Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Peyton said:

Hey @Hodor it's difficult to read your last article. The beginning and end words are all cut off on my screen. 

Thanks for letting me know @Peyton - can you send me a DM with the device + browser you're using? 

I'm not promising anything, but if it's a setting we can modify on the site, we'll take a look. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
9 minutes ago, Wandering_Dog said:

Can you give me an example of how QE "sucked money out of circulation", such as by showing the balance sheets before and after QE?

I'm sorry but this sounds like trolling at this point. @JCCollins has given you a lot of answers.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hodor said:

Would the increase speed (days to real-time) and the decreased cost (hundreds of dollars for each transfer down to an undetectable fraction of a penny) result in a vastly increase velocity of money, thereby having an "expansion effect" that may counteract this?   :JC_thinking:

Velocity of money under XRP should increase substantially.  Not only increase, but remain a more stable indicator of economic health.  Money velocity measured under XRP, being the measure of how fast value moves around the world, will outpace the effectiveness of the old system within months of being openly adopted.  The old will just fade away like 8 tracks. 

Edited by JCCollins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Loki said:

@JCCollins thank you for your input. I have a question for you. On another thread I was discussing the Federal Reserve and how Ripple has an employee on the Faster Payments Task Force. A poster pointed out that the Fed Reserve will never use XRP simply because this is a huge conflict on interest, and would be illegal. I tend to disagree. 

Do you have any insight into this? 

Also...what is a type of service that XRP could provide that the dollar can't? My imagination isn't working hard enough. If I see XRP clearing international payments, then I see them pretty much in the background just freeing up liquidity and giving people quicker access to money. What am I missing? 

I remember reading that comment and laughing.  Conflict of interest, sure.  Not a chance. The Fed, and the whole world will use XRP as a means of balancing, or clearing if you prefer, global payments.  The Fed is not creating or expanding the supply of XRP.  It was a weird statement. 

XRP will go beyond what the dollar could do with micropayments and smart contract adoption.  The dollar has always been a monetary tool to manipulate geopolitics.  XRP will not have any of those downfalls and will be more trusted than the USD ever could have been. The potential wins from this over the years could be huge as more opportunities come available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
43 minutes ago, JCCollins said:

I remember reading that comment and laughing.  Conflict of interest, sure.  Not a chance. The Fed, and the whole world will use XRP as a means of balancing, or clearing if you prefer, global payments.  The Fed is not creating or expanding the supply of XRP.  It was a weird statement. 

XRP will go beyond what the dollar could do with micropayments and smart contract adoption.  The dollar has always been a monetary tool to manipulate geopolitics.  XRP will not have any of those downfalls and will be more trusted than the USD ever could have been. The potential wins from this over the years could be huge as more opportunities come available.

the back and fourth from the advanced members on this thread is fascinating, and it's greatly appreciated.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The level of intelligence in this thread is crazy.  Such a pleasure to read compared to the typical TA analysis or price prediction threads.  It really adds confidence that so many knowledgeable people have the opinions on XRP that they have.  Definitely added JCCollins to my follow list; don't know how I missed you in the past, but thanks for your great input and detailed explanations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JCCollins said:

It is my position that crypto regulation will start this phase of the transition and Bitcoin will not survive it.  It is likely that Bitcoin has been a fiat tool from the beginning.  XRP can chug away building its architecture and the Bitcoin manipulators can continue draining away artificial value.  But when the flip happens it will be fast and then the rest of us can sit back and watch as real value builds on top of the XRP ledger.   

 

Your last sentence is intriguing.  I have only a hazy understanding of your post and cannot pretend to be near your level

For some time I have been wondering when the Bitcoin bubble will burst and imagining whale owners trying to get out of Bitcoin (Mt Gox x 1000).  In my imaginary scenario every other speculative crypto currency not backed by utility would go down with it, my worry is that XRP will be damaged too, unless a lot of that money gets transferred to XRP.   But I think the flip you are predicting is not of this character?

Can you explain is simple language the sequence the flip you are predicting will take and how XRP will avoid being taken down as collateral damage?  

How fast is very fast?  This phrase makes me imagine a dam breaking, but a trained eye will see the dam moving and cracking before it breaks, with your tuned eyes are you expecting to see it all happening in slow motion?

 

Edited by Julian_Williams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JCCollins said:

Hahaha, no, sorry dude.  You don't even understand the basic financial and economic fundamentals.  Everyone worth their salt knows that QE didn't make its way down to main street and the M1 money supply.  It was hoarded at the top and injected huge liquidity into the stock markets. (Hint: Different money supply definition)  We're speaking two different languages.  Stop wasting my time and move on.  

