The UK banking system

[slaar]

Something like that, exactly. My area of expertise is Economics, so I can only comment authoritatively on McCloskey. I'm a big fan, and she doesn't go anywhere near the kind of drivel that zArk is sprouting here.

 

[phildwyer]

well Baudrillards problem is that having shown that the boundary between use value and exchange value is extremely fluid, he goes on to completely reject it.

The problem is that he doesn't recognize the labour theory of value, so he is quite happy to acknowledge exchange-value as an autonomous and self-generating power, because he's lost sight of the fact that it is alienated labour.

 

[phildwyer]

Something like that, exactly. My area of expertise is Economics, so I can only comment authoritatively on McCloskey. I'm a big fan, and she doesn't go anywhere near the kind of drivel that zArk is sprouting here.

Well, McClosky is an economist who's noticed that her discipline has much in common with semiotics. Zark is mainly influenced by Baudrillard, a semiotician who's noticed that his discipline has much in common with economics. The convergence between the two disciplines is not smooth or easy, but it is inevitable, and even the most anarchic attempts to discuss it are quite interesting.

 

[White Lotus]

But absurd as it is, that *is* the empirically "real" world. Money, which rules the world, is a system of signs with no *visible* guiding intelligence, although I'd argue that it does in fact have an autonomous agency in the sense that it obeys its own logic which transcends human intentions.

I said near the beginning of the thread, I agree that money is not real, any more than the numbers chalked on the blackboard next to the darts board are "real". It is, however, a convenient way of keeping score. It is not autonomous and doesn't rule anything. However people have certain innate drives and behaviours, and that can make the flow of money seem to have its own drive - however, that is an illusion.

 

[Jazzz]

Great philosophy is engaging, revealing, profound and grounded in objecive reality. So not applicable to anything here. I love philosophy, but not pomo dead ends. There are much betetr things to do with your over-eager brain.

I note you have made no comment on my post #283. I am wondering if you now accept that banks create money by virtue of making ledger entries.

 

[phildwyer]

I said near the beginning of the thread, I agree that money is not real, any more than the numbers chalked on the blackboard next to the darts board are "real". It is, however, a convenient way of keeping score. It is not autonomous and doesn't rule anything. However people have certain innate drives and behaviours, and that can make the flow of money seem to have its own drive - however, that is an illusion.

Well, yes and no. It *is* an illusion, but it has *real* effects--so does it really make sense to call it an illusion? It is really a modern version of the efficacious signs used in ritual (aka "demonic") magic, except that the traditional ethical critique of such signs has been lost to us. But money most certainly *does* rule the world, and I would argue that its desires and imperatives over-ride, and often contradict, the intentions of the human beings who manipulate it. It reproduces, as though it were alive, and in general behaves as if it were a living, intelligent and evil being--although it is *not* alive, it *acts* as though it were. It is, in a word, what people used to call "Satan" (cue uproarious hilarity from assembled throng of yahoos).

 

[Jazzz]

I said near the beginning of the thread, I agree that money is not real, any more than the numbers chalked on the blackboard next to the darts board are "real". It is, however, a convenient way of keeping score. It is not autonomous and doesn't rule anything. However people have certain innate drives and behaviours, and that can make the flow of money seem to have its own drive - however, that is an illusion.

White Lotus - you are an intelligent poster. The question is not whether money is 'real' or not.

The issue on which this all depends is whether it is debt-based or interest-free. Do you appreciate the difference?

Suppose you had a society and you needed a form of exchange. Aha! I say, you need money. Jolly hockey sticks, you say, what a good idea. So I go, I will supply you with your money, only thing is I'm lending it to you, I will lend you five billion jazzz on which your society will pay 5% interest per annum. And if you can't stump up repayments, I'll have to take away some of your stuff like houses and land. Hang on a sec, you say, I smell a rat, there's no reason why you should get all that money for nothing and eventually we won't be able to pay back the interest for the simple reason it was never there in the first place! Ah, don't worry, I say, I'll simply lend you MORE jazzz at my discretion to take care of that on which I'll charge more interest, no problem.

