Why is it that the area on the back of credit cards and debit cards, where you are supposed to put your signature, is so small?
Paradoxically, granting a credit automatically causes money creation, but now with ‘money’ in a special monetary sense. But this money creation does not make the bank any richer: in terms of value, the net effect is zero.
This is difficult to understand, but it is true. That so many people fail to understand this, is one the underlying causes of a widespread, unjustified mistrust of banks among the general public.
So in practice, if both situations actually occurred (they don’t in the eurozone, because A is prohibited), net interest costs of scenario C would probably be the same as those of scenario A. In this example: 3%.
Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights to Israel/Palestine. They are predestined to live together in that land, maybe as two autonomous states, better still as two peoples in a common state, living together peacefully.
It seems obvious that it is cheaper for a government to borrow from its own central bank, because the interest paid flows back into the treasury.
However, on closer examination, it is not that simple. Every loan, no matter by whom, requires funding, and funding normally comes at a price. That makes it likely that in accurately comparable scenarios, borrowing from the central bank costs just as much as borrowing from a non-central bank or other commercial investors.
There is a difference though, in the potential effects on the money supply and inflation: borrowing from the central bank is risky in this respect, and borrowing from commercial parties is not.
The bans on central bank government lending, by the Bank for International Settlements and in the Maastricht Treaty, are justified.
Using /3/ suggests that the sound should resemble the vowel in British English, especially northern varieties thereof, in words like "bird". Cf. the first vowel in catedral © with the sound of "ur" in pretty nurses, from the famous Beatle song "Penny Lane".
Pythagoras (in Greek: Πυθαγόρας) accepted only factors 2 (octave) and 3 (fifth) for these ratios. That does produce elegant ratios, except in somewhat more complete scales, when rather large integers appear in the frequency ratios. For example, a major third, built from two major seconds of 9:8, gets the ratio 81:64 (or 407.82 cents). A must nicer ratio is 5:4, also a major third, at 386.31 cents. But this requires the factor 5, which Πυθαγόρας did not want. Aristoxenos (Αριστόξενος in Greek) did.
Arabic music takes this a step further: it also uses the factor 11. (And 7, or so they say, but I have never heard that myself. I have found the factor 17; see below.) Three tones with frequency ratios 10:11:12 produce intervals of 165.00 and 150.64 cents, which is approximately 150, or one and a half semitones. Together that clearly makes 315.64, which corresponds to the minor third ratio of 6:5. By combining these intervals with the more "common" ones in several ways, we get the maqâmât in this aforementioned link.
I can never remember those Latin expressions, partly because my 1968-1969 grammar school adventure failed miserably after only one year, so I continued not learning Latin. But I can look them up:
Both are untrue, when applied to money creation and to wealth differences. There is no causal link. They are fallacies.
Be that as it may, whatever Mike Montagne exactly means by a promissory obligation, the problem I see with them, is that accounts payable, accounts receivable, forwards and futures are all useful and usable, but they are not suitable to be used as money. The reasons for that are as follows:
So be it and so it is.
The monetary definitions of money aggregates make sense for the purposes they are used for. However, they do not correspond to what people in everyday life intuitively understand as money.
Money creation is intimately tied to those monetary definitions. Most people do know what money is, but misunderstand money. Consequently, they also misunderstand money creation.
They think it is also money creation, but it isn’t. Therefore they think banks that create money are fraudulent.
In reality, banks that create money (automatically and inadvertently, as an unavoidable side-effect of credit granting!) do not also create money.
Every people acquires a right to autonomy, while living in a specific region. Acquiring such a right requires an amount of time which is difficult to specify precisely, but it is measured in hundreds of years, or in generations. Whether a group of people is to be considered a people can only be decided by those people themselves.
Be that as it may, it is still my opinion that all those questions are unclearly worded, that they rely on grave misunderstandings, that they are rhetorical in already suggesting incriminating answers, and are full of unfounded reproach against banks in general.
I don’t want to type that full path every time
I use the command. I want to type just
I can achieve that by setting the PATH variable.
The authors sometimes look at debt being the resulting principal after any redemption instalments. At other times they include any interest in their notion of ‘debt’, regardless of whether that interest was already paid as agreed, or whether the borrower is in arrears.
I think that’s incorrect and confusing.