Banking | Robert P. Murphy

[@elvirabudda]

What I love about this guy is like jazz and blues; 100% American.

[@autystycznybudda5012]

You mean the accent?

[@stevecutright5540]

Bob Murphy is one of my favorite Austrians

[@widehotep9257]

Me too! I love when he lies to me by parroting the easily-debunked "Money Multiplier Myth." And when he tries to trick me by saying the Federal Reserve is part of the US Government. What a guy!

[@ipeteagles]

it's 50%

[@lifeblood086]

Robert Murphy is the man.

[@NietzscheanMan]

Good explanation and nice steps to explain this to non-accounting people; I'll be going at it in this way from now on whenever the subject comes up :)

[@barscanvural9385]

Holy fucking shit. Every time I watch this guy I realize all my life I've been lied to.

[@chotaboy66]

46:24 That $45 interest was laundered out of circulation along with the creation of principal and no money was retired , banks keep all principal as soon as you sign a promissory obligation ,banks fail to obligate & extinguish the loan after its payed in full which is evident within a never ending depletion of circulation or circulatory deflation and consequent evidence of national debt or bailouts that has to be further borrowed in a poor attempt to keep circulation vital .

[@rockandrock44]

@jjrglobal Banks DO create money "out of thin air". They create more demand deposits by simply adding a certain amount into a lendee's account. When they make loans, money that is created. When the loans are payed back, the money is "destroyed"

[@zadokisrael9195]

It is important to know and keep at the front of your mind, that funds are short-term money market instruments or collateral securities that are highly liquid and held as collateral to back or cash into Federal Reserve notes.

[@SaviorOfLogic]

@chotaboy66 Here is some second grade maths: Imagine there are only $500. I have $100. I give it to a bank. A guy borrows $50 from a bank. Thus, me ($100), him ($50) and the rest of the economy ($400) are all trying to buy goods, but $550 is more than $500, so there has been inflation.

[@sb_dunk]

I realize I'm 11 years late here, and I'm not so much replying to you, rather I'm replying for the sake of anyone that sees this comment. If you give $100 to the bank, and it goes on to lend $50 of that to someone else, you don't have $100 available (although it may _look_ like you do), you have $50 available until that other person pays back their borrowed $50. Trying to draw out the full $100 is effectively a run on the bank. The lending of money isn't a direct cause of inflation.

[@Tigerfire75]

If I want to learn about banking I will go read the book The Mystery of Banking. Of course This video isn't bad. Robert Murphy probably has also read The Mystery of Banking. It is by a man named Murray N. Rothbard one of the Austrian school.

[@widehotep9257]

They are dead wrong and teach the debunked "Money Multiplier Myth."

[@Tigerfire75]

@@widehotep9257 what is the money multiplier myth?

[@widehotep9257]

@@Tigerfire75 The "Money Multiplier Myth" is when they say banks must first get "new" money created by the central bank before the bank can loan out money. And it says if a bank starts with $100 received from the central bank, they keep $10 in reserve and loan out $90. Then the next bank gets $90, keeps $9 in reserves and loans out $81, etc. They have taught this in colleges for at least sixty years. But this "money multiplier myth" has been proven to be 100% nonsense. IN FACT, when a bank issues a loan, they create all the money out of thin air in their computer without any reserves or deposits required. The government has no control over the money creation process whatsoever. Banks charge interest for loaning money they created out of thin air. And ALL money is created this way. There are lots of videos on youtube that explain it. Just search "money multiplier myth."

[@batmanthe]

@chotaboy66 Most importantly depending on a fairly complex external mechanism and the amount of money involved, the Federal Reserve system adds NEW money into the system to cover both people equating to an extra $50 in new money.

[@batmanthe]

@chotaboy66 I think you may have some big misunderstandings about Austrian economics. Your not thinking in depth about what SaviorOfLogic is saying there. There is not a problem with his math. There is also not a problem with your math here. The $100 can be pulled out long before the $50 is repaid. So there can be $550 dollars chasing $500 in goods.

[@morningstarx5340]

Bob Murphy is still the greatest. You have to read "Chaos Theory"

[@widehotep9257]

Murphy is parroting a long-discredited money creation process called the "Money Multiplier Myth." Nice guy and everything, but completely full of crap.

[@chotaboy66]

Interesting theory but unfortunately there is no logical mathematical proof. First Question ,What dose the borrowers promissory note represent today ? Second Question, If every nation is in debt who then could possibly be the ' TRUE CREDITOR " today ? . Third Question . Who then creates the deposits today ?.

[@chotaboy66]

@batmanthe AGAIN you fail to see circulatory deflation is depleting at a greater rate than circulatory inflation evident by national debt.

[@batmanthe]

@chotaboy66 Read about how the Federal Reserve increases the money supply outside of buying debt and government held assets and bonds.

[@chotaboy66]

@batmanthe A gov bond is the same as a obligors promissory note,The obligor creates the only lawful consideration of value via a promissory note which is backed by the property in question .For one to comprehend money creation one has to look at its very root conception where a fraudulent exchange is carried out on the ground floor,A gov is forced to sell bonds in a "attempt " to keep the circulation vital only as a consequence of the very obfuscation of OUR promissory obligations to each other.