Ouch, mega burn :biggrin:

Just FYI, QE wasn't "hoarded at the top", nor can it make it's way "down to main street", as the only entities which have accounts at the Fed are banks. 

This is what I meant when I asked for a balance sheet explanation of QE, here is the balance sheet of the economy before QE, with 1 bank, 1 customer (aggregate):

image.thumb.png.bbcb2035b4e02a46fdd9db4b6a17128e.png

The Bank's asset will default, and the Fed intervenes in order to stabilize prices and give the banking sector liquidity, it does this by purchasing the Mortgage Bank Securities at face value, swapping those assets for reserves:

 

image.thumb.png.71d587c4081882292c37a2e37c67555a.png

QE converted bank assets, loans, to reserve deposits, which the Fed pays interest on, in order to prevent loss of control over the interbank rate. QE is simply a conversion from higher interest assets to lower interest asset which can be used to settle transactions (liquidity). The idea that main street can get its hands on bank reserves is false--the hope was banks would increase their credit creation, not sure if that's what you meant or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Loki said:

I'm sorry but this sounds like trolling at this point. @JCCollins has given you a lot of answers.

I disagree. This is an important point. If someone said that apples fall up when they fall off the tree, you would also ask for proof, would you not? Keep in mind JCC has said the *exact opposite* of what occurs, empirically. QE does not remove money from the money supply, this is easily verifiable in the data. 

Not trolling, at least that wasn't my intent. I do live in Germany, people are much more direct here :crazy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Loki said:

I'm sorry but this sounds like trolling at this point. @JCCollins has given you a lot of answers.

Well to be honest; he didn’t exactly gave much answers to sometimes genuine and legitimate questions from @Wandering_Dog . He just say you need to google and educate yourself, and such with a condescending tone of voice. 

As economics are NOT an exact science, he states facts, but mixed with opinions and certain visions on economics to which one can disagree. 

Btw: I for one would replace “ XRP will” by “ XRP could”  in all his posts. 

 

Edited by Ripple-Stiltskin
Not modern visions but just visions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JCCollins said:

Fractional banking is neither correct nor incorrect.  It just is.  There are flaws in the methodology which aren't easily addressed by monetary policies which support financial balance and responsibility.  Credit is issued based on a host of determining factors, some of which include the bank's reserves, as well as the ratio between its assets and liabilities, and any collateral held by the receiver of the credit.   The issuer of the credit is only one side of the dynamic which make up credit contracts.  Not sure your point is coming across on the level you're hoping for.  

I have to point this out as well, credit is not issued depending on available reserves for a given bank. Loans are issued first, then reserves are sought out. At no point are available reserves a constraint to lending, as the Fed creates any amount of reserves to satisfy lending and clearing at a given rate of interest.  

Causality runs from loans to deposits, or, in aggregate from Investment to Savings, I --> S. The act of lending creates deposits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ripple-Stiltskin said:

Well to be honest; he didn’t exactly gave much answers to sometimes genuine and legitimate questions from @Wandering_Dog . He just say you need to google and educate yourself, and such with a condescending tone of voice. 

As economics are NOT an exact science, he states facts, but mixed with opinions and certain visions on economics to which one can disagree. 

Btw: I for one would replace “ XRP will” by “ XRP could”  in all his posts. 

 

the visionaries will never be completely right but by assimilating their vision we can aggregate a better understanding and be better prepared for the many probable eventualities.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, Wandering_Dog said:

I have to point this out as well, credit is not issued depending on available reserves for a given bank. Loans are issued first, then reserves are sought out. At no point are available reserves a constraint to lending, as the Fed creates any amount of reserves to satisfy lending and clearing at a given rate of interest.  

Well, not in Europe. The Basel III requirements ( and the dubbed Basel IV extra regulations) are/ can be in fact a constraint to lending to households and businesses, we have discussions about this between Business and HQ on a monthly basis.

A survey shows that every 1% rise of the capital ratio of banks gives a 2,3% rise of lending capacity for a bank. And vice versa. 

I’m not really into macro-economics ( I studied Business Economics as a major, Macro as minor) but in my day to day experience capital and liquidity ratio’s do impact our lending capacity ( and not the other way around).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Julian_Williams said:

the visionaries will never be completely right but by assimilating their vision we can aggregate a better understanding and be better prepared for the many probable eventualities.....

Yes! And that’s why it’s important to give all visions room to express and to be debated. Also note: a vision doesn’t equal a theory that can be falsified  (e.g.Einsteins theory of relativity).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...