Seeking Alpha

Jim Myrtle

Jim Myrtle
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Jim Myrtle's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • The Gold Bubble Is Deflating, And Resistance Is Futile [View article]
    Yes, once you've got the ingot of the weak alpha emitter that is actually used as a radiation shield(!), you've really got some dangerous radiation to deal with. LOL!
    Dec 9, 2014. 04:44 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Gold Bubble Is Deflating, And Resistance Is Futile [View article]
    Ingots of U-238 are not radioactive enough to be carcinogenic.
    Don't breath U-238 dust, or that of any other heavy metal, into your lungs.
    Dec 8, 2014. 08:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Federal Reserve Exit Watch: Number 1 [View article]
    "I think the Fed is insolvent."

    What is insolvent?
    Unable to pay debts owed. What debts does the Fed owe?
    Why would they be unable to repay?
    They earn something like $80 billion a year.

    "You have to compare the capital to the balance sheet.
    How much in the way of assets and liabilities is that amount of capital supporting"

    Excellent idea. They own only guaranteed bonds.
    Hmmmmm.......sounds worrisome.
    Dec 8, 2014. 04:57 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Gold Bubble Is Deflating, And Resistance Is Futile [View article]
    "Uranium exposure can cause birth defects, damage to internal organs, and cancer"

    U-238, not so much.
    Dec 5, 2014. 10:34 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Gold Bubble Is Deflating, And Resistance Is Futile [View article]
    Yeah, not so worrisome as far as upkeep costs.
    Dec 5, 2014. 07:26 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Gold Bubble Is Deflating, And Resistance Is Futile [View article]
    "They don't mine and store uranium as an investment due to the massive upkeep costs... you know... radiation?"

    Something with a 4.5 billion year half-life can barely be called radioactive.
    Dec 5, 2014. 04:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Precious Metals - The Day Of Reckoning Is Coming Soon [View article]
    "It's already irresponsible enough that deposited assets can be lent out once by banks"

    Right, because banks should hold 100% reserves. LOL!
    Dec 4, 2014. 08:00 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Precious Metals - The Day Of Reckoning Is Coming Soon [View article]
    "You describe it as if it were obvious, hence your "of course"."

    Anything less than a 50% reserve requirement will allow loans that are larger than reserves. So what?

    "Some banks are levered 70 - 80 times their reserves"

    Which ones?

    I always thought that the most a bank could lend the same money was once?

    "Isn't that rather using a truism ?"

    If you read John Wilson's post that I replied to, you'd already be up to speed.

    Now buzz off, idjit.
    Dec 4, 2014. 07:59 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Precious Metals - The Day Of Reckoning Is Coming Soon [View article]
    "I did say from the very beginning that credits are multiples of reserves"

    Where did anyone dispute that before or after your post?

    "and that in your answer to John you were splitting HAIRS"

    John originally said a deposit can be lent more than once.
    He now sees it cannot. No hairs involved.
    Dec 4, 2014. 11:56 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Precious Metals - The Day Of Reckoning Is Coming Soon [View article]
    "AND credits are multiples of reserves"

    Yes, filipo, if reserves are 10%, of course loans are multiples of that.

    I always thought that the most a bank could lend the same money was once?

    "Fractional reserve system ?? "

    You didn't mean that the fractional reserve system allows a bank to lend the same money more than once? So why did you respond like that to my comment?
    Dec 4, 2014. 11:53 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Precious Metals - The Day Of Reckoning Is Coming Soon [View article]
    filipo
    "Each bank is legally authorized to issue CREDIT up to a specified MULTIPLE of its reserves, so reserves available to satisfy payment of deposit liabilities are LESS than the total amount which the bank is obligated to pay in satisfaction of demand deposits"

    Yes, reserves are less than deposits, not loans are multiples of deposits.
    Glad you finally understand your error.
    Dec 4, 2014. 05:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Precious Metals - The Day Of Reckoning Is Coming Soon [View article]
    Glad to help John. Many people make that same mistake.
    Dec 4, 2014. 05:05 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Precious Metals - The Day Of Reckoning Is Coming Soon [View article]
    "I think what John meant was that a banking institution is entitled to hold reserves (to satisfy demands for withdrawals) that are less than the amount of its customers' deposits"

    Of course, filipo, anything less than a 100% reserve requirement would mean they hold less than the deposits.

    "Opening a bank with a single $1000 deposit is utter nonsense. I even don't take the trouble to answer that"

    Of course you didn't, because then you'd see the bank can't lend the $1000 more than once.
    Dec 3, 2014. 07:07 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Precious Metals - The Day Of Reckoning Is Coming Soon [View article]
    John Wilson, maybe you should read that textbook again?

    A bank with only my $1000 deposit is lending less than my deposit, not multiples of my deposit.
    Dec 3, 2014. 07:03 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Precious Metals - The Day Of Reckoning Is Coming Soon [View article]
    Thanks for the link, Jimvickery.

    "You have $100,000 deposited in a bank. Using your money, the bank will then loan out $90,000 to somebody else"

    I'm glad you agree, your bank is lending out part of your deposit, not lending out your deposit more than once.
    As your link showed, under deposit multiplication, $457.05 in deposits gave $357.05 in loans and $100 in reserves.
    Dec 3, 2014. 07:01 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
1,051 Comments
686 Likes