|
|
|
A series of such cycles is an idealization of the process of fractional reserve banking as it would happen in a real fractional reserve banking system. It illustrates the ideal performance to be expected from such a system. In the essay upon which these articles are based, I used a variety of examples to investigate the consequences of several such cycles. Those examples are shown in detail in appendix 1 of the essay. The various tables used throughout these articles are based on those examples. The quantities in appendix 1 of the essay, and in the various tables and figures shown in the essay, can be calculated by equations that will yield the accumulated total for any combination of parameters. Appendix 2 of the essay contains examples of such equations, as well as their derivations. Those equations are academically correct and ought to impress my critics but there are easier ways to do the calculations. I used a Hewlett-Packard HP-25 programmable calculator. The calculator programs are shown in Appendix 3 of the essay. None of the appendices or figures shown in the essay are presented in these articles. If you're interested in seeing them, then you can request a printed copy of the article or you can view it on Pharos. When I began the essay, I believed that cycles of fractional reserve deposits and loans greatly increase the number of cash dollars in circulation, thereby contributing to inflation. I'd heard that claim from various folks who believed it to be one of the banking system's evils. It seemed reasonable and I believed it. However, Table 1 shows that I was mistaken. The number of cash dollars placed into circula- For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net.
|
tion by fractional reserve banking, in the example, will never be equal to the initial deposit, by which cash dollars were removed from circulation. Thus, the net effect of fractional reserve banking is to remove cash dollars from circulation, not to add cash dollars to circulation. That conclusion is true for all variations in the parameters except for the situation in which no cash is redeposited and no cash is held on reserve. Those conditions are, of course, the same as not having fractional reserve banking at all. Stray Thoughts Sam Aurelius Milam III Ne'er The Twain Should Meet — People live in houses. Animals belong in barns or in pastures. Free Speech — In this country, we have complete freedom of speech, just so long as what we say doesn't offend anybody or violate any legislation or any administration policies. Free Thought — In this country, we have complete freedom of thought, just so long as we don't say what we're thinking. Better Left Undone — It's likely that the cost of attacks by so-called terrorists would never be as large as the cost of the so-called War on Terror. Maybe we should just rebuild the damage that they do and let it go at that. Liberty Toilet Paper — U.S. flag patterns. Unexpected Benefit — The nice thing about walking your dog is that people won't know that you're talking to yourself. For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net.
|
Letter to the Editor
Dear Sam. .... I've received the Frontiersman, Jan 07, thank you. 2 quick comments: Your response to Millie, p 3: Apology not necessary. Even going by memory, I can't imagine your comment of Buck going on sabbatical being misinterpreted to mean you. Actually, I'd had a feeling for a while you were running thin on Buck's quips. (I had a notion to send you a few ideas, in passing, but figured you wanted to source your own, and I quickly forget such things I don't write down, so now they are mentally vaporized away). Anyway, the intent of your message was unmistakable to me. Comment on CHANGING TIMES from Steve of Fremont, p. 4: The comparison is a great idea, but the writer is off on his timing. If I may add the corrective information: 1956: good, agreed. But what he submitted as 2006, was about 1993. Here is the correct version for 2006: The police are called and of course, arrive with their protective SWAT team. Immediately they draw their guns (of course) toward the two scufflers, and 6 of them open fire on Mark, killing him instantly (even though Johnny started it). The shooters are given special commendation medals for bravery in the face of danger, and no charges are pressed against the police (of course) because it appeared he had something in his hand — which turned out to be his fingers "suspiciously concealed" by his thumb. While Johnny is recovering in the jail hospital from his 6 gunshot wounds, he is served the charges of "first degree murder" for the death of Mark, having been (of course) the proximate cause of the death. He is (of course) convicted, doing a 50-years to life sentence in prison, with enhancements for the six blazing SWAT team guns used to commit the "murder." What will 2008 hold in store? One other thing that occurred to me: You seem to be statistician-oriented somewhat. Maybe ... you also might have some added thought on this. In your opinion, what are the statistical chances in the year 1983, (location withheld), of a two juror pools, 100+ people, selected for jury duty, and coincidently NOT ONE OF THEM being a gun owner? (I'd say, ZERO chance). This is what convicted me. Your comments please? Anywhere you know of I can get real statistics on this? I know there was juror tampering at this level, but nothing to prove it with, yet .... — an inmate
I don't know the likelihood that there would be any gun owners in the jury pool. Considering the anti-gun brainwashing in recent decades, that probability might be lower than either of us would like to believe. Here's another question that might be even more important. What's the likelihood of somebody in the jury pool who knows the difference between a right and a privilege? I don't know where to get valid statistics on either question. — editor
Continuing Education Courses For Women Original Source Unknown. Forwarded by Don G. For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net.
|
|
|