[@chotaboy66]

@batmanthe Sure?There is no increase in money supply rather the circulatory deflation always exceeds any amount of circulatory inflation,Why?Because all banks don't retire the obligors payments in order to defeat circulatory inflation rather banks do the exact opposite fraudulently claiming to be the true creditor then laundering ,depleting circulation,first by principal on conception via our promissory obligations pre expansion then again on the exchange by charged interest thats never created.

[@batmanthe]

@chotaboy66 I can see you have a decent understanding of modern economics and none of your points here are particularly incorrect.. But I'm not sure at what your getting at exactly, you don't disprove anything Robert Murphy is saying here.. Are you claiming that the banks aren't involved in an increase in the money supply? It's part of how the Federal Reserve system works. Fractional reserve banking does NOT increase the money supply. The Federal Reserve with fractional reserve banking DOES.

[@chotaboy66]

@batmanthe Any national debt or any inflationary injections only reflects a sum that has already been laundered out of circulation by the very obfuscation of the obligors promissory obligations. The fairly complex external mechanism simply fails 2nd grade maths.Why, because of the very obfuscation of the peoples promissory obligations to each other ,ground floor

[@chotaboy66]

@batmanthe If one FULLY comprehends the obfuscation of our promissory obligations one will see there is no debt to begin with,the purported borrower is really a obligor that creates the sum of principal & its the obligors obligation to PAY DOWN or retire the sum created to defeat circulatory inflation,only the bank intervenes by fraud claiming to be the creditor between a true creditor (owner or builder) & the obligor then merely publishing evidence of our promissory obligations to each other.

[@chotaboy66]

The obligors promissory note WE issue when WE purport to borrow from a bank has the only lawful consideration given up by US not the bank FACT. The property given up is PAID IN FULL from the outset of the former issuance which gives liquidity value of that property to the former promissory note & the value of the production given up by the obligor who should only contribute just that much value back to the pool of wealth EQUAL to what was given up to be rightfully retired not stolen by a bank.

[@gordo6908]

Could you tell me where you read this, cause your explanation is confusing as hell.

[@widehotep9257]

Your comment may be true, but it is unreadable gibberish to most humans.

[@chotaboy66]

@batmanthe I think you may have some big misunderstandings about Austrian economics. -- On the contrary the logical comprehension is that interest is never created nor issued evident by the deflationary measures in the current system which I might add is the root cause of economic failure & the school of Austrian economics its self attempts to preserve the very same deflationary measures & the very same banks that deny us true representation of wealth that destroy our credit worthiness SIR..

[@chotaboy66]

@befreeberich Sorry the true creditor is one who gives up property in any ALLEGED loan from a bank,do the banks give up any consideration of their own in any ALLEGED loan to one of us? Of course not so the issuer of money on conception is the obligor who issues the only consideration Eg: their very own promissory obligation or note. Bonds are a consequence or evidence of our promissory obligations we have to each other.Your economic doctrine promotes lies of economy that MPE irrefutably proves.

[@chotaboy66]

@befreeberich I'm merely articulating & demonstrating how & why " interest " at any rate charged to us is terminal & how banks falsify a debt to themselves when they give up NO consideration. Quite the contrary Mathematically Perfected Economy is only logic & its 1.1.1 math ratio could be taught to any second grade math class? I'm an advocate of MPE a 43 year " proof " of solution that no one can disprove. Do big words really confuse people? your sitting in front of a computer are you not?

[@RIEKSONE]

hit the gym

[@erastvandoren]

Stop explaining barter already, you are not talking to preschoolers.

[@widehotep9257]

This man is DEAD wrong. He is parroting the discredited "Money Multiplier Myth," and he also wrongly says the Federal Reserve is part of the government. I was duped by Austrian Economics for a decade, and I won't forgive them until they admit their errors.

[@zg-it]

I have a question, if I was a contractor but my only customer was the government because the only people buying my services were the government. Wouldn't I basically need the government and be associated with the government? If it wasn't for the government, then wouldn't there be more competing Banks because the government only allows one Federal reserve.

[@widehotep9257]

@@zg-it "Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is a closely-held private corporation. They're owned by the banks in their districts." Chicago Fed spokesman Jerry Nelson from a 2010 interview with Gary Franci. "...for these reasons we rule that the reserve banks are NOT FEDERAL AGENCIES..." Lewis vs. USA, 680 F2.d 1239 (9th Circuit 1982). "The Federal Reserve System is an independent agency, it is not part of the federal government. For these reasons the Federal Reserve System's property is subject to taxation in Minnesota." -Mark B. Dayton, State of Minnesota State Auditor, 1994 (From a letter to money researcher Gregory K. Soderberg.) The Austrians are also 100% wrong on the mechanics of money creation.

[@zg-it]

@@widehotep9257 arguing over semantics, it's a government bank. It's a centralized Bank designed to print money to impoverish us and to support the government. Have you not watched your spending power drop by 25% over the last 4 years. Austrian economics must have been too complicated for you.