Hilfe & Kontakt

TURMEL: Louellyn Lambros errs again

Von: KingofthePaupers (johnturmel@yahoo.com) [Profil]
Datum: 04.06.2010 23:50
Message-ID: <ebb1347b-f6f4-49ea-a51b-384b098503af@e6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
Newsgroup: alt.conspiracy alt.drugscan.legal can.politics alt.fan.john-turmel
"Banks Profit from Near-zero Interest Rates: Another Reason for States
to Own Their Own Banks"
Jct: Kevin Cox had just finished explaining it right:
KC: "As we know banks get a deposit of say $100. They lend out $90 of
new money and if that money goes straight into the bank they can now
lend $81 etc. So if a deposit is made of $100 then a bank can leverage
that and lend out $900 of new money."
Jct: And Louellyn Lambros corrects him to get it wrong:
LL: If the 10% reserve requirement were not imposed, then the orginal
$100 could expand infinitely. How?
Jct: Yes, this should be fun. Imagine her with a piggy bank and 100 $1
LL: I believe the "fractional reserve" system, simply refers to the
practices of keeping a fraction of transaction deposits (10%) on
Jct: Remember, they don't lend any of it out, they keep it all in the
reservoir. So by calling it
"fractional reserve," it fools Louellyn into her first mistake
thinking they only keep a fraction of the money in the reservoir
(instead of it all.)
LL: As I see it, this has nothing to do, Kevin, with the process you
describe below...
Jct: So creating money isn't done the way Kevin just described. Here's
her version:
LL: One gets a loan for $100, pays someone with it, that $100 gets
deposited and then lent out to someone else. The borrower pays someone
with it, it gets deposited, it gets lent out. And on and on.
Jct: Her next mistake is to think "it gets lent out to someone else"
when Kevin had just finished explaining "They lend out $90 of new
Jct: So now, how do you think Louellyn has fared in multiplying up her
$100 with her piggy bank to $900? This shows the point. The minute she
tries the move the notes around, her brain damage becomes evident.
Ellen Brown's Public Banking group is where people can come and
pollute the discussions with their never-ending errors. And no one is
more prolific at introducing erroneous trash than Louellyn Lambros.
Here's a perfect example, correcting the guy who's right with her
opinion that's ridiculously wrong. History's going to look back at her
writings and have a good laugh. Unless she's bankster mole planting
disinformation. But I'd bet she's a moron completely fooled by how the
system works. Then again, she's been told the truth so many times, to
repeat the error does imply she's probably a mole. Or a moron? Or a

[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]