actually fractional reserve banking, in the sense that it usually means, doesnt happen. actually it's doubtful if it ever happened in the first place.

Banking institutions in the United States are required to hold reserves --- amounts of currency and deposits in other banks -- equal to only a fraction of the amount of the banks' deposit liabilities owed to customers. This practice is called fractional-reserve banking. As a result, banks usually invest the majority of the funds received from depositors. On rare occasion, too many of the bank's customers will withdraw their savings and the bank will need help from another institution to continue operating; this is called a bank run. Bank runs can lead to a multitude of social and economic problems. The Federal Reserve System was designed as an attempt to prevent or minimize the occurrence of bank runs, and possibly act as a lender of last resort when a bank run does occur. Many economists, following Milton Friedman, believe that the Federal Reserve inappropriately refused to lend money to small banks during the bank runs of 1929.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

Individual citizens are not personally responsible for the decisions of a Government and are certainly not guarantors for Government bonds, if that's what your trying to argue.

And the RBA is the Governments central bank and is under the legislative control of the federal government and therefore is very much a government department! Where you may be getting confused is in that the RBA has an independent board so that decisions on interest rates for example is kept out of the hands of politicians.

And finally, the RBA does not produce the nations coins and paper notes, the treasury department does.

Oh and I'm just a dumb Nth Queenslander too, so we're probably both wrong and the truth is somewhere in between!

Yeah but you sold out to SE Qld ;)

-PB

Banking institutions in the United States are required to hold reserves --- amounts of currency and deposits in other banks -- equal to only a fraction of the amount of the banks' deposit liabilities owed to customers. This practice is called fractional-reserve banking. As a result, banks usually invest the majority of the funds received from depositors. On rare occasion, too many of the bank's customers will withdraw their savings and the bank will need help from another institution to continue operating; this is called a bank run. Bank runs can lead to a multitude of social and economic problems. The Federal Reserve System was designed as an attempt to prevent or minimize the occurrence of bank runs, and possibly act as a lender of last resort when a bank run does occur. Many economists, following Milton Friedman, believe that the Federal Reserve inappropriately refused to lend money to small banks during the bank runs of 1929.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

Individual citizens are not personally responsible for the decisions of a Government and are certainly not guarantors for Government bonds, if that's what your trying to argue.

And the RBA is the Governments central bank and is under the legislative control of the federal government and therefore is very much a government department! Where you may be getting confused is in that the RBA has an independent board so that decisions on interest rates for example is kept out of the hands of politicians.

And finally, the RBA does not produce the nations coins and paper notes, the treasury department does.

The Reserve Bank of Australia, a government agency, came into being on 14 January 1960 as Australia's central bank and banknote issuing authority, when the Reserve Bank Act 1959 removed the central banking functions from the Commonwealth Bank.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Bank_of_Australia

Thats bullshit. The RBA is independent of the government. Wiki isnt the most reliable of sources

Gotta love being a new forum member; you don't know the other posters yet so you can't be sure if they're serious or taking the piss, haha.

Just in case you are being serious, you can look up the legislation if you like. RBA is "independent", but only in the sense that Government deliberately lets it do its work without interference. Government can step in any time and tell it what to do. It's a freaking government department, not a separate nation unto itself lol. Same goes for the Federal Reserve. As I said in another post, Curtin used his uber war powers during WW2 to put central banking under control of the Commonwealth Government forever more; it was his personal crusade.

Edited by Hoff: 14/10/2012 06:41:10 PM

leftrightout, i'm just hoping that you dont buy into the standard libertardian

I think we all know the Rothschild's rule the world banking system and financial institutions including the RBA

Posting links of someone talking about the US Federal Reserve when posting in reference to the Reserve Bank of Australia does not further your argument...

The US and Australia has VERY different Government systems.

Posting links of someone talking about the US Federal Reserve when posting in reference to the Reserve Bank of Australia does not further your argument...

The US and Australia has VERY different Government systems.

Government can step in any time and tell it what to do. It's a freaking government department, not a separate nation unto itself lol. Same goes for the Federal Reserve.

this says it all...pure gold!!!!!


[youtube]BlIRu1l33VA[/youtube]

That's so low-brow that it's almost like Afro made it himself.

I think we all know the Rothschild's rule the world banking system and financial institutions including the RBA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#Conspiracy_theories

I blame the Jews, myself...

Something interesting, Section 12 of this report shows 'sponsored' gifts that the PM has received, look at which sporting body "sponsors" the PM.

http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/http-__wopared-aph-gov-au_house_committee_pmi_declarations_gillardj_43p-1.pdf

Not even close to an interesting document, by the way.

ACT rejects Labor, Greens: Liberals

From: AAP October 20, 2012 11:25PM

Triumphant Liberal leader Zed Seselja says ACT voters have rejected a Labor-Greens alliance in Saturday's election.
But he's stopped short of claiming victory, with the opposition falling one seat short of majority government in the 17-seat legislative assembly.

It will take days of negotiation with the Greens before a new minority government can be formed in the territory.

The Liberals, on the back of their biggest-ever primary vote, are on track to take eight seats to Labor's seven giving them their highest representation in the 23-year history of self-government.

With more than 70 per cent of the vote counted at 10.50pm (AEST), Labor had 39.1 per cent of the overall vote (up 1.7pc on 2008), to the Liberals 38 per cent (up 6.4pc) and the Greens 11 per cent (down 4.6pc)

A surprise Labor casualty could be Attorney-General Simon Corbell who might lose his seat to fellow Labor candidate Meegan Fitzharris.

...The Greens drop from four seats to two with their leader Meredith Hunter still in a tight race with Summernats car festival founder Chic Henry, running for the Australian Motorists Party.

If she loses, the Greens would have only one seat in the assembly.

Mr Seselja said the election result was a rejection of both Labor and the Greens.

"Most importantly it is a rejection of their alliance," he told the party faithful.

"It would be a rejection of the verdict of the people if the Labor Party and the Greens were to now forge a closer alliance.

"We are ready to deliver the kind of government the ACT deserves."

Labor leader Katy Gallagher said it was not the night for victory speeches from any party.

"We're not arrogant, we're not coming out saying we have won this election," she told supporters.

"We've won the highest primary vote, we've increased our vote, we've held our seats and we've seen a swing towards us."

Ms Gallagher noted more than half the electorate voted for "a progressive government", referring to the combined Labor-Greens vote of 50.1 per cent.

Mr Seselja reiterated earlier pledges that he wouldn't offer the Greens a ministry as part of any negotiations, unlike in 2008.

But he shied away from questions on whether or not he would negotiate with them at all.

Liberal MLA Jeremy Hanson said: "Should we get eight seats we have a very strong case for government."

However, Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury said the minor party would not be taking the number of seats won into account.

"We want to make sure there's a stable government for four years," he told AAP.

"We delivered that this term, we expect to deliver it in the coming term."

The Greens had a duty to the one-in-eight Canberrans who voted for the party to deliver on as many of their policies as possible, Mr Rattenbury said.

"We're quite open to talking to both of them (major parties) and that's something we will start in the next few days," he said.

"We won't see an agreement to form a government, one way or the other, for quite some days yet."

Labor MLA Andrew Barr said a Liberal-Greens alliance would be "extraordinary" since "they are just a world apart".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/act-rejects-labor-greens-liberals/story-fn3dxity-1226499976970

+1