What would you say? Of course you would realise that your economy would spiral into debt with me just being able to sit back and count the money as it rolled in and wait while you all pleaded with me to lend you more jazzz & I wouldn't lend to the guys who were really struggling or anyone I had a beef with and like this I'd lord it over you so thoroughly and lazily it would be quite disgusting.

You would run me out of town with a pitchfork, and rightly so.

So why haven't we done so to the banks?

 

[phildwyer]

So why haven't we done so to the banks?

Because they would kill us.

 

[White Lotus]

White Lotus - you are an intelligent poster. The question is not whether money is 'real' or not.

The issue on which this all depends is whether it is debt-based or interest-free. Do you appreciate the difference?

Suppose you had a society and you needed a form of exchange. Aha! I say, you need money. Jolly hockey sticks, you say, what a good idea. So I go, I will supply you with your money, only thing is I'm lending it to you, I will lend you five billion jazzz on which your society will pay 5% interest per annum. And if you can't stump up repayments, I'll have to take away some of your stuff like houses and land. Hang on a sec, you say, I smell a rat, there's no reason why you should get all that money for nothing and eventually we won't be able to pay back the interest for the simple reason it was never there in the first place! Ah, don't worry, I say, I'll simply lend you MORE jazzz at my discretion to take care of that on which I'll charge more interest, no problem.

What would you say? Of course you would realise that your economy would spiral into debt with me just being able to sit back and count the money as it rolled in and wait while you all pleaded with me to lend you more jazzz & I wouldn't lend to the guys who were really struggling or anyone I had a beef with and like this I'd lord it over you so thoroughly and lazily it would be quite disgusting.

You would run me out of town with a pitchfork, and rightly so.

So why haven't we done so to the banks?

Thank you for that compliment.

However, historically money came about in a slightly different way from your scenario. It was originally based on something with an agreed value and scarcity: silver and gold. Then governments started issuing paper money, backed by gold ... which was later abandoned. However, it is not a private individual or institution that issues money, it is the government itself.

There are checks and balances: Germany's hyperinflation showed what happens to a government that prints more money than it can back. Today exchange rates between currencies perform a similar function, and certain agreed economic conditions such as government borrowing levels, determine entry into the Euro.

On an individual basis, money is still a way of keeping score. Anything I borrow is secured against assets or future earnings, I may use it for ephemeral pleasure, such as a holiday, or I may buy assets (eg property) which will produce an income that would service the debt and give me a surplus. But it's still just a medium of exchange.

 

[Jazzz]

However, historically money came about in a slightly different way from your scenario. It was originally based on something with an agreed value and scarcity: silver and gold. Then governments started issuing paper money, backed by gold ... which was later abandoned. However, it is not a private individual or institution that issues money, it is the government itself.

Unfortunately though, my scenario well describes how things are now, and your last statement is completely incorrect; most of the money in circulation is created by banks on which interest is payable. Only a very small percentage is minted by the government in the form of cash.

 

[Jazzz]

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

Henry Ford

 

[phildwyer]

But the interesting question concerns the *nature* of money--what money *is,* in essence, as opposed to what it *appears* to be. In essence money (more precisely financial value, of which money is an expression) is alienated human activity: alienated human life.

 

[zArk]

Hi everyone i am back, phew 2 more pages;

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages...will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without suspecting that the system is inimical to their best interests." - Rothschild Brothers of London communiqué to associates in New York June 25, 1863

There are differences between US and UK banking systems without doubt.

US - private banking system, federal reserve and therefore debt

UK - private banking system, monarchy and therefore debt


The structure of this UK system positions the Monarchy above all as important. The Monarch is the Head of the Church of England and below him/her are Prime Minister, Ministers, Lords, Commoners, the entire British social system. Britain is owned by the Monarch and land is granted to certain people and they are called tennants. The City of London is one of those tennants, one of the main banking centres of the world. Acting on behalf of the Monarchy.

