Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: PS
« Last post by Dale Eastman on March 27, 2024, 01:20:08 PM »
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/FB%20related%20or%20used/7.jpg
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/FB%20related%20or%20used/8.png
2
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: PS
« Last post by Dale Eastman on March 26, 2024, 02:04:23 PM »
Quote from: 27 March @ 0747
If you want to fact check it, we can do that.

I am a pedantic asshole. Especially when it come to claims on the internet.

I don't know what I don't know. This is my reminder to myself to be humble and polite.

I will be publicly archiving this discussion on my website. You will only be identified by the letters "PS"

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1715.0

If you decide to post directly to the website, that is doable. Instructions to do so. Click "Reply" instead of "New Topic".

✸ ✸ ✸ ✸ ✸

If I stuffed $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress ten years ago, why are they not worth as much today as when I earned them?
Quote from: 27 March @ 0810
Dale, having said that, let’s talk about your question about federal reserve notes.

We’ve strayed from the question of inflation, so I’m not talking about theories of inflation. We can do that, but this comment isn’t that.

In the context of reserve banking, federal reserve notes (cash) are a representation of money. They are a small fraction of the money supply, and it isn’t helpful to think of money as being paper notes.

New money which enters the system never enters the system as paper notes: new money ALWAYS enters the system as bank deposit balances - that is, as accounting entries on a bank’s books.

Here’s how that happens.

We know the federal government deficit spends: that is, it spends money which it does not have.

If you receive a check from the government which is deficit spending, there’s no physical check anymore, but the basic process hasn’t changed.

The Treasury sends your bank a direct deposit notice that they are giving you money - in the amount, say, of $100.

The bank then creates a deposit balance of $100 in your account.

The bank has now increased its liabilities by $100. To balance its books, it either needs to create a $100 asset or reduce some other liability by $100, because its books no longer balance.

The bank then tells the Fed, through the clearinghouse/payments system, that it has created a deposit balance for you because the Treasury told it to - that is, it accepted a deposit of a $100 “government check”.

The Fed then created a $100 reserve balance in your bank’s reserve account. It doesn’t take that money from anywhere, it just creates that reserve balance “with the stroke of a pen”.

The bank’s books now balance, and there is $100 more in the money supply than there was before you deposited your check.

That’s how money is created: the federal government spends money it doesn’t have, which results in banks creating that money in the form of bank deposits, and the Fed batting cleanup by creating reserve balances which enable the bank to make payments on your behalf when you use your debit card.

Let’s say you want cash. You withdraw cash from the bank.

The bank will give you that cash “from their vault”.

“Vault cash” is cash which banks keep on hand for customer convenience. It is not counted in the money supply.

Banks buy pallets of vault cash using their reserve balances. Reserve balances are not counted in the money supply, either.

So when a bank buys a pallet of cash, it is not adding that cash to the money supply, and the reserve balances it pays to buy the cash doesn’t subtract money from the money supply. The books balance.

When you withdraw cash, that cash is added to the money supply, and in exchange, the bank reduces your bank deposit balance, which reduces the money supply.

So the addition of federal reserve notes to the system doesn’t change the money supply, it simply converts bank deposits into cash, both of which are counted in the money supply.

Federal reserve notes, therefore, have nothing to do with inflation.
Quote from: 27 March @ 1150
I will be publicly archiving this discussion on my website. You will only be identified by the letters "PS"

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1715.0

Repeating my reminder to myself, "This is my reminder to myself to be humble and polite."

We’ve strayed from the question of inflation, so I’m not talking about theories of inflation. We can do that, but this comment isn’t that.

Your claim is noted. I do not agree.

You addressed my question and DID NOT ANSWER my question:
If I stuffed $4000 worth of Federal Reserve Notes in my mattress ten years ago, why are they not worth as much today as when I earned them?

Unpacking your following paragraph:

𝟙.➽ In the context of reserve banking, federal reserve notes (cash) are a representation of money.
𝟚.➽ They are a small fraction of the money supply, and
𝟛.➽ it isn’t helpful to think of money as being paper notes.

𝟙. What is "MONEY"?
𝟚. I REJECT this claim. "MONEY" has NOT been defined and agreed to.
𝟛. I don't. "MONEY" has NOT been defined and agreed to.

