Like any business their goal is to make money. Not for their customers but for their business. Profit is not what is advertised of course, it just doesn't fit the image of banking. By implication the banking reserves of 1.1 trillion dollars does suggest the amount of money they have made.
And where is this money made? It is made from their customers. It is also seen in their assets of 11,077 billion dollars. These are the funds they use to make more money by lending it out. This is money they don't have because they lent it out to other customers. The only reason its called an asset is because they claim they can get it back.
So the question is, where is the money they are holding safe for others? This is found by looking at their liabilities of some 9,941 billion dollars. They call it a liability because it's not theirs to keep, it has been lent to them by their customers. The banks show that these funds are in customers accounts. So what do banks do with these funds? Of course, they lend it out to other customers. Just a quick look makes it appear that the Liabilities and Assets are the same thing. If you put 100 dollars in the bank, the bank is liable to pay it back when you want it, its a liability to the bank, which is lent out to another customer, which is considered an asset. So theoretically they cancel each other out. In fact, according to the numbers, the banks have lent our more money than they were given.
So how does the huge number of the banking reserves come from? It comes from the interest they charge on the money they lent out. The bank may charge 4.25 percent which gives them their profit. This is the money you lent to them giving you 0.10 percent in a savings account, resulting in 4.15 percent they make on money you gave them to keep safe.
With all the "troubles" the banks are having, it would seem to make sense to help them lower their liabilities. However, they would not like this kind of help. By lowering their liabilities, you would be removing money that they want to have to lend out. And if they lent your money out, they would have to give you someone else's money. And if everyone decided they wanted their money back? Well, the theory of bank management says 'that will never happen'. (So why does a highly debt ridden government guarantee your money? It uses the same "theory".) In very basic terms, banking (and government) is counting on not having to meet their commitments.
You should be so motivated now, not to open a banking account, but to open a bank. Best of luck.
3.18.2010
2.08.2010
Perspective
Having lived for more than a half century, you might think that I would have some sense of perspective about life and the condition of the human race. Maybe, I do, but it keeps coming back to me about how narrow my perspective is on way too many occasions.
As a member of the human race, I am ashamed to admit a sense of superiority over the creation of all that we see and everything we don't see. The partisanship of man over the universe may appear to be subtle, yet when viewed with our inability to find peace with each other and our Creator, I have to admit we as a people are an ornery selfish bunch of dust particles. Yes, we have a soul that is the very energy of God's breath in us. But we are too prone to focus on the trials of just "getting along in life" rather that "what are we here for" and, what does the One who directs the program want from us?
I have wrongly looked to God and felt that He is not fair. At the same time that I want my freewill to be mine alone, I also want God to intervene in all my wants. I want God to take charge in my "altruistic" prayers, yet not placing myself in the right place in His greater plan of all things. We (that includes you too) are way too selfish to see ourselves as just a speck, on a rock, in a system attached to a stray arm of a minor galaxy, hung among other galaxies in a vastness that should humble us before God and even the rest of creation that we can't see.
We entertain ourselves and look for more ways to have power over circumstances and others. We show abundant mercy when earthquakes devastate a country, yet we often fail to take the time to alter our lifestyle to communicate the vastness of our need to reach the soul of all mankind.
Have you take the time to say what is good for all people?
Have you come to a real understanding of what 'good' is really is?
Can you be hones an seek a source of connection to the real facts of life?
Have you tended to dissolve into your own thoughts without regard of the thoughts of the One who put all of "this" together?
What would you do about it?
I am humbled to the truth that I need a perspective that is greater than my narrow self-worth can afford.
As a member of the human race, I am ashamed to admit a sense of superiority over the creation of all that we see and everything we don't see. The partisanship of man over the universe may appear to be subtle, yet when viewed with our inability to find peace with each other and our Creator, I have to admit we as a people are an ornery selfish bunch of dust particles. Yes, we have a soul that is the very energy of God's breath in us. But we are too prone to focus on the trials of just "getting along in life" rather that "what are we here for" and, what does the One who directs the program want from us?
I have wrongly looked to God and felt that He is not fair. At the same time that I want my freewill to be mine alone, I also want God to intervene in all my wants. I want God to take charge in my "altruistic" prayers, yet not placing myself in the right place in His greater plan of all things. We (that includes you too) are way too selfish to see ourselves as just a speck, on a rock, in a system attached to a stray arm of a minor galaxy, hung among other galaxies in a vastness that should humble us before God and even the rest of creation that we can't see.