If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." - Hazard Circular - London Times 1865
in response to the US printing its own money

The political parties perform their task to protect the position of the monarch, while handing out tit-bits from the Bank depending upon their favoured social group.

Well, then you may say, why does the Queen receive a sub from the government each year. £9 million roughly.
The banking system is a control valve, not a creation of profit but a creation of debt. A system to enslave the population. The people believe in the creation of wealth and see money increase year upon year

1973 a house could be paid for with £9000
2005 a house can be paid for with £200,000

UK national debt £1.2 trillion on mortgages

yearly £70 billion of interest is generated

there is the illusion of wealth. Money is just a tool for exchange of goods but interest is charged upon its borrowing.

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits." - Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest man in Britain

Second richest man who admits that wealth is a 'flick of the pen'. There is nothing solid behind the economy. Nothing other than beaurocracy. This is being protected by the government. The Monarch doesnt care about money, profit, riches of finances. The monarch wishes only to be the Ruler of all, the owner of all and gleefully uses the system of banking to conn the people.

Marx got the bull by the horns and screamed "inequality, why should those people have all that money. Spread it around." Missing the point that the money is a tool not wealth, hence 'use value'. Marx put forward the most gross misrepresentation of economics and sold it to the people. Once again protecting the Monarchy from the people.

Capitalism, communism, socialism within this system of debt based money are frauds. Gaining money only increases your personal debt to the Monarchy, dont even wonder why all these mega rich and power people kneel before the Queen. They are her loyal servants who are granted mega debt and will protect the system that holds power over their wealth.
The Monarchy owns the land through a system of belief. If challenged the system will react violently towards the threat and impose harsh treatment.

When the levellers, diggers and people of england stood up to Cromwell and his New Model Army. They announced that no one person can claim ownership of this treasury of land, that it should be owned by all the peoples who set foot on it, so that they can all harvest the wealth. Cromwell massacred them at 'St Georges Hill' 1649 and thus protected the right of the Monarchy to ownership of all land. Parliament stood by and agreed.

Now quickly moving forward, economic control over the past 3 hundred years has remain a stalwart for the Monarchy and great encourgement for the public to create industry and technology. The economic system has proved so effective that politicians and the public are so influenced by the concept of money that is has allowed thought to negate the Monarchy. Money dare i say it, has become God.

In a christian debate money due to its debt basis is negative and therefore Satanic.
In a masonic debate money due to this is Jabulon [satan]

Money has entered the area that the Iconoclasts feared. It represents God. Moreso through Baudrillard, money doesnt bear any relation whatsoever to the real, it is an entirely separate system that mimiks the real. The hyper-real, the simulacrae.
Money produces industry and trade which in turn affects the people. Political systems attempt to control this system, creating Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, Anti-Capitalism and Anarchism to name a few. The systems are entirely hyper-real.

 

[ZWord]

Thank you for that compliment.

However, historically money came about in a slightly different way from your scenario. It was originally based on something with an agreed value and scarcity: silver and gold. Then governments started issuing paper money, backed by gold ... which was later abandoned. However, it is not a private individual or institution that issues money, it is the government itself.

There are checks and balances: Germany's hyperinflation showed what happens to a government that prints more money than it can back. Today exchange rates between currencies perform a similar function, and certain agreed economic conditions such as government borrowing levels, determine entry into the Euro.

On an individual basis, money is still a way of keeping score. Anything I borrow is secured against assets or future earnings, I may use it for ephemeral pleasure, such as a holiday, or I may buy assets (eg property) which will produce an income that would service the debt and give me a surplus. But it's still just a medium of exchange.

So originally, its value came from the work of getting it out of the ground, which basically had to be done by coercing slaves, and having a military to enforce ownership of the mine, so its value was based on violence, and the power of those with the means to coerce, to give something tangible in return for silver and gold.

