Credit today still money in the account

By:

But even there it is not guaranteed that the money is in your account today. In this case, a cash loan is paid out within a short time, sometimes on the same day. The cash loan gives you the opportunity to take out a loan. Get money today with XpressService. Get the amount you want to borrow into your account immediately!

Location search

Location search

We use so-called chips to make our website user-friendly and to optimize it continuously. By continuing to use our website, you agree to this. You can find further information here. Tell us where you live: Your details are currently only available to clients based in Switzerland.

How is girls’ money legitimate and how justified is debt service?

How is girls’ money legitimate and how justified is debt service? The constitutional laws give the state the sole right to enact laws on “currency, money and coinage” (Article 73.4 GG). It is worth noting that such a system lacks the legal basis for biblical money. Today we have a system of banknotes and coins with a de facto monopoly of the banking sector in which money has now become systematically meaningless.

Certainly, but not in the sense that the credit institutions would later have to legitimize their de facto monopoly on money, but in the sense that the sovereignty of states and currencies finally finally relies on material money for money and clearing accounts and on e-money (“e-money” ) and digital money would be expanded. If the legislative organizer continues to sleep, it may well be that hard facts will emerge from the girls’ money in the area of ​​private payment methods and currencies, which will put an end to any state-guaranteed financial sovereignty.

In general: Both in Germany and in the EU there is a lack of a single currency system [see Gudehus on this website]. For economics, bank checks – current account balances – are money surrogates, money substitutes for the non-cash payment process. It is outdated and misleading today. However, some contemporary critics of the monetary system claim the outdated designation of girl money as money substitute and misinterpret it in the sense that girl money is “actually no money” or “not real money”.

By differentiating between cash and non-cash money, girls’ money still does not have the status of a legal tender in itself. Nevertheless, girl money is actually the most commonly used means of payment on the market today (80% or more of the money supply), ie clearly money, which is the dominant money today, after every experience that has been well defined.

The money brand exists in its original form as a payment in kind on a bank account / checking account. The key size of the account is bank money, not the bank’s so-called proactive money creation, which de facto decides how much money is generated in total. Due to our payment behavior, it still happens that a certain part of the quantity of money determined by girl money is exchanged for this money and back again.

However, cash as a prerequisite for banknotes and coins has long ceased to exist, and the other way around, coins, banknotes and central bank reserves are only created technically after the proactive initiative by credit institutions to create banknotes and coins. For the parliamentarian, girl money is apparently “not really” money. The loan is legally regulated, sometimes very meticulous, and yet not very effective, such as the bank solvency and solvency rules.

The fact that girl money uno actu comes from the primary credit of credit institutions is hardly taken into account in the Banking Act (KWG) and other legal bases. The fact that deposits are not active financing instruments, but passively closed bank deposits, and that the credit institutions do not lend to existing money (state money, central bank money) by means of secondary loans, but generate money themselves through primary loans, i.e. bank deposits, seem to the legislature just as little to worry as it has largely stayed away from the economy.

The bank’s money robbery regime means seizing sovereign monetary privileges. In the tradition of the Currency School and other cartographic currency theories, they include, on the one hand, currency sovereignty, on the other hand, sovereignty over the money in this currency and, on the other hand, the income of the associated money gain, the signing, in favor of the public.

Against this resistance, the banking school at the beginning of the nineteenth century and the neoclassical economics afterwards intensively pursued the privileges of the money economy and tried to substantiate them both theoretically and ideologically – allegedly in the sense of economic freedom for people, but in reality in the primary interest of the people Banks [see currency vs. Banking on this website].

Preferred bank money regime of credit institutions

Preferred bank money regime of credit institutions

It is deliberately ignored that the preferred bank money regime of credit institutions, which dominates the global economy today, time and again turns out to be extremely volatile and susceptible to crises. From an institutional economic point of view, money is a common good and payment systems are a state structure, part of services of general interest.

Nevertheless, the current monetary system turns out to be a private bank money regime guaranteed by the federal government and the central bank, especially in crisis situations – an extremely problematic situation in terms of regulatory policy or constitutional law, which is probably not lacking in a legal basis. Throughout history, deposits have been created as a cash liability of credit institutions to their bank customers.

Because we value cashless payments just as much as the big trading companies and credit institutions used to look at each other in the past, we only demand cash payments in small and decreasing amounts and use bank debt loans called girl money like cash – which has become girl money de facto.

As Häring notes, accepting one’s own claims as a general, regular means of payment is an extremely rare and, against this background, strange achievement by credit institutions. Nobody thinks of the banks. In this context, the legality of the bank’s money grabbing regime can certainly be raised – from a formal legal point of view, especially from a constitutional point of view.

However, according to normal practice, the creation of bank money by credit institutions cannot be described as unlawful. Rather, the parliament, the government and the central bank have to give legitimate concern as to why they let the monetary sovereign privileges, which have essentially the same status as the tax or force monopoly, run away in favor of the private monopoly of the banking sector.

This misguided development is not justified, especially in view of the fundamental uncertainty of bank money, the out of control GDP, the disproportionate increase in the amount of money in the sense of credit institutions and other owners of financial capital (relative to the burden of labor income), the associated inflation and asset price increase as well as the repeated exaggeration of economic and financial cycles, including the resulting banking, debt and currency crises. In the aftermath of the financial market crisis.

