Steve G.

Archive for September 28th, 2008|Daily archive page

Fictional Reserve Banking

In Libertarian on September 28, 2008 at 11:31 pm

From the desk of George Phillies

I suppose “zero’ is a fraction, but this is not what is usually meant by “fractional reserve banking”. Source is an LPMass member and attorney.

If this emergency bailout law passes.

12 USC sect. 461 defines the reserves that commercial banks (“depository institutions”) have to maintain.

(b)(1)(A) defines “depository institution”, and (b)(2)(A) sets the reserve minimums. Long story short, commercial banks have to keep 3% reserve against “monetary policy” transactions up to $25 million, and between 8% and 14% (set by the Fed) on transactions above $25 million.

Now check the “Notes” for that section.

Pub. L. 109–351, title II, §§ 201–203, Oct. 13, 2006, §§ 201–203, 120 Stat. 1968,
provided that, effective Oct. 1, 2011, this section is amended— (1) in subsection (b)(2)(A), by striking “the ratio of 3 per centum” and inserting “a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero)” in clause (i) and by striking “and not less than 8 per centum,” and inserting “(and which may be zero),” in clause (ii).

This amendment was scheduled to eliminate the reserve requirement entirely on 10/01/2011. I say “was”, because here’s this gem from the Emergency Act that Congress just published tonight:

Section 203 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (12 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by striking ‘‘October 1, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2008’’.

In other words, the reserve requirements for commercial banks can be ZERO for ALL TRANSACTIONS as of this Thursday, if this monstrosity passes.

Trevor Lyman attempts to hold a presidential debate, changes

In Libertarian, Politics on September 28, 2008 at 8:37 pm

posted at IPR by Ross Levin

Trevor Lyman, the man who organized the Ron Paul moneybombs, is trying to organize a debate for all of the presidential candidates who will appear on enough ballots to win. Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Barack Obama, and John McCain will all be invited.

However, it is not guaranteed that the debate will take place. Lyman is asking for 10,000 donation pledges to his website,, before he commits to holding the debate. He wants that number of pledges by October 8th. If the goal is met, the debate will be in New York City.

Formerly, the website was taking pledges for a third party moneybomb, and the candidate who would receive the funds would be decided at a later date. But it has since changed to taking pledges for money to run the proposed debate.

So far, there are over 1,500 pledges, and the sponsors are Break the Matrix, Open Debates, and Free and Equal Elections.

Once again, you can pledge to donate toward the debate at, and 10,000 pledges are needed by October 8th for what could be the most serious challenge to the Commission for Presidential Debates monopoly on presidential debates to take place.

So…what do you think?

In Libertarian on September 28, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Not sure what to make of this. I have multiple copies sent to me by a whole bunch of people, but don’t know anything beyond what’s here. Anyone have a clue?

Oh, yeah, another thing: gas shortages all over the place, 1970s style.

Just how fucked are we? Your thoughts here, please.

Too Smart to Thug for the State

In Libertarian on September 28, 2008 at 5:00 pm

From Official State Media:

A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.

In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.

Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

Mr. Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor’s degree in literature and is an officer with the State Department of Corrections, said he was considering an appeal. ”I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,” he said. ”It’s the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.”