 

[ZWord]

All in all having skimmed through this thread, I reckon really most people pretty much know that basically zark's right, and know what's going on, but, these days, it's like he seems a bit over-excited about it.

And most people know, whether they admit it or not, and those who don't are hardly going to be convinced.. And I will say this, if money doesn't "magically" multiply, which was the subject of some debate at some poinkt as far as I could tell, then it's hard to work out why the price of things, housing in particular, seems to keep going up and up.. And if money does magically multiply, then it's hard to see why the government can't just give it to people. oh yeah, of course, we need people to need money otherwise they wouldn't bother to work..



"pity would be no more, if we did not make somebody poor."

 

[slaar]

It's just quite tedious debating with somebody who keeps on repeating the same mistake.

There is no difference between a bank accepting promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts and a loan. That is a loan by definition, as your last quote makes clear. Your error, repeated, is that if that credit to the transaction account is taken out and hidden under somebody's bed, no more money can be leant out.

The next iteration is dependent on that money being held in the bank, which typically loans are not (most often they are taken out, spent and deposited into a different bank by the recipient); it's not therefore automatic that £10,000 primary deposit can be multiplied into £100,000. It also depends on reserve and liquidity requirements. You're taking a complicated process and turning it into some conspiracy. It doesn't wash.

In addition, as White Lotus makes clear, all this is accounted for; banks are held to account for loans they make, consumers for loans they take out. It's a medium of exchange. Banks make a big profit, and many think credit creation should be limited, but money is just a medium of exchange. What really matters, fundamentally, is what an economy is producing, and what people are doing. That's why you can have all the asset bubbles you like holding things up in the short term, but long term it's technological improvement and driving social processes like what's going on in China and India that propel countries forward. Money really doesn't have the significance you claim.

 

[zArk]

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-082.pdf

-- House of Commons report 2003

Value of pound

1974 = 100pence on index

1750 = 1962 pence
2002 = 14pence

the figure dropped from 1750 (2000) to 1800 (1000 on the index) then remained around 1000 until the first world war.

1914 when it dropped to 500

until

ww2 when it dropped to 14 pence in 2002

The price index is even more clear

1974 = 100

1750 = 5.1
1914 = 9.8
1939 = 17.3
2002 = 695

inbetween 1800 and 1914 it was stable around 10.


From table 1 the price index for 1850 was 8.4 and the index for 2002 was 695.1. In 2002 the average price level was 82.8 times (695.1/8.4) the 1850 level. Thus, to have the same purchasing power as £100 in 1850 one would have needed some £8,280 (82.8 x £100) in 2002.

That's why you can have all the asset bubbles you like holding things up in the short term, but long term it's technological improvement and driving social processes like what's going on in China and India that propel countries forward

slave labour does reap rewards i guess, for someone. Plus the added bonus of the dictatorship makes the economy above all the most important consideration by these fucking retarded people who believe in the economy. Welcome to the Gulags

 

[slaar]

That's inflation, zArk. A basic result of more money chasing the same amount of goods. And it's precisely the reason why control over the money supply doesn't entail control over the real economy. Thanks for making my argument for me.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

So originally, its value came from the work of getting it out of the ground,

er, no. the price of gold has little to do with the cost of getting it out of the ground however the vaibilty of a gold mine has a lot to do with the price of gold.

which basically had to be done by coercing slaves,

er, not neccessarily (Spanish South America was, I guess the exception)

and having a military to enforce ownership of the mine,

er, a military force perhaps but probably not a state owned military force.

so its value was based on violence, and the power of those with the means to coerce, to give something tangible in return for silver and gold.

er no.

 

[zArk]

That's inflation, zArk. A basic result of more money chasing the same amount of goods. And it's precisely the reason why control over the money supply doesn't entail control over the real economy.

That is your argument not mine.

Your argument is exchange value and use value.

My argument is that use value is a myth.

The economy is based upon myth, there is no 'real' economy.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

That is your argument not mine.

That's most peoples argument, not yours

 

[zArk]

Well, lets approach this from an alternative angle.

