The government funds everything it deems necessary. Highway construction, bridges, agricultural subsidies, public sector salaries, even the costs of presidential helicopter trips... Any expense the state incurs can be covered by issuing new currency. Since they hold a monopoly and it is legally established that money serves as the medium of exchange, no one is permitted to complain. The only actual risk is if they overreach, which could drive the entire system into hyperinflation—an outcome nobody desires.
And I cannot agree with you on the idea that the difference between savings and bank credit has no impact on the money supply. It certainly does. 😉Do some research; you will see that the money supply increases several times over once the banks process it.
Can someone here give me a quick rundown on fractional reserve banking? I seem to have forgotten the specifics. 😉It looks simple enough, but it is a complicated little mother fucker.
One portion of newly created money is inflation. This is the capital the government injects into the system through public sector salaries, various subsidies, and social benefits.
The second portion stems from fractional reserve banking. It is essentially the gap between deposits and the loans issued by banks.
The third portion comes from counterfeit currency—the cash that counterfeiters manage to circulate before the authorities detect it.
Your logic holds up perfectly until you reach the conclusion that a crisis is triggered by overproduction. Specifically:
It was mentioned just the other day that the 1929 crash in the USA was caused by an oversupply of certain goods. This fits my theory quite elegantly. If someone produces a massive surplus and attempts to sell them at previous price points, they can collapse the entire financial system. A system can run out of money. This remains true regardless of how valuable those products actually are.
If someone floods the market with endless products, people will spontaneously strip them of their value. If the manufacturer refuses to lower prices, consumers simply won't buy. For instance, if the market is saturated with iPods, and I buy one while everyone else buys one simultaneously, the value of a new iPod effectively drops to zero because nobody wants to buy another. The more of them people own, the less they are worth.
A system cannot run out of money. As strange as it may sound, injecting money into a system is easy and can be done incredibly fast. However, removing that money from the system? That is an academic nightmare involving several different scientific disciplines.
And then there is this final point... products are only worth what people decide they are worth. Consider the clearest example: an AT&T stock that costs $88 during its IPO, but reaches 400 once it hits the exchange. For it to then drop to 270 or some other number, nothing fundamentally changed within Verizon. It is still the same company with roughly the same earnings. It is simply that the people—on average, not all at once—assigned a different value to that stock.
Everyone knows the deal. Or, at least, those who don't know tend to make assumptions. The reality is that no one can give you a guaranteed answer regarding what you will receive, even if you consult with a personal banker at JPMorgan Chase.
In my experience, it usually takes a few years before you are cleared from a blacklist. But again, as I mentioned, any attempt to guess is pure speculation. It is like asking a butcher how much money it costs to hook up a house to the power grid. Your best move? Pick up the phone and call your banker, or simply walk into a branch to speak with them in person. That is the only way to get a definitive answer.
My answer remains the same as it is for a billion other identical posts: YOUR BANK KNOWS BETTER THAN WE DO!
So, grab your phone and call your private banker. Or, if they happen to be nearby, walk over there in person to explain your situation and ask for their advice.
We have seen this topic discussed a hundred times already. However, I feel the need to interrupt you right at the beginning. Your writing style is somewhat confusing, which makes it difficult to grasp your actual point:
Quote:
For an American family of five where both parents have limited education and are unemployed, it is actually more profitable to live on welfare than to find work.
The data proves it. If the father receives unemployment benefits of $400, the mother receives $133 in alimony, they collect child benefits of $274 per child plus $1663 for a third child, and then they supplement that by earning up to $473 under the table, their total income could reach $2169!
>
There are simply no limits to this decline. Things will get even worse. More people will face hunger. More domestic companies will be swallowed up by foreign corporations. Prices will continue to climb. Do not let it weigh too heavily on you. Simply perform your duties and keep your head above water while the corrupt sink. Eventually, the tide will turn.
Kimberly Nguyen said:@tiliw ... did you actually go through with that loan using your savings balance, or was it more of a bridge loan setup?
@markos ... look, the total amount is strictly capped based on what's laid out in your savings agreement—basically, they designate a specific target amount there—unless, of course, the bank is running some special promotion at the time.
I know people who secured a $60,000 loan under those exact terms once their savings matured. Essentially, the "contracted amount" simply increased, though they naturally had to cover the fees and extra costs. For instance, when signing the contract, one person paid a $110 fee (1%), and then later had to pay an additional $490 to cover the difference up to the $600 total fee.
No, the funds go directly to the vendors unless you provide an invoice dated prior to the loan approval. If you submit a pro forma invoice instead, the money hits your own account, but you are required to use it within 24 months. That was my reasoning for suggesting you withdraw the cash. Why not move those funds into a high-yield savings account at another bank with great rates? You could then simply pay your monthly installments as usual. I receive my benefit, they get their payout, and everyone wins. 😁
Greetings. I have spent some time crunching the numbers on paper, and an idea has occurred to me:
My home savings plan is set to mature in about a month or two. The target amount we agreed upon was $12,000. To date, I have contributed roughly $5,200, which means I am eligible for an additional $6,800 in credit. I handled all the fees and administrative costs upfront.
