Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

How the banks steal your money in the form of a loan Watch

    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    What specific parts of the article do you find to be poorly worded and misleading? Which of its claims do you have issues with?
    You couldn't have put it any clearer I don't think. :nah:

    Sadly, you're always going to get your simpletons. :sadnod:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    How depressing that four people actually agree with your level of ignorance.
    Mr A takes out a bank loan to buy a car. The bank simply types the sum out of thin air into his bank account [ what the bank does is underwrite the liability], despite the fact that they don't actually have the money in their reserves [they dont need physical money because the liability is good enough, you are being too simplistic and thinking money is only in notes and coins, when it in fact consists of obligations to pay] . Mr A then gives the cash from the loan to the person selling the car. The person selling the car then banks the cash. At this point the cash becomes real money [Nope its still just a liability]. Mr A then pays back the loan [ for which he received a car and the advantage of being able to purchase the car sooner than he would have been able to had he had to save up the money himself] . The original loan money disappears back into thin air again [ No it does not because it remains a liability for person A to pay and for which he gained a car] , but the interest is banked by the bank as real money that they now own[ The interest is the cost of providing the service without which the person couldnt have obtained the money to buy the car]. So the bank now owns both the interest and the cash that the person selling the car banked [They own the potential interest from the agreement and a repayment of capital because that's how lending agreements work. Why would you have a problem with that? Both sides have gained], neither of which they owned before giving the loan [You are confused. They do not own the money of the person who sold the car, that remains theirs and theres no reason to say where they banked it. In the event they bank at the same place as the buyer, then that money is held by the bank in their name and in most cases will attract interest for them. It is not the banks money and is free to be withdrawn when they like. Mystifying how you dont understand that?].
    The banking system gets the loan back twice, once in the form of repayments by the borrower, and once in the form of a cash deposit form the person selling the car. The liability that you are talking about only offsets one of these two payments. The cash deposit from the car seller increases the deposits held by the banking system as a whole, regardless of which bank they used.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by collier888)
    The banking system gets the loan back twice, once in the form of repayments by the borrower, and once in the form of a cash deposit form the person selling the car. The liability that you are talking about only offsets one of these two payments. The cash deposit from the car seller increases the deposits held by the banking system as a whole, regardless of which bank they used.
    And that cash deposit is going to turn into another liability and so on... The fallacy in all this is that there is a better system to keep people fed and in work, there isn't and for that reason alone we have this and not another system in place. It's what works, anyone can be theoretical about the inconvenience of debt cycles but in that case spell it out that we ought to have no credit culture.

    Fair enough, we could rely solely on increased productivity to induce economic growth. Let's forget the 90 odd percent of funny money the banks pump out and live with the few crumbs left, is that the idea behind the criticism of 'banking'? The world would look nothing like this, forget the NHS and so much else.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    And that cash deposit is going to turn into another liability and so on... The fallacy in all this is that there is a better system to keep people fed and in work, there isn't and for that reason alone we have this and not another system in place. It's what works, anyone can be theoretical about the inconvenience of debt cycles but in that case spell it out that we ought to have no credit culture.

    Fair enough, we could rely solely on increased productivity to induce economic growth. Let's forget the 90 odd percent of funny money the banks pump out and live with the few crumbs left, is that the idea behind the criticism of 'banking'? The world would look nothing like this, forget the NHS and so much else.
    If the banks are allowed to print funny money, why can't I?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by collier888)
    If the banks are allowed to print funny money, why can't I?
    Actually, banks don't print money but that was my wrong turn. Central bank does, of course. State a great customer, couldn't do without.

    You can print money or go crypto, it's all based on faith by enough people.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by akka444)
    Mr A takes out a bank loan to buy a car. The bank simply types the sum out of thin air into his bank account, despite the fact that they don't actually have the money in their reserves. Mr A then gives the cash from the loan to the person selling the car. The person selling the car then banks the cash. At this point the cash becomes real money. Mr A then pays back the loan. The original loan money disappears back into thin air again, but the interest is banked by the bank as real money that they now own. So the bank now owns both the interest and the cash that the person selling the car banked, neither of which they owned before giving the loan.
    When the man selling the car places the money he receives in the bank the bank may hold the money but also has an equivalent liability to the depositor,

    Dr Bank account of the bank(increase asset)
    Cr Depositor account with liability to him by bank(increase liability)

    The bank is restricted (based on its balance sheet) as to quantum of said loans it can make anyway, the bank cannot create limitless equity it is required to act within parameters set by its regulators. When the bank makes said loan it

    Dr Debtor who owes the bank (increase asset)
    Cr Demand Deposit re Central Bank (increase liability)

    When debtor pays his loan instalments what happens is

    Dr Bank account of the bank with the money(increase asset)
    Cr interest received by bank (income)
    Cr The Debtor who owes the bank (Reduce asset)

    The bank accordingly merely gains the interest on the loan it made, when each instalment received.

    If it were not so at year end the bank's trial balance could not possibly balance, the loan made by the bank merely gives rise to a Debtor to the bank (the party receiving the loan) and a Creditor, The B of E.

    This little guide from the B of E maybe makes things clearer re a bank's balance sheet.

    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publi...3/qb130302.pdf
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.