New money which enters the system never enters the system as paper notes: new money ALWAYS enters the system as bank deposit balances - that is, as accounting entries on a bank’s books.

OBJECTION! "MONEY" has NOT been defined and agreed to.

The Fed then created a $100 reserve balance in your bank’s reserve account. It doesn’t take that money from anywhere, it just creates that reserve balance “with the stroke of a pen”.

Yup, with the stroke of a pen currency (what you are errantly calling "money") comes into existence.



What is the value of this "bill"?


3
Discussions; Public Archive / PS
« Last post by Dale Eastman on March 26, 2024, 12:56:06 PM »
Abridged since insults don't discuss details of the topic.

Quote from: 25 March @ 1138
Here’s what I’m telling you: I know a lot about banking and central banking.
Quote from: 25 March @ 1146
Are you going to claim banks don't use fractional reserves?
Quote from: 25 March @ 1157
Dale, yes. They do not use “fractional reserves” in the way you think.

Your perception is widely held, and is based on a misunderstanding of many banking terms, and simply, on reading people like Griffin, rather than things like the Federal Reaerve Act.
Quote from: 25 March @ 1159
If you ask, I will tell you, and tell you how to check what I tell you - not by suggesting you read conspiratorial books, but by showing you the laws which govern bankings, the actual policy papers and statements of central banks, and so on.
Quote from: 25 March @ 1201
Here’s what I’m telling you: I know a lot about banking and central banking.

Evidence?
Quote from: 25 March @ 1208
but by showing you the laws which govern bankings, the actual policy papers and statements of central banks, and so on.

If so, you will increase your Cred with me.
Quote from: 25 March @ 1222
Dale, everything I tell you is checkable from authoritative sources.

For example: the claim is that banks use “fractional reserves” - that is, that they can create loans as some multiple of their reserve balances. So, if the Fed gives them more reserves, they can make more loans.

Thats false.

The Federal Reserve Act allows banks to make loans as a multiple of their CAPITAL.

Reserve balances are not “capital”, to banks.

Traditionally, “capital” is a balance sheet “right side” entry which essentially consists of assets minus liabilities, at the most basic level.

For banks, this isn’t true.

“Bank capital” has a specific meaning, which is “those liabilities which we, the Fed, allow you to count as capital”.

The definition of bank capital is generally specified by the Basel Accords, to which the US is not signatory, but which generally comply with.

Each central bank is tasked with enacting the requirements of the current Basel Accord (they are updated from time to time).

The Fed has done that.

Traditionally, capital was divided into three Tiers - starting with “paid in capital” as Tier 1 - that is, the amount of money that bank stockholders actually paid for their stock in the bank), and Tiers 2 and 3, which consisted of different levels of “risk weighted” capital - that is, bank capital holdings (securities) which have no face values, but must be valuated using GAAP standards (such as mark to market).

Since the Great Recession, the Basel III agreement restricted the definition of bank capital to Tier 1 capital, to encourage a more conservative constraint on bank lending practices.

In no case are central bank reserve balances EVER counted as “bank capital”.

In fact, the role of “reserves” is widely misunderstood (we can go through an intuitive explanation of what reserves are for, which make them quite understandable, if you want).

Banks are allowed to lend amounts of money up to a point where bank capital is a certain percentage of that amount - I’m not sure what that is now, but it has been 12% for years.

So, if a bank has $120 million in “bank capital”, as defined by the Fed’s implementation of Basel, it is allowed to make a total of $1 billion in loans.

That has nothing to do with reserves, and nothing to do with deposits (banks don’t lend deposits - and the amount of deposits held by a bank has nothing to do with the amount of money they can lend).

Banks are not “reserve constrained”, they are “capital constrained.”

I just wrote all of that, on the fly.

If you want to fact check it, we can do that.

But when I say I understand banking, I mean I understand it well enough to write something like that on the fly, and have it be accurate.


