HYPER inflation just around the corner? fed Is Paying Banks NOT To Lend 1.8 Trillion

And how is it that M2 is multiplied 3x greater than M0 because of banks lending and making deposits when there is to fractional lending that multiplies deposits?

 

Because they created 3x more deposits than the Fed has created reserves.

Your case is like saying hey I can divide the number of twinkies sold divided by the number of nikes sold and get a multiple. That doesn't mean there is a relationship. The money multiplier is about a relationship between reserves and the money supply. They have not found any relationship, in fact they have stated that banks simply make loans based of demand and it has nothing to do with the quantity of reserves in the system.

- - - Updated - - -

This is your case...



It explains absolutely nothing

 

And how exactly did they create a multiple of 3x deposits of the money base if there was no multiplier and fractional lending?

The chart is perfectly consistent with my posts from the first one on. We can see that because of the recession, bank lending dropped way down, as I stated in my first post, which is why we don't have hyperinflation even though the Fed tripled the money base (which is why M2 is not also way down).

Your chart shows that at all time, even now, the M2 money supply was a multiple of money base or M0. How can you say there is no multiplier when your own chart shows the money base is multiplied three times?

Things are looking very rough for you when your own charts, data and quotes go against you.

 

By simply plugging numbers in to a computer

Lol, your entire case is that there is more loans than there is reserves. The chart shows exactly what all my evidence points to. There is no multiplier, there is no relationship between base money and the money supply.

The fact you are sticking with your story after all this is rather hilarious.

 

Don't dodge. Explain it in detail how the money supply is mulitplied 3x the money base through lending and deposits if there is no fractional lending or mulitiplier. Show us with your T accounts.

LOL, How can the money base be multiplied 3x base money if there is not multiplier and no fractional lending?

The fact that you are desperately dodging is typical of you when your own bogus positions have trapped you into a corner.

 

Bank A Before Loan

A | L
$200 Reserves | $200 Deposits

Bank A After $100 Loan

A | L
$200 Reserves | $300 Deposits
$100 Loan

What a shocker!

Because banks have created 3 times more deposits than the Fed creates base money. It's rather simple.

Not dodging anything. Your entire case is that you can divide m2/m0. And you still can't grasp why there is more m2 than m0. It's rather amusing to watch.

 

The Fed wrote a paper asking the question "Does the Money Multiplier Exist".

Their answer...

These facts imply that the tight link suggested by the multiplier between reserves and money and bank lending does not exist.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/f.../201041pap.pdf



Case match point... apologies will now be accepted.

 

Thank you for proving your own sources are not saying there is no mulitplier or fractional banking and that you are wrong.

When are you going to apologize?

 

Deposits have now multipled base money 50%. Go on. Your not done. Show us how it gets to 3x.

And thus multiplied the money supply 3x through the money mulitplier of fractional lending.

Thanks for proving my point. Tough day for you. When are you going to apologize?

No, strawman. M2/M0 shows the current amount of the multiplier. My case is the fact that M2/M0 is a mulitple of three is proof that the money supply is mulitplied by fractional lending.

I grasp it just fine, as I explained in my very first post.

 

The Fed wrote a paper asking the question "Does the Money Multiplier Exist?".

Their answer...

These facts imply that the tight link suggested by the multiplier between reserves and money and bank lending does not exist.


Pretty embarrassing day for you

- - - Updated - - -

Deposits haven't multiplied anything. They were simply created. Reserves or base money had nothing to do with it.

All you are saying is you can divide m2/m0. That is not the money multiplier theory, lol. Embarrassing

So your case is that you can divide two numbers together. Amazing case, you seem like you understand a lot about banking, lmao!!!

 

Thank you for proving your own sources are not saying there is no mulitplier or fractional banking and that you are wrong.

I'm sorry you're making yourself look so foolish. When are you going to apologize?

 

They are saying the money multiplier "does not exist". Dividing m2/m0 is not the money multiplier, lol. That is simply an equation.

Please stop, you are embarrassing yourself... but it is highly entertaining. Tell me again how you can divide two numbers? I can't wait to learn all this amazing info! Lmao!!!

 

Quit making yourself look like an idiot. You are really looking silly trying to twist the plain language of sentences to try to defend you bogus position. Just like you did with the last paper.

