Are you confessing something about yourself?
It’s not “thin air” when I take my capital and purchase treasury bonds.
It’s not “thin air” when I wait a term and collect my capital plus interest.
1 Like
You are referring to fractional banking now. Assuming the lender, and borrower are at the same bank, the bank uses the lender’s money to make a loan to the borrower. The lender’s deposit account shows how much they have placed with the bank, but not the amount the bank has put to use for lending. If the borrower then deposits the funds loaned into the bank, those funds then become a new deposit amount, increasing the banks obligation to depositors. This is separate from the loan document that the bank holds as a bank asset, which is a contract between the bank and the borrower. The rub in this is liquidity at the bank. Loan documents are not liquid, and can’t be used to cover withdrawals by depositors. Banks don’t fear a rush of depositors rushing to put money in the bank, but they do fear a rush of depositors seeking to take their funds out of the bank. This is because they only keep a fraction of the deposits available for withdrawals. Funds available for withdrawal are held in reserve, thus are not earning debt service interest for the bank.
You exchanged a portion of your liquid assets for a debt instrument (a form of security), with limited liquidity.
I agree. I froze my credit reports (the big three) years ago and don’t expect to ever open them again.
1 Like
You know what I mean.
Nope. You don’t get to repurpose words.
I didn’t shift anything. Nothing physical is lost that wasn’t given away already.
Don’t be a twit.
False wrong completely untrue.
1 Like
There is a reason that “to lend” is different from “to donate (give).” The money is property. If you entice someone to lend you money with a promise of repayment plus interest, yet intentionally default, you have defrauded the lender. It is you who doesn’t get to repurpose words.
1 Like
Well let’s see how lending came about, free market style
An early farmer (or hunter-gather) had stored more food than his could eat in one day. He could
- keep it an eat it later
- lend it to an honest person
- lend it to a dishonest person (a programmed brainwashed US college student today)
In either of the latter two cases, he might get it back and he might not. but only the brainwashed college student would claim
“if a debt is canceled, no one loses anything.”
.
.
.
.
Cancel student loans?
Maybe we should cancel the program. Stop giving them out.
It’s not doing us, or them any good at all.
Lending, the word has nothing to do with government or politics, or opinion. It is a common sense word . . . . the meaning is as old as mankind in many language.
“… the borrower is a slave of the lender.” Read Proverbs 22:7
1 Like
Which part, Bob?
I love that people think I support forgiving student loans. Just completely skipping over the part where I said debt obligations are pragmatically justifiable.
When you borrow and don’t pay back
you take from me whatever I was gonna use it for.
I got money in my kids college account and my healthcare account
I lend it to you.
Your college professors taught you
- not paying back does not deprive me of anything, and
- I should be taxed more so that more people will be taught to think that way.
Both of those are obviously wrong.
I have terrible news for you: I formed this belief when I was in high school. On my own. With no input from anyone else.
When you borrow and don’t pay back
you take from me whatever I was gonna use it for.
This framing is too clunky to make sense. Taking something from you? You gave it away (as a loan, of course)! Can you take away potentialities? I don’t think so.
Debt obligations are (pragmatically) justifiable, but by invoking the concept of honor and not sloppy analogies to theft.
Also, see:
It shows.
1 Like
It’s a properly anarchistic view.
Also, still amazing how people are glossing over my belief that debt obligations are pragmatically justifiable.