4
Discussions; Public Archive / JM
« Last post by Dale Eastman on March 24, 2024, 11:22:36 AM »
In a group infested with VOTARDS, after reading dozens of inane Votard comments, I posted:
Quote from: 23 March 11:54
Fuckin' VOTARDS. Obviously y'all didn't vote hard enough.
Quote from: 23 March 16:00
I suppose you have a better candidate?
Quote from: 23 March 16:15
See if you can wrap your VOTARD mind around these :facts:
Voting for the lessor of two evils means you are voting for evil;
You are NOT voting for a Leader, you are voting for a ruler that will hurt you if you don't obey;
Your vote for a politician does NOT give the politician a right to rule me.
Natural Law mattered when the Magna Carta was written in 1215.
Natural Law mattered when the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776.
Natural Law matters when another human attempts to harm you.
Natural Law matters when another human does harm you and refuses to fix the harm.
Quote from: 23 March 17:07
you’re starting a revolution against the government I take. Good luck with that. Sounds as if you have terrorism on your mind?
Quote from: 23 March 17:57
STFU until you actually read what I wrote.
Quote from: 23 March 18:06
Voting for the lessor of two evils means you are voting for evil
1. True or False?

You are NOT voting for a Leader, you are voting for a ruler that will hurt you if you don't obey;
2. True or False?

Your vote for a politician does NOT give the politician a right to rule me.
3. True or False?
Quote from: 23 March 18:22
Dale Eastman false! As much as I don’t like President Trump- I liked his policies and agendas. There is a night and day difference between him and Biden. We will be a ruled communist country if Biden gets back in. We all know both sides lie and prosper from all of their political fallacies. That being said - At this point in our country’s democracy we must stop what Biden is doing to our country. There’s no doubt I would love to be voting for a honest and truthful person. We don’t have that luxury now. We have to stop the stupidity going on in our country now.
Quote from: 23 March 19:54
I asked you THREE questions. I even numbered the questions. Which numbered question are you answering?
Quote from: 23 March 19:57
Dale Eastman I’ll stick to my statement. Period
Quote from: 23 March 19:58
Dale Eastman you have no choice at this time but to get the Biden administration out of office. Period
Quote from: 23 March 20:02
How about you answer three simple questions and prove to me you're not the VOTARD I now believe you are
Quote from: 23 March 20:02
Dale Eastman no need VOTELESS
Quote from: 23 March 20:03
Dale Eastman your VOTE doesn’t count
Quote from: 23 March 20:06
I asked you three specific questions... You are a brain-dead COWARD.
Quote from: 23 March 20:12
Dale Eastman go create havoc somewhere else vigilante.
Quote from: 23 March 20:13
You talking to me?
https://synapticsparks.info/government/ExaminingVoting.html
Quote from: 23 March 20:22
I see you're showing off your IQ.
Quote from: 23 March 20:26
Dale Eastman yawn
Quote from: 25 March 10:46
If a person is publicly posting their words they want to convey an opinion, a fact, an observation, a feeling, a belief, or even something a little more complex like an Ideology.

Or they just want to be an asshole troll for the purpose of annoying others.

Sometimes the intent is not immediately discernible.

What is your purpose in replying to my post in the first place?

What do you actually want to make humans aware of?
5
Discussions; Public Archive / MG
« Last post by Dale Eastman on March 11, 2024, 10:35:51 AM »
If a person is publicly posting their words they want to convey an opinion, a fact, an observation, a feeling, a belief, or even something a little more complex like an Ideology.

The two of you are NOT communicating. You both are talking PAST each other.

Have neither of you heard about Voltaire's Admonition:  "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."

What, exactly, is this conflict of ideology?
6
My Commentary On The World / De-euphemize Government
« Last post by Dale Eastman on February 29, 2024, 01:27:22 PM »
Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.
7
YDOM / I am a pedantic asshole.
« Last post by Dale Eastman on February 29, 2024, 12:11:53 PM »
I am a pedantic asshole. I own it. I do not, and will not, assume a person I am conversing with even knows the definitions of the words they use. In fact, by asking folks for the definition of a term or word THEY use so that I can be sure I understand their point, I get ghosted.
8
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: OMA
« Last post by Dale Eastman on February 28, 2024, 03:01:10 PM »
Quote from: 25 February 08:40
Isaiah's Job
By Albert Jay Nock
WITHOUT THE POLITICAL PARTY SHILLING.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1936/06/isaiahs-job/652293/
Quote from: 25 February 08:44
Dale Eastman, Kitty Eastman and Mike Cerrito, I found the original article (in less than 30 seconds) by Albert Jay Nock. I made it into a new thread (tagging you guys) so the message can be shared, without sharing the messenger shill.
Quote from: 29 February 11:41
If your source meets your anti-shilling requirements, then I'm good with your source.