The formation of girl money on the basis of a break reserve is a “prohibited transaction” Literally speaking, the bank’s girl money regime is one of the “prohibited transactions” according to Section 3 KWG. It reads: “Are prohibited …” and then in section 3: “The business operations of the lending or deposit business, if it is significantly impeded by agreements or business practices available over the loan amount or cash payments.

The cash award process is based on a fraction of a cash and central bank reserve. When bankruptcy affects many or more large credit institutions at the same time, the whole currency and banking system collapses. Nevertheless, it is evidence of the uncertainty and dysfunctionality of the money cultivating regime. Otherwise, sales are now out of date, because today it’s not just about cash, but about the general liquidity of credit institutions, especially in cashless interbank payments.

There is currently a legitimate question as to whether the situation enables credit institutions to require that they “not really” send money to the debtors, “nothing” in the form of banknotes, and that the debtors therefore “nothing” to the credit institutions Debt interest, no repayment and no execution of guarantees. Pursuant to 488 BGB, a lender is “obliged to provide the debtor with an amount of the contractually agreed size”, while the debtor “undertakes to pay an interest rate that is due and to repay the promissory note loan provided at maturity”.

Rather, in my opinion, they justify that a loan made in writing meets the above requirements, with a very important exception. The point is that a questionable amount of money must be taken from the lender’s property and transferred to the borrower’s property. This is not the case with the privileged lending policy of the credit institutions, since the credit institutions do not exchange assets (ie liquid money is replaced by a claim to interest and capital repayment), but by expanding the balance sheet.

Probably an unlawful

Probably an unlawful

In fact, this is an expansion of monetary policy assets – probably an unlawful, so to speak neo-distant right of credit institutions, but in reality monetary policy asset accumulation that corresponds to the creation of money by central banks. This situation should again put the bank’s creation of banknotes and coins in doubt. But it is not appropriate to interpret the facts about the creation of girl money as supposedly unreal.

Girls money is not “money”, but ordinary bank money, regardless of the fact that it is not a legal tender. But girl money, like e-money (“e-money”) that is fully booked in money stores, is neither counterfeit money nor is it useless. By crediting an account, a house bank generally generates and transfers usable buying power to a consumer.

The borrower can use it to buy everything that can be bought for money. In this way, girls’ money is by no means “nothing”, but represents a certain financial asset. If borrowers fail to meet their interest and repayment obligations, the credit institutions concerned will lose income and assets. If no debt interest is paid, the credit institutions concerned will be deprived of the income that they are entitled to – whatever you think ethically and however crucial as an economic mechanism may be of interest.

If major interest payments were not received while credit institutions continued to pay loan interest to their customers, the credit institutions would suffer an equity loss on their profit and loss account. It is possible that the reality of bank money creation could cast doubt on the amount of interest required. The fractional refinancing of the cial money produced means that the credit institutions only have to refinance interest on 100 credit units for which they charge interest on debts in the form of cash reserves and central bank reserves (only about 3-4 pieces).

The extent to which the institutes can actually keep the associated additional profit and how far they have to hand it over to their customers due to the competition has not been examined in detail and is therefore unclear. Rather, competition authorities and authorities constantly ask themselves how they can achieve unfair advantages in the banking sector, which they have to refrain from in any other branch of the economy.

However, the problem is not whether the credit institutions have the right to charge interest on arrears, but at most how high they can be. A corresponding argument arises from the assumption that the bank’s assets and interest income are “nonderforming”, ie the credit institutions do not provide any service and do not receive any consideration in return. No remuneration is granted by the credit institutions.

This is as nonsensical as the claim that girls’ money is “nothing” and “nothing worth”. An imbalance in the balance sheet of credit institutions due to debt strikes would have to occur earlier and even more if large repayments were not made in addition to interest. This is a balance sheet loss for the credit institutions, which can affect their own funds and thus their livelihood.

Assets of credit institutions can be considered

Assets of credit institutions can be considered

Nevertheless, the assets of credit institutions can be considered to be illegitimate if they are based on the creation of bank money in the assumption of monetary sovereign rights to which only government agencies such as the central bank are actually entitled. In individual cases there may be an occasion (usury, insidious loans), but not generally. Some people are badly affected by the aftermath of the financial crisis, and the victims of the bank.

Of course, there are also guilty or otherwise irresponsible debtors who have no concerns about abusing banks and other people. There are also credit institutions that can show understanding and perseverance to people in economic emergency over a certain period of time. Overall, it can be seen that the so-called contractual obligations of credit institutions as lenders also comply with the existing bank money system.

The borrower has no general reason to refuse his typical contractual obligations with reference to the circumstances of the girl money system, ie to suspend interest and repayments and to oppose enforcement. As a rule, neither the girls’ money system in general, nor one of the banks affected in particular, has a specifically attributable joint responsibility for a customer’s payment problems. It should also be noted that while the reasons for those who argue for a debt strike do not affect the rights and obligations of creditors and debtors, the reasons in question somewhat challenge the legality of the money order system.

Indeed, the supporters of debt strikes speak out against the assumption of state sovereignty over money by the credit institutions, and thus indirectly against the bank-doctrinal disorientation of the economy and society, which is said to have made this undesirable development possible. 1 The principle also applies to the acquisition of securities, real estate and other assets by credit institutions. In addition, the expansion of the balance sheet is only possible as a cooperative creation of bank money in the banking sector, but only marginally for a single institution.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *