Who has read "Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin?

[youngbuck]

I own it in .pdf format, but I just don't want to read a book that big on my comp. I certainly want to read it, just in physical format. That will transpire, eventually.

 

[Conza88]

I own it in .pdf format, but I just don't want to read a book that big on my comp. I certainly want to read it, just in physical format. That will transpire, eventually.

Can I get that pdf off you? :o

I back all my books up with a pdf if I can.. also has use for online times. Referring people to section etc.

 

[sidster]

I own it in .pdf format, but I just don't want to read a book that big on my comp. I certainly want to read it, just in physical format. That will transpire, eventually.

I know what you mean. I have a couple of pdf books that I intend to
get to eventually. I typically print them in chapters and read them
that way.

 

[Bruno]

Bought, but not read...

I'm pretty sure I already understand it... but I know I'll learn more.

I've got other stuff to read, but I'll get to it eventually!

If you just crack open the first page, you will be hooked. It reads like a detective story, and sucks you right in. I'm sure you will appreciate all the events in history and how they were affected and guided by central bankers.

What seems like it might be a dry read due to the subject matter is instead fascinating and enlightening. I sent this book to two of my brothers (with the forewarning it would change their world-view) who were both immediately hooked.

 

[sidster]

Can I get that pdf off you? :o

I back all my books up with a pdf if I can.. also has use for online times. Referring people to section etc.

I thought about asking him the same question

....but didn't think it was "kosher" to do so.

 

[sidster]

If you just crack open the first page, you will be hooked. It reads like a detective story, and sucks you right in. I'm sure you will appreciate all the events in history and how they were affected and guided by central bankers.

What seems like it might be a dry read due to the subject matter is instead fascinating and enlightening. I sent this book to two of my brothers (with the forewarning it would change their world-view) who were both immediately hooked.

G. Edward Griffin is a very good writer and presenter. So I don't
doubt what you claim. My dad and I don't agree on everything,
so I was surprised when he made a comment the other day after
I had handed him a copy of "A Grand Deception" by Griffin. He
seems to "get" what Griffin is teaching!

 

[Conza88]

I thought about asking him the same question

....but didn't think it was "kosher" to do so.

Putting pdf's off the book online, exponentially increase real book sales.

Mises Institution knows this... they put online book versions out before they are even able to be bought as real books. They are considered insane in the publishing world...

They are complimentary though. It is blatantly evident.

No-one likes reading off a screen for long. People buy the books, if it meets their subjective value.

 

[TheBMT]

Im a little over halfway through this book. It is so easy to understand what is going on in the economic world relative to the Federal Reserve and the Bailouts (Chapter 2). I was hooked and can wait to read more.

I talk about it all the time at work, telling people how the FED actually does work.

 

[Rock Sexton]

I'm listening to the audio.............wow..........so far some great excerpts..............

"It was like the Fox building the hen house and setting up the security system."

And then the point made about how these bankers were butting heads for years, bloodied on the battle field, and now they wanted to work together?

 

[Rock Sexton]

So let me get this straight............. according to the fractional reserve banking system created by the Fed - the Fed makes interest off of literally NOTHING. Banks are required to keep 10% of their deposits on hand. So if a $100 is deposited by Joe Smith, they can actually turn around and call that $100 the 10% which would've made it $1,000 and go and lend $900 of it which is created by the Fed and their magic check book errrr printing press.

Common sense would tell you that eventually that would crash and burn because you're flooding the market with your own dollars, causing major inflation and price hikes. I'm thinking that in order to deter this, that is why we have become such a power player in the "global economy" because we could send some of this printed money overseas, keeping it out of our markets.

Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[gonegolfin]

So let me get this straight............. according to the fractional reserve banking system created by the Fed - the Fed makes interest off of literally NOTHING. Banks are required to keep 10% of their deposits on hand. So if a $100 is deposited by Joe Smith, they can actually turn around and call that $100 the 10% which would've made it $1,000 and go and lend $900 of it which is created by the Fed and their magic check book errrr printing press.

Common sense would tell you that eventually that would crash and burn because you're flooding the market with your own dollars, causing major inflation and price hikes. I'm thinking that in order to deter this, that is why we have become such a power player in the "global economy" because we could send some of this printed money overseas, keeping it out of our markets.

Am I understanding this correctly?

No, this is not correct. Here is an example ...