Can we get back to my point now?

The original post was about "planting" seeds of thought.

Quoting Nock: "Everyone with a message nowadays is, like my venerable European friend, eager to take it to the masses. His first, last and only thought is of mass acceptance and mass approval. His great care is to put his doctrine in such shape as will capture the masses' attention and interest."

The issue stated: Is the message for the masses or the remnant?

Nock: "A prophet of the Remnant will not grow purse proud on the financial returns from his work, nor is it likely that he will get any great renown out of it. "

Nock: "You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you. Except for these two certainties, working for the Remnant means working in impenetrable darkness;"

I did not know at the time I created my website around 2006 that I was a Prophet of the Remnant.

Nock: "The other certainty which the prophet of the Remnant may always have is that the Remnant will find him. He may rely on that with absolute assurance. They will find him without his doing anything about it; in fact, if he tries to do anything about it, he is pretty sure to put them off. [...] He may be quite sure that the Remnant will make their own way to him without any adventitious aids; and not only so, but if they find him employing any such aids, as I said, it is ten to one that they will smell a rat in them and will sheer off."

Off on a tangent: I have seen MANY ignorant & stupid comments about the U.S. Federal Income Tax.

I post the TRUTH about the topic. I get hated on in reply with NO challenge NOR discussion of the information I present about the topic.

Regardless, as a Prophet of the Remnant, I WILL continue to post the unadulterated truth about the U.S. Federal Income Tax LAW. I have several pages on my website expressly for that purpose.</Tangent>

As a Prophet of the Remnant, I will continue to challenge the euphemisms the dumb masses continue to use to attempt to spread their psychotic delusions.

I have had these delusional dumb masses get very angry at me for asking things such as: What, exactly, do you mean when you use the word "x"? Their refusal to define what they mean by their use of a particular word, words, or phrase indicates I've errantly entered a dialog with a member of the dumb masses. These humans are NOT the REMNANT.

An example of such an attempt:
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1429.msg16300

9
Discussions; Public Archive / JO
« Last post by Dale Eastman on February 28, 2024, 01:50:45 PM »
Quote from: 28 February 13:55
If you are for Trump or Biden you are for enslavement of humans... I can prove this with logic... But you are too fucking stupid to follow the logic.
Quote from: 28 February 14:09
Way to cutoff any legitimate discussion and preemptively declare yourself intellectually superior - though, of course, you are not.
Quote from: 28 February 14:50
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

This is a fancy way to say, in Latin Your opinion means nothing my opinion cancels yours.

If I am not the intellectually superior human YOU imagine I just declared myself, Then you are free to prove yourself as more superior than myself.

You took my generic insult as personally attacking your intellect. YOU made that connection all on your own.

What your superior intellect has presented is your lack of comprehension of some of the words you just allegedly read. I presented a specific claim that you didn't even bother to challenge. Here's those words again: If you are for Trump or Biden you are for enslavement of humans... I can prove this with logic...
Quote from: 28 February 17:17
Actually, Dale Eastman, "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur" translates literally to, "What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously" and is generally accepted to mean, "If no grounds have been given for an assertion, then there are no grounds needed to reject it." - Which is a basis of my original response to your OP, thanks for proving that point.
As for your statement, "You took my generic insult as personally attacking your intellect. YOU made that connection all on your own.", I took nothing personal - that is an assertion & hence connection you made all on your own.
It does now, subsequently, even more seem you wish to appear intellectually superior - Just at it is you continue to prove the opposite. Maybe you should put the internet down before you hurt yourself.
Quote from: 29 February 09:12
You wrote: Actually, Dale Eastman, "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur" translates literally to, "What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously"

You asserted: intellectually superior - though, of course, you are not.