They are not saying that he money multiplier "does not exist". They are saying:

"These facts imply that the tight link suggested by the multiplier between reserves and money and bank lending does not exist."

No, they are saying exactly what it says, that the tight link doesn't exist.

I, of course, have never stated that there was a "tight link" and to the contrary, in my very first post pointed out that bank lending had dropped signficantly despite the fact the Fed expanded the money base.

How long are you going to embarrass yourself beating a dead strawman?

 

For those intelligent people out there...

Does the money multiplier exist in our banking system? No it does not exist.

Do we have a fractional reserve banking system? No we do not.

Case closed.

 

Nevertheless, it is the link between money and reserves that drives the theoretical money multiplier relationship.
"These facts imply that the tight link suggested by the multiplier between reserves and money and bank lending does not exist."

Does the money multiplier exist? No it does not exist.


You can continue embarrassing yourself by trying to spin things and twist words all you want. The facts speak for themselves and I have been right the entire time. I think now you are finally realizing it.

 

Please excuse me for injecting a news item that appeared at Forbes today... I really do not want to interrupt the flow and content of your debate which I find most rewarding and instructive (very serious and appreciative about that). The title is, "How Bernanke Manipulates the Market in Three Easy Steps": http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertl...anke-manipulates-the-markets-in-3-easy-steps/ This is especially interesting given that, while talking out of the other side of his mouth, Bernanke soothes Wall Street by assuring that "Uncle Ben" will actually go right on with the bond-buying orgy: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130712-705666.html

I offer this to the discussion now if only because I have stated that it is my dyed-in-the-wool belief that a Keynesian theorist like Bernanke envisions a recovery for the United States chiefly by rescuing banks and the stock market. The rest of us, including those who save money responsibly, are simply thrown in the ditch. Now, I'll withdraw and continue my enrichment. Thanks again!

 

LOL, now that his position has been thoroughly demolished and he's been shown repeatedly to have fabricated meanings, distorted clear language, cited charts and articles that disprove his own position, dodged and danced, tried insulting and game playing, he's left with making a meek self-serving baseless claim.

Par for the course.

 

See my post above about repeatedly distorting clear language. Everyone can see the sentence says that the "tight link" doesn't exist, not that the money multiplier doesn't exist.

But Akiphidelt will continue to make bogus distortions to try to defend his defenseless positions.

It's embarrassing to watch the levels he'll stoop to.

 

Lol, "thoroughly demolished". The money multiplier and fractional "reserve" banking directly indicate a relationship between reserves and money. I have shown you multiple sources from the Federal Reserve that have stated there is no relationship between reserves and money. There is no money multiplier that determines how much a bank can lend, there is no fractional reserve system that determines how much a bank can lend. Bank lending and the money supply has absolutely nothing to do with reserves.

The fact you have not gotten to that point after all this time is absolutely hilarious!! I don't think you'll ever get it.

- - - Updated - - -

It says what drives the money multiplier theory is the link between reserves and money. Then it says that link does not exist. Therefore the money multiplier theory does not exist in our system. If it existed you would see a link between reserves and money.

It is really not that complicated. They pretty much spell it out for you. I mean maybe they have to draw you a picture or something.

 

Your entire theory is that you can divide two numbers together. It is really humorous.

 

It's funny that a Fed writes an entire research paper on whether the Money Multiplier Exists and in Iriemon's world, of course it exists, all you have to do is divide M2 by M0. Stupid Fed with all their stupid research. Just listen to Iriemon!!

 

This isn't very technical. Kind of just conjecture about peoples reactions to the Fed statements. Investors have reacted positively and negatively to the Fed's statements for decades. And even with the WSJ you can get a sense that they believe exactly like most people believe that all this "bond-buying" is the Fed pumping money in to the economy.

 

I'm not sure what you are asking. Bernanke is trying to walk a fine line between not expanding base money too much and unnecessarily torpedoing the economy. Why are we being thrown into a ditch?

- - - Updated - - -

Now your resorting to flat out falsehoods. It is really sad.

- - - Updated - - -

The papers are completely consistent with my posts.

 

Maybe your whiny, self-serving blather impresses others.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe your self-serving erroneous paraphrasing and distorted interpretations impresses others.