According to my signed agreement, the interest rate on that loan would be 5.5% APR.
Currently, the interest rate on my fixed-term savings account—including bonuses and everything else—is approximately 7%.
My question is this: will the bank approve my mortgage loan if I intend to immediately move those funds into a fixed-term deposit with them? They are aware of the math, aren't they? If they grant the loan, won't they essentially be paying out more than they are taking from me?
To me, the calculation is simple. No matter how you look at it, a profit is guaranteed.
Has anyone here attempted this strategy before? Did it work? 😉 Perhaps it would be more prudent to tell them the funds are intended for home renovations? Should I provide them with a fabricated estimate? My intention was to pay off the loan within a single year—the shortest possible term.
5.5% fixed interest rate following the housing savings period.
It isn't restricted, Michael Mendoza17. Once the savings period expires, you can negotiate a contract for whatever amount you require. However, at that stage, lenders will start looking at fees, creditworthiness, and collateral based on that total figure. Before that point, under the agreed terms, guarantees are almost never required.
Honestly, folks, I gave up on patriotism the moment they shaved 4% off my paycheck just to fund some incompetent clerk at the IRS who gave me flat-out wrong answers to a simple inquiry, forcing me to $3333 hand money over to the government.
I don't care about any of it anymore. It’s all the same to me. All I want is my own little patch of land under the sun and a quiet life. And an opportunity to make that happen is finally appearing before me.
Does this mean a few Americans who overextended themselves on debt will end up on the streets? So be it. Does it mean their children will grow up without a home? So be it. Will my conscience gnaw at me because they are hungry or homeless? You can bet your life it won't.😉
And just to set the record straight, since people seem to be putting words in my mouth... the average American net salary (based on the last data I have from before the crisis and all these taxes) was roughly $1767 (I have no idea where you got that 3000 figure from). Supporting two people on that amount is $3533. Of course, if you had those wages, you could live like a surgeon. As for those who took out massive loans just because they saw the department head driving a better car... well, don't lose sleep over it. Gregory Williams7 is buying up property for 400 euros a square. Just reach out if you're interested. 😁
Some people lived quite comfortably for a very long time. Now, they will slowly have to get used to relying on food pantry handouts again.
Because if we are being realistic, absolutely nothing in this country has changed since those days. Everything remains exactly the same, yet we all live like we're on easy street. Is it not strange that nobody has stopped to ask where all this wealth actually comes from? But once the overdraft fees start hitting, followed by foreclosures and evictions... well. That is when I, who saved diligently back when I could buy a house for a reasonable price, will be ready. Meanwhile, those who are currently bragging about how they bought their own homes at age 25 will find themselves sitting on the curb in front of my place, praying for enough change to feed their children.
In Darwinian terms, this is simply called "survival of the fittest."
Susan James42 said:Honestly, I have no idea who this guy even is, but he clearly doesn't understand the fundamental definition of the word "information." However, his statement says much more about the university he graduated from and the state he lives in than it does about him personally... Look, it's pretty obvious he isn't exactly a genius...
:/ I am sorry that I have to explain this to you. I assumed it was self-evident and required no clarification... His point was that the purpose of a university is not to cram students' heads with data that becomes obsolete overnight. Once you graduate, much of that specific information is useless. Instead, a university should teach students how to think logically, how to learn, and how to continuously improve themselves to remain competitive in the labor market.
Vedran Mornar is actually the Dean of the engineering department at MIT in Boston. You really ought to verify your facts and think carefully before making such baseless assertions.
feralwolf24 said:Look, I don't think I'd ever work for $1000, at least not in my current role or the way I do things now! And honestly, those five thousand dollars I've made over my entire career feels like a lot... personally, I've been feeling the squeeze since I left daycare, not just over this past year.
It isn't exactly a tragedy. If you refuse to work for $3,000, then you can live off welfare for eight months 😉 before you end up collecting cans for change 😉 . The real question is how long you intend to stay hungry before you finally admit to yourself, "Fine, I know it's difficult and I have to work, but I'll go find something with a private employer."
I have been using online banking for over two years now, yet I have never once found it to be a necessity. Everyone seems perfectly fine accepting printed transaction statements or even just a quick phone call. Besides, they can clearly see the funds have cleared on the account statement.
Goldman Sachs charges a fee for every single transfer made to a different Zero balance account $0.00. Furthermore, there is a 0.25% commission applied when paying into an account at another bank. The minimum charge is $0.33 if the commission calculates to less, while the maximum is $6.75 if the commission is higher.