You wrote: As for your statement, "You took my generic insult as personally attacking your intellect. YOU made that connection all on your own.", I took nothing personal - that is an assertion & hence connection you made all on your own.

Yet, somehow my words motivated you to reply to my generic insult and attempt to insult my intellect in reply.

✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱

I am fully aware that this group is infested mostly with VOTARDS arguing over which pile of shit they want installed as their tyrannical ruler.

I am required by my own morality and logic to admit that at this time I do not at know if you are actually a VOTARD.

✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✱

You are willfully ignoring these words of mine: If you are for Trump or Biden you are for enslavement of humans... I can prove this with logic...
Quote from: 29 February 13:17
Dale Eastman, it's not that I "asserted intellectually superior - though, of course, you are not." I replied, "Way to cutoff any legitimate discussion and preemptively declare yourself intellectually superior - though, of course, you are not." to your OP, "If you are for Trump or Biden you are for enslavement of humans... I can prove this with logic... But you are too fucking stupid to follow the logic."
Moreover, the fact that I replied does not mean I was motivated to do so by taking personal your generic insult. My reply to you speaks for itself.
Yes, I am ignoring your words as I don't take them (you) serious given the "generic insult" contained in your OP.
btw: I couldn't careless a label applied to me as I am not the labels others apply, especially those coming from one who is likely nothing more than an egotistical keyboard warrior.
Quote from: 29 February 13:36
You are willfully ignoring these words of mine: If you are for Trump or Biden you are for enslavement of humans... I can prove this with logic...
Quote from: 29 February 13:43
Dale Eastman, I replied to that above.^. If you are serious, it's on you to figure out how to overcome the barrier you erected with your OP.
Quote from: 29 February 13:53
I will admit that you have not stated if you are for Trump or Biden.
I will point out that you are posting in a group infested with mostly VOTARDS.
10
Discussions; Public Archive / OMA
« Last post by Dale Eastman on February 24, 2024, 02:34:03 PM »
Quote from: 24 February 08:14
Quote from: 24 February 14:36
https://mises.org/library/isaiahs-job
Quote from: 24 February 14:50
Dale Eastman DO NOT trust the Mises Institute. They are a right-wing organization pretending to be for liberty. The founders were Republican Party supporters, and years ago this used to be easy to prove. They had a detailed search engine and all one needed to do was search their site for "Republican," "Trump," etc., and up would come all the articles supporting the GOP. They changed the search engine so it's not as thorough anymore.
Quote from: 24 February 15:11
Are you admitting that you did NOT bother to read the words of Nock; Your blather of words having NOTHING to do with my point of presenting Isaiah's Job?
Quote from: 24 February 15:17
It's all part of shill work, like when Republicans say "liberty" and Democrats say "peace." We never let shill organizations post, or get posted here without warning others.

Quote from: 24 February 15:20
That's twice you have deliberately ignored my point.
Quote from: 24 February 15:21
Dale Eastman I think you are ignoring MY point!


Quote from: 24 February 15:22
Dale Eastman Try finding the same information from a site, that you can share here, that is not using it to further the goal of the aggression based political right or left.

Quote from: 24 February 15:22
Dale Eastman, He is saying that we try to be mindful about sources that happen to be shills by adding a note for all members to see, so they can get a heads up that you support the words of the article but you don't support the shill group website hosting it.
Jeff Smith was trying to give you a heads up, not discredit the words in the article.

Quote from: 24 February 17:25
Why does this sound like ”who cares what the message is- just discredit it because you don’t like the messenger”? Reminds me of Martin Luther King (in the 60’s) being ignored because he was “colored”
Quote from: 24 February 17:38
No one is discrediting the message. We are discrediting the message being used to aid support for an aggression based political party. It's a tactic of shill work. The goal they are using is to get people to believe that the messenger (and the Republican Party) are also for liberty. Think of it this way; we all know politicians make fake promises to get elected, right? The tactic being used here is in the same realm. "We're for liberty ... and here's a politician you should support because he's for liberty too!" This was Ron Paul's tactic.
There are other ways to share a message without sharing the shill work.
Quote from: 25 February 07:07
Politics is a very deceptive swindle.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10