The value of money changes and so does use value where is the stability for the realness of the economy?

Value of money – is granted as changing
Use value though requires understanding of cultural changes. Cultural changes emerge from where? Multi-lateral points. There is no overseer pulling the strings (in the traditional sense). People have agency to create, change or keep things the same. So use value is emerging from the individual as a personal choice.

Now here is where I am jumping in and saying that all investigative tools of agency that range from cultural theory, social theory, psychoanalytical theory and economics are flawed in that they are all dependant upon the basic principle of use value. The system is self-contained. The paradigmatic nature of investigating agency to determine use value is under pinned by use value itself.

So if use value creates itself, sustains itself and proves itself through agency of the individual then agency is myth within this system.

Baudrillard has been, rightly, critised for not providing a position of agency outside this system. I am stating that the creation of money is the stalwart of this system.
Beyond this system can be found freedom; real agency, real identities; real politics.

I offered one solution which would be a publicly owned banking system which would prevent the growth of the system (not wealth). We wouldn’t be owning the system but neither would it be owning us.

The system should be an exchange mechanism but in its current state it it more than that. It is a commodity in and of itself. As a purely exchange mechanism it shouldn’t grow or change yet due to its current incarnation it does. It should exist entirely separately from us but instead it has been internalised as is directing politics and personal agency especially within government and more frightening it has clearly proliferated down into us.

The politicians are desparately trying to control this entity and are at breaking point. This is why control and power are being expanded upon the public.

“The books would balance if only the public would do exactly what we say”

Make no mistake, this is exactly the thinking behind these politicians.
The WTO, IMF and World Bank are all thinking the same thing. Social architects locked into the paradigm taught to them that exchange value and use value are ‘real’.
The system has totally subsumed them.

“The economy is paramount and will offer prosperity and equality for all ---- if you just do what we say”

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages...will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without suspecting that the system is inimical to their best interests." - Rothschild Brothers of London communiqué to associates in New York June 25, 1863



These crazy social architects are planning a perfect world, one in which economic instability is a thing of the past and cannot see outside the perfect hermaneutic circle that is their world and their thinking. The system is acting through them.

Throughout all wars, economic depressions, political changes who remains the same, always. Who never gets involved, killed, affected, effected? The people who are beyond the system.
The Monarchy of the World.
They don’t control it or meddle with it, they don’t need to. It functions for itself

If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." - Hazard Circular - London Times 1865


Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits." - Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest man in Britain



oh yeah, any chance of explaining reality please MRFRACTIONMAN?

 

[Jazzz]

It's just quite tedious debating with somebody who keeps on repeating the same mistake.

So, I think you should admit you don't fully understand what's going on here.

There is no difference between a bank accepting promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts and a loan. That is a loan by definition, as your last quote makes clear. Your error, repeated, is that if that credit to the transaction account is taken out and hidden under somebody's bed, no more money can be leant out.

Not my error slaar. But I fancy we are getting somewhere. Now, would you mind telling me where the new loan comes from, if not the bank's computer keyboard? Or do you now concede that banks create credit out of nothing?

The next iteration is dependent on that money being held in the bank, which typically loans are not (most often they are taken out, spent and deposited into a different bank by the recipient); it's not therefore automatic that £10,000 primary deposit can be multiplied into £100,000. It also depends on reserve and liquidity requirements. You're taking a complicated process and turning it into some conspiracy. It doesn't wash.

Ah, in previous posts you were describing it as rather simple. Now you suggest it is complicated! I think you should admit you don't really understand it.

In addition, as White Lotus makes clear, all this is accounted for; banks are held to account for loans they make, consumers for loans they take out. It's a medium of exchange. Banks make a big profit, and many think credit creation should be limited, but money is just a medium of exchange. What really matters, fundamentally, is what an economy is producing, and what people are doing. That's why you can have all the asset bubbles you like holding things up in the short term, but long term it's technological improvement and driving social processes like what's going on in China and India that propel countries forward. Money really doesn't have the significance you claim.