Assumptions:
1) 10% reserve requirement (and no borrowed reserves)
2) Bank A has a $100 monetary base in the form of reserves (the reserves can be a combination of federal reserve reserve balances and/or vault cash)
3) Bank A has no loans and has a single deposit account of $100 (a cash (FRN) deposit made by the depositor upon the creation of the deposit account)
4) Bank B has no loans, no reserves, and a single deposit account that has been opened without a balance.

- Bank A can loan $90 of their $100 in reserves (not $900) and does lend that $90 to a borrower.
- Bank B accepts the $90 deposit from the above borrower. Bank B now has $90 in reserves and is eligible to lend $81 of this $90.

At this point, we have the following in the system ...
- Total Deposits of $190
- Total Reserves of $100

Obviously the lending process can continue. But note that the total $ of reserves in the system does not change. Reserves in aggregate (total) only change when the Federal Reserve creates or extinguishes reserves. Lately, the Fed has been creating reserves. However, simply creating reserves does not increase the amount of money supply.

Brian

 

[sidster]

So let me get this straight............. according to the fractional reserve banking system created by the Fed - the Fed makes interest off of literally NOTHING. Banks are required to keep 10% of their deposits on hand. So if a $100 is deposited by Joe Smith, they can actually turn around and call that $100 the 10% which would've made it $1,000 and go and lend $900 of it which is created by the Fed and their magic check book errrr printing press.

No, this is not correct. Here is an example ...

Assumptions:
1) 10% reserve requirement (and no borrowed reserves)
2) Bank A has a $100 monetary base in the form of reserves (the reserves can be a combination of federal reserve reserve balances and/or vault cash)
3) Bank A has no loans and has a single deposit account of $100 (a cash (FRN) deposit made by the depositor upon the creation of the deposit account)
4) Bank B has no loans, no reserves, and a single deposit account that has been opened without a balance.

- Bank A can loan $90 of their $100 in reserves (not $900) and does lend that $90 to a borrower.
- Bank B accepts the $90 deposit from the above borrower. Bank B now has $90 in reserves and is eligible to lend $81 of this $90.

<snip>

I think Rock Sexton was correct. The Modern Money Mechanics
(published by Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago) explains it as
such on page 6 section How the Multiple Expansion Process
Works:

If business is active, the banks with excess reserves
probably will have opportunities to loan the $9,000. Of
course, they do not really pay out loans from the money
they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional
money would be created. What they do when they make
loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits
to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets)
and deposits (liabilities) both rise by $9,000. Reserves are
unchanged by the loan transactions. But the deposit cred-
its constitute new additions to the total deposits of the
banking system. See illustration 3.

This is talking about from an initial reserve of $10,000.
So the new loans banks give out, they are not using the
90% remainder of their initial deposits. They create new
money in the amount of the 90%!

This is subtle but greatly different from what one assume
is happening!

 

[gonegolfin]

I think Rock Sexton was correct. The Modern Money Mechanics
(published by Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago) explains it as
such on page 6 section How the Multiple Expansion Process
Works:



This is talking about from an initial reserve of $10,000.
So the new loans banks give out, they are not using the
90% remainder of their initial deposits. They create new
money in the amount of the 90%!

This is subtle but greatly different from what one assume
is happening!

No. You are either misinterpreting what I stated above or are misinterpreting the "Modern Money Mechanics/Bank Deposits" paper by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. They outline the same scenario I do above.

From the article ...
"All they need to retain, under a 10 percent reserve requirement, is $1000. The remaining $9000 is "excess reserves". This amount can be loaned or invested."
Note that at this stage, only the $9000 in excess reserves (from the original $10,000 deposit) can be loaned. Not $90,000.

My example used figures of a $100 original cash deposit, resulting in $100 of reserves. 10% of this, or $10, must be retained as reserves. The remaining $90 is excess reserves and can be loaned or invested. $900 cannot be loaned by Bank A as this would be 900% of reserves, not 90%.

Brian

 

[icon124]

No. You are either misinterpreting what I stated above or are misinterpreting the "Modern Money Mechanics/Bank Deposits" paper by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. They outline the same scenario I do above.

From the article ...
"All they need to retain, under a 10 percent reserve requirement, is $1000. The remaining $9000 is "excess reserves". This amount can be loaned or invested."
Note that at this stage, only the $9000 in excess reserves (from the original $10,000 deposit) can be loaned. Not $90,000.

My example used figures of a $100 original cash deposit, resulting in $100 of reserves. 10% of this, or $10, must be retained as reserves. The remaining $90 is excess reserves and can be loaned or invested. $900 cannot be loaned by Bank A as this would be 900% of reserves, not 90%.

Brian

Listen to this man, so much knowledge here.

