You need me to explain why this, >"little of tangible value that is actually lost"< is incorrect? Really?
you are familiar with our current system of “fractional reserve banking” correct?
I am familiar. Does it mean Griffin's claim is correct?
I’m serious...enlighten us...I am not an expert. With a 0% reserve requirement and a bank run the bank goes under and no actual bank money is lost?? (The depositors’ money gets wiped out, not the bank per se...they go BK and start over). The people with the loans make out? No more payments if another bank doesn’t buy the “assets”/loans? Just bad credit for them? More info. needed.