Fractional-reserve lending vs. Creating money to purchase bonds

F

FireWalker

All loans have a borrower and a lender. Commercial loans are granted through an underwriting process with expected repayment. This is fractional-reserve.

In contrast, bond purchases are forced. A central bank purchases bonds from its country's respective Treasury by rote. Once upon a time, the government provided collateral. In all cases, the collateral was confiscated. Today, government is "too big to fail" and has forced the central bank to print money to purchase bonds at interest.

It creates a perpetual fee.

The borrower (the government) has defaulted on all obligations except interest payments.

However. If the central bank purchases the bonds with a transfer of digits and a check, what consideration was actually conveyed? Is that contract voidable? Why is there interest owed on a transfer of digits? Nothing of value was conveyed.


This is in stark contrast to fractional-reserve lending where the borrower and lender actually have a relationship that can be legally remedied. Government is too large to remedy. However, the legal responsibility of the central bank can force real assets to be conveyed in all bond purchases. That prevents a perpetual fee and prevents your child (or unborn child) from being a debt slave to current spending by irresponsible politicians and oblivious central bankers creating debt obligations with no thought to repayment.
 
achilles28 said:
Fractional reserve banking is just as corrupt. Money is created out of nothing and loaned out.
More...

Actually fractional-reserve is not the root of the problem. It appears corrupt because some have direct access to low interest loans while others do not. However, saddling the population with debt via bond purchases that are nearly unrestricted is the root.
 
FYI, when a fractional-reserve loan is paid back, that money is destroyed. So there is an equal amount created and destroyed. Interest must come from somewhere else, but that is the price of the loan.

Bond purchases are made the same way, however, due to politics, the loan is essentially never paid back and continues to roll over. This creates a perpetual fee. Current spending is pushed to the younger generation, including unborn children. That is morally and legally wrong.

It is my assertion that the existing debt can be absolved legally.
 
Have you ever wondered what the national debt would be if we had never borrowed
any money from the fed but printed it all by the treasury. I saw the number somewhere but can't remember it.
 
hoodooman said:
Have you ever wondered what the national debt would be if we had never borrowed
any money from the fed but printed it all by the treasury. I saw the number somewhere but can't remember it.
More...
That's the solution that people have been recommending since the 1700's. Why hasn't the U.S. picked up on it...outside of Abraham Lincoln? I have no clue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top