The fact that it is all accounted for has no bearing on it being an outrageous fleece!

Saying banks make a big profit is a wonderful understatement. You know what, if I was allowed to whistle up loans out of thin air I fancy I could make a ridiculous profit too, doubtless you could, and also White Lotus.

Hundred of years ago there was poverty, people who couldn't eat, maybe some without a roof over their head. A large section of society who had to work like crazy just to stay afloat. In all the wondrous technical advancements we've had, all the labour saving, the massively increased ability to produce, transport, distribute - what do we have now? We have people that can't eat, maybe don't have a roof over their head, and many having to work like crazy just to stay afloat.

Have you not stopped to wonder why?

 

[phildwyer]

That is your argument not mine.

Your argument is exchange value and use value.

My argument is that use value is a myth.

The economy is based upon myth, there is no 'real' economy.

That has *become* true in postmodernity, it is not always or necessarily true. The question is how we should *evaluate* the displacement of use-value by exchange-value. I believe it represents the triumph of magical, or Satanic, thinking and thus should be evaluated extremely negatively, and counteracted whenever and however possible.

 

[slaar]

The loan is attached to a real cost, the cost of the possibility of the borrower defaulting, and hence leaving the bank with less money than it started with and unable to meet its legal obligations to depositors, and going bust. That's the whole point, the bank takes a risk by creating credit, and is rewarded for doing so. That's not 'creating it out of nothing", that's capitalism, there's nothing special about it. And, given assets, anyone can start a bank and take those risks.

We're clearly not going to agree on this, so let's leave it up to others to decide which version to take, based on available evidence shall we? There is great dispute over credit creation, but it's nothing so obvious as you are trying to argue, that is my point. I never suggested credit creation was simple, it was your mistake that was simple.

As for the last part, I not only stopped to wonder why, my entire career is based around the problem and it's something I think about just about all the time. That's not inconsistent with different views to yours on capitalism and money, and it's disingenious of you to suggest otherwise.

 

[Jazzz]

I have made no mistake. But let's see what we can agree on. In an earlier post you said;

"Banks can't just type in figures into a spreadsheet and call it money. That's illegal."

Yet this is exactly how credit is created when banks lend money, and unfortunately it is perfectly legal. Do you now accept this?

 

[sleaterkinney]

Well let's see what we can agree on. In an earlier post you said;

"Banks can't just type in figures into a spreadsheet and call it money. That's illegal."

Yet this is exactly how credit is created when banks lend money, and unfortunately it is perfectly legal. Do you now accept this?

There is nothing to say that the credit they give out will be recouped for a profit.

 

[Jazzz]

There is nothing to say that the credit they give out will be recouped for a profit.

err... the interest charge? Securities? Bankruptcy laws? Bailiffs? Court orders?

And when it comes to losing the money, it sure softens the blow that it was simply whistled up out of thin air to begin with. What a hoot!

 

[phildwyer]

Well, lets approach this from an alternative angle.

The value of money changes and so does use value where is the stability for the realness of the economy?

Value of money – is granted as changing
Use value though requires understanding of cultural changes. Cultural changes emerge from where? Multi-lateral points. There is no overseer pulling the strings (in the traditional sense). People have agency to create, change or keep things the same. So use value is emerging from the individual as a personal choice.

You misunderstand the concept of "use-value." It does not mean what a thing is *actually* used for, it means what a thing *is*: its essence.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

The loan is attached to a real cost, the cost of the possibility of the borrower defaulting, and hence leaving the bank with less money than it started with and unable to meet its legal obligations to depositors, and going bust. That's the whole point, the bank takes a risk by creating credit, and is rewarded for doing so.

Well, not really. That may be the moral lesson which the banks draws from its involvement, but it is not that from which the profit is actually created. That derives from their posession of capital and the borrower's absence of same. This unequal position enables the bank to make a profit from lending. They may feel they deserve it, but it is made regardless of whether or not it is deserved.