Also, most of the time the money multiplier is no where near what the books and movies make it out to be. Theorectically they can (assuming 10% required reserve ratio) loan out about 9 times the amount they originally receive, but that usually is NOT the case. I think the average right now is a little over 2 ...not sure exactly I would have to look it up...but my point is that the money multiplier in action is never as big (or rarely) as what the theory tells you.

 

[sidster]

No. You are either misinterpreting what I stated above or are misinterpreting the "Modern Money Mechanics/Bank Deposits" paper by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. They outline the same scenario I do above.

From the article ...
"All they need to retain, under a 10 percent reserve requirement, is $1000. The remaining $9000 is "excess reserves". This amount can be loaned or invested."
Note that at this stage, only the $9000 in excess reserves (from the original $10,000 deposit) can be loaned. Not $90,000.

My example used figures of a $100 original cash deposit, resulting in $100 of reserves. 10% of this, or $10, must be retained as reserves. The remaining $90 is excess reserves and can be loaned or invested. $900 cannot be loaned by Bank A as this would be 900% of reserves, not 90%.

Brian

I'll grant you that I may be misunderstanding you, modern money
mechanics or both. But I quoted you a direct paragraphs from the
booklet. Here it is again, read it carefully and if need be read it
a few more times:

If business is active, the banks with excess reserves
probably will have opportunities to loan the $9,000. Of
course, they do not really pay out loans from the money
they receive as deposits.

They do not use the deposits to make loans to new borrowers!

If they did this, no additional money would be created.

Because, that would not create new debt!

What they do when they make loans is to accept
promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers'
transaction accounts.

See? I'll continue to quote you what follows ...

This is the beginning of the deposit expansion process.
In the first stage of the process, total loans and deposits of
the banks rise by an amount equal to the excess reserves
existing before any loans were made (90 percent of the
initial deposit increase). At the end of Stage 1, deposits
have risen a total of $19,000 (the initial $10,000 provided
by the Federal Reserve's action plus the $9,000 in deposits
created by Stage 1banks). See illustration 4. However,

So the initial $10,000 provides the $9,000 which can be used
to create NEW debt! The $9,000 isn't loaned out at all, BUT
instead, a new $9,000 is created out of thin air to make the
total deposits $19,000 (the initial 10K + the new 9K).

 

[gonegolfin]

So the initial $10,000 provides the $9,000 which can be used
to create NEW debt! The $9,000 isn't loaned out at all, BUT
instead, a new $9,000 is created out of thin air to make the
total deposits $19,000 (the initial 10K + the new 9K).

I am not disagreeing with any of the above (or what was in your last post). This is exactly what I provided in my example, except my figures were of smaller scale. With an initial $100, a maximum of $90 can be loaned. If the $90 is loaned, this creates the following (pulled exactly from my example) ...

- Total Deposits of $190
- Total Reserves of $100

The process then continues with the $90 deposit ...

This is not what the original poster (Rock) was citing/asking, which is why I provided the correction. In his scenario, he had $900 being lent from Bank A from the $100 deposit to Bank A. This is not correct.

Brian

 

[ToyBoat]

You can get the book here:
http://www.shopjbs.org/magento/index.php/creature-from-jekyll-island.html

Save a buck and use your tax paid local libraries.

 

[sidster]

I am not disagreeing with any of the above (or what was in your last post). This is exactly what I provided in my example, except my figures were of smaller scale. With an initial $100, a maximum of $90 can be loaned. If the $90 is loaned, this creates the following (pulled exactly from my example) ...

- Total Deposits of $190
- Total Reserves of $100

The process then continues with the $90 deposit ...

This is not what the original poster (Rock) was citing/asking, which is why I provided the correction. In his scenario, he had $900 being lent from Bank A from the $100 deposit to Bank A. This is not correct.

Brian

OK, I misunderstood something along the way :o

 

[danberkeley]

As I understand it, if $100 are deposited, the bank can lend out $900 of it. That means that there are $1000 in the system while $900 are lent out and $100 (or 10%) remain at the bank as the reserve requirement.

 

[gonegolfin]

As I understand it, if $100 are deposited, the bank can lend out $900 of it. That means that there are $1000 in the system while $900 are lent out and $100 (or 10%) remain at the bank as the reserve requirement.

No. Under a 10% reserve requirement, the bank can lend $90 of a $100 deposit. Once that $90 is lent and deposited somewhere (even the same bank), there will then be $190 in deposits (up from $100) and still $100 in total reserves.

Brian