Bailout Will allow banks to hold ZERO PERCENT reserves!!!!
- Thread starter thomaspaine23
- Start date
Vote Waterman 2028
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 282
Gold reserves (or gold holdings) are held by central banks as a store of value. In 2001, it was estimated that all the gold ever mined totaled 145,000 tonnes.[1] One tonne of gold equated to a value of US$29.66 million as of July 2008 ($922.40/troy ounces)[2]. The total value of all gold ever mined would be $4.3 trillion at July 2008 prices.
Hey, we could pay for the bailouts with this!
When india's economy collapsed about 6 years ago, there newly elected leader had to sell most of there gold to england to bail there country out, and he said he would have the gold bought back in 6 years and he did it in 4. Its not entirely a bad idea, but he was an economic genius, and he actually cared about his people.
ord33
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 700
The bailout included the language for the acceleration for "nonpersonal time deposits" which is defined by the Cleveland branch of the Federal Reserve as:
More about nonpersonal time deposits
This from the Federal Reserve also may clear up the differences between nonpersonal time deposits and transaction deposits.
http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed45.html
From what I can tell, the bill's language accelerating the clause to October 1, 2008 only effects the non-personal time deposits, NOT the checking account an average joe may have and the bank would have to have 10% reserves on.
Believe me, I am no fan of the FED, but I wanted to include this information I found before everyone runs and says the sky is falling and potentially making a fool out of themselves!!!
More about nonpersonal time deposits
This from the Federal Reserve also may clear up the differences between nonpersonal time deposits and transaction deposits.
http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed45.html
From what I can tell, the bill's language accelerating the clause to October 1, 2008 only effects the non-personal time deposits, NOT the checking account an average joe may have and the bank would have to have 10% reserves on.
Believe me, I am no fan of the FED, but I wanted to include this information I found before everyone runs and says the sky is falling and potentially making a fool out of themselves!!!
Falseflagop
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,750
I guess the info from this mrning was right no RESERVES!!
Falseflagop
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,750
WHy have a banking system if NO RESERVES if a bank run they your money is gone? Oh yeah FDIC (imho will soon be broke, see FORTIS went down that is a HUGE HUGE HUGE bank that is like Bank of America here, understand people, these people are crooks! imho
Yes, I want the answer to a lot of whys, why nows and whos.
Regardless, the sky has already fallen.
scholarpreneur
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 163
I think you're wrong. The act refers to 12 U.S.C.
461(b)(2)(A)
You're reading section (B) not section (A)
Section B refers to non-personal time accounts but the act refers to section A.
Section A:
(2)
(A) Each depository institution shall maintain reserves against its transaction accounts as the Board may prescribe by regulation solely for the purpose of implementing monetary policy—
(i) in the ratio of 3 per centum for that portion of its total transaction accounts of $25,000,000 or less, subject to subparagraph (C); and
(ii) in the ratio of 12 per centum, or in such other ratio as the Board may prescribe not greater than 14 per centum and not less than 8 per centum, for that portion of its total transaction accounts in excess of $25,000,000, subject to subparagraph (C).
Similar threads