We entertain ourselves and look for more ways to have power over circumstances and others. We show abundant mercy when earthquakes devastate a country, yet we often fail to take the time to alter our lifestyle to communicate the vastness of our need to reach the soul of all mankind.
Have you take the time to say what is good for all people?
Have you come to a real understanding of what 'good' is really is?
Can you be hones an seek a source of connection to the real facts of life?
Have you tended to dissolve into your own thoughts without regard of the thoughts of the One who put all of "this" together?
What would you do about it?
I am humbled to the truth that I need a perspective that is greater than my narrow self-worth can afford.
1.14.2010
Good? part one
While going through the Sunday paper, I read an article about one of my favorite actors. The article about Harrison Ford was very interesting and I appreciated the comments. One of his quotes got me thinking. In describing himself, he said "I want to be good at what I do, and I want to learn from other people how to get good, be good, stay good".
What does 'good' mean? Good at doing something? Good in you behavior; a good person? What is the source of that 'goodness'? If I'm being good, what does it mean to -not be good? Are other people the source of how to get good? Is the definition of a good person a utilitarian construct of societal agree-ability? Why don't I agree to Hitler's social actions? If I know where 'good' is going, do I know where it comes from? If I define being good differently from another person's definition, how can they be both 'good'?
Unless some source point of 'good' is outside of a personal opinion, it must only be a personal reference that can be adjusted to whatever circumstance may come my way. Expediency becomes the word, not 'good'. So, let me suggest that an external referent must be applied to insure a reasonable indication of what 'good' is and what 'good behavior' looks like.
It is amazing how many cultures worldwide have similar norms, morals, ethic references. Although the application sometimes appears different, the core of action (we might cal them values or virtues) is remarkably similar.
In one of the business articles I read recently, the author noted six items in Western business practices that illustrate having 'good behavior'. These items, which I will look at in later posts, seem to translate into all cultures. They are: honesty, honor, self-respect, humility, manners, and the practice of respect. Again application may vary, but the virtues remain integrated to the culture. Even the crudest tribe culture may lie and cheat outside the tribe to achieve gain, but they will stand with the virtue of honesty with their members. In comparison, when an action goes beyond the norm of the virtue the person is said to be bad, evil, maybe even sinful. So how do we know and label it that way?
There seems to be some reference point in which these virtues have been established as 'good'. I would suggest that man has been unable to establish them on his own. This is based primarily on the fact that people are first self-motivated to their own definition and personal self interests. Even I cannot evade this pull to the self-justification of my actions. So where did these virtues, which can be contrary to my wants and demands, find their birth and what does it mean for my 'good' behavior?
What are your thoughts?
What does 'good' mean? Good at doing something? Good in you behavior; a good person? What is the source of that 'goodness'? If I'm being good, what does it mean to -not be good? Are other people the source of how to get good? Is the definition of a good person a utilitarian construct of societal agree-ability? Why don't I agree to Hitler's social actions? If I know where 'good' is going, do I know where it comes from? If I define being good differently from another person's definition, how can they be both 'good'?
Unless some source point of 'good' is outside of a personal opinion, it must only be a personal reference that can be adjusted to whatever circumstance may come my way. Expediency becomes the word, not 'good'. So, let me suggest that an external referent must be applied to insure a reasonable indication of what 'good' is and what 'good behavior' looks like.
It is amazing how many cultures worldwide have similar norms, morals, ethic references. Although the application sometimes appears different, the core of action (we might cal them values or virtues) is remarkably similar.
In one of the business articles I read recently, the author noted six items in Western business practices that illustrate having 'good behavior'. These items, which I will look at in later posts, seem to translate into all cultures. They are: honesty, honor, self-respect, humility, manners, and the practice of respect. Again application may vary, but the virtues remain integrated to the culture. Even the crudest tribe culture may lie and cheat outside the tribe to achieve gain, but they will stand with the virtue of honesty with their members. In comparison, when an action goes beyond the norm of the virtue the person is said to be bad, evil, maybe even sinful. So how do we know and label it that way?
There seems to be some reference point in which these virtues have been established as 'good'. I would suggest that man has been unable to establish them on his own. This is based primarily on the fact that people are first self-motivated to their own definition and personal self interests. Even I cannot evade this pull to the self-justification of my actions. So where did these virtues, which can be contrary to my wants and demands, find their birth and what does it mean for my 'good' behavior?
What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
