sure it covers small scattered bank failures every once in awhile, not an actual bank run. Alot of insurance companies have reinsurance to prevent against improabable but costly events. What is the FDICs re-insurance? [/ QUOTE ] The reason that this shouldn't be a concern is that FDIC insurance prevents a systemic run on banks. The FDIC is like a big, faceless Jimmy Stewart.
|
|
#29
12-25-2006, 11:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question to ACists about money.
I didn't retreat from anything. You misinterpreted my post and I had to correct you.
Yes, I'm sure the FDIC acts as a very nice psycological comfort that helps prevent runs. But that doesn't answer the question at all. If a run did happen, what would they do. During S&L they borrowed money, but what if the run was so bad they couldn't secure funding. What if people wouldn't lend them money. I suppose that wouldn't be a problem if we didn't engage in ever rediculous excessses (C.A. deficiet, budget deficiet, etc.) But, the patience of our creditors can't last forever.
|
|
#30
12-25-2006, 11:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question to ACists about money.
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't retreat from anything. You misinterpreted my post and I had to correct you. <font color="red"> Nice job anticipating that I wouldnt understand you. You posted twice in a row before I responded. </font> Yes, I'm sure the FDIC acts as a very nice psycological comfort that helps prevent runs. But that doesn't answer the question at all. If a run did happen, what would they do. During S&L they borrowed money, but what if the run was so bad they couldn't secure funding. What if people wouldn't lend them money. <font color="red">then there are a lot bigger problems than deposit account insurance and the devaluation of the dollar that would result. Insured deposits are becoming a much smaller portion of total deposits..less than 50% now I believe. </font> I suppose that wouldn't be a problem if we didn't engage in ever rediculous excessses (C.A. deficiet, budget deficiet, etc.) But, the patience of our creditors can't last forever. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, it can for all practical purposes. Thats the benefit of being the leading economy in the world, supporting the economy of your creditors to a large extent. Thats why the chicken little cries of China dumping their dollars is so ridiculous. Suicide isnt really painless.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
