Introduction to the Reserve Ratio

Introduction to the Reserve Ratio The reserve ratio is the fraction of total deposits that a bank keeps on hand as reserves (i.e. cash in the vault). Technically, the reserve ratio can also take the form of a required reserve ratio, or the fraction of deposits that a bank is required to keep on hand as reserves, or an excess reserve ratio, the fraction of total deposits that a bank chooses to keep as reserves above and beyond what it is required to hold. Now that weve explored the conceptual definition, lets look at a question related to the reserve ratio. Suppose the required reserve ratio is 0.2. If an extra $20 billion in reserves is injected into the banking system through an open market purchase of bonds, by how much can demand deposits increase? Would your answer be different if the required reserve ratio was 0.1? First, well examine what the required reserve ratio is. What Is the Reserve Ratio? The reserve ratio is the percentage of depositors bank balances that the banks have on hand. So if a bank has $10 million in deposits, and $1.5 million of those are currently in the bank, then the bank has a reserve ratio of 15%. In most countries, banks are required to keep a minimum percentage of deposits on hand, known as the required reserve ratio.This required reserve ratio is put in place to ensure that banks do not run out of cash on hand to meet the demand for withdrawals. What do the banks do with the money they dont keep on hand? They loan it out to other customers! Knowing this, we can figure out what happens when the money supply increases. When the Federal Reserve buys bonds on the open market, it buys those bonds from investors, increasing the amount of cash those investors hold. They can now do one of two things with the money: Put it in the bank.Use it to make a purchase (such as a consumer good, or a financial investment like a stock or bond) Its possible they could decide to put the money under their mattress or burn it, but generally, the money will either be spent or put into the bank. If every investor who sold a bond put her money in the bank, bank balances would initially increase by $20 billion dollars. Its likely that some of them will spend the money. When they spend the money, theyre essentially transferring the money to someone else. That someone else will now either put the money in the bank or spend it. Eventually, all of that 20 billion dollars will be put into the bank. So bank balances rise by $20 billion. If the reserve ratio is 20%, then the banks are required to keep $4 billion on hand. The other $16 billion they can loan out. What happens to that $16 billion the banks make in loans? Well, it is either put back into banks, or it is spent. But as before, eventually, the money has to find its way back to a bank. So bank balances rise by an additional $16 billion. Since the reserve ratio is 20%, the bank must hold onto $3.2 billion (20% of $16 billion). That leaves $12.8 billion available to be loaned out. Note that the $12.8 billion is 80% of $16 billion, and $16 billion is 80% of $20 billion. In the first period of the cycle, the bank could loan out 80% of $20 billion, in the second period of the cycle, the bank could loan out 80% of 80% of $20 billion, and so on. Thus the amount of money the bank can loan out in some period ​n of the cycle is given by: $20 billion * (80%)n where n represents what period we are in. To think of the problem more generally, we need to define a few variables: Variables Let A be the amount of money injected into the system (in our case, $20 billion dollars)Let r be the required reserve ratio (in our case 20%).Let T be the total amount the bank loans outAs above, n will represent the period we are in. So the amount the bank can lend out in any period is given by: A*(1-r)n This implies that the total amount the bank loans out is: T A*(1-r)1 A*(1-r)2 A*(1-r)3 ... for every period to infinity. Obviously, we cannot directly calculate the amount the bank loans out each period and sum them all together, as there are an infinite number of terms. However, from mathematics we know the following relationship holds for an infinite series: x1 x2 x3 x4 ... x / (1-x) Notice that in our equation each term is multiplied by A. If we pull that out as a common factor we have: T A[(1-r)1 (1-r)2 (1-r)3 ...] Notice that the terms in the square brackets are identical to our infinite series of x terms, with (1-r) replacing x. If we replace x with (1-r), then the series equals (1-r)/(1 - (1 - r)), which simplifies to 1/r - 1. So the total amount the bank loans out is: T A*(1/r - 1) So if A 20 billion and r 20%, then the total amount the bank loans out is: T $20 billion * (1/0.2 - 1) $80 billion. Recall that all the money that is loaned out is eventually put back into the bank. If we want to know how much total deposits go up, we also need to include the original $20 billion that was deposited in the bank. So the total increase is $100 billion dollars. We can represent the total increase in deposits (D) by the formula: D A T But since T A*(1/r - 1), we have after substitution: D A A*(1/r - 1) A*(1/r). So after all this complexity, we are left with the simple formula D A*(1/r). If our required reserve ratio were instead 0.1, total deposits would go up by $200 billion (D $20b * (1/0.1). With the simple formula D A*(1/r) we can quickly and easily determine what effect an open-market sale of bonds will have on the money supply.

Cómo preparar entrevista remoción condiciones greencard

Cà ³mo preparar entrevista remocià ³n condiciones greencard La entrevista para la remocià ³n de las condiciones de la tarjeta de residencia es un requisito fundamental para convertir en definitiva la green card provisional del cà ³nyuge de un ciudadano estadounidense. Cabe destacar que dicha entrevista solo es necesaria en aquellos casos en los que el migrante recibià ³ la tarjeta de residencia con carcter condicional porque se le aprobà ³ cuando llevaba casado con el ciudadano americano menos de 2 aà ±os.   Esta residencia tambià ©n se conoce con el nombre de CR-1. En otras palabras, esto quiere decir que si los cà ³nyuges ya llevaban 2 aà ±os de casados cuando el esposo/o extranjero recibià ³ la residencia, dicha green card fue ya definitiva y no es necesario hacer este trmite. Entrevista remocià ³n condiciones de green card Solo los cà ³nyuges de ciudadanos estadounidenses que recibieron su green card antes de cumplir dos aà ±os de casados deben solicitar la remocià ³n de condiciones para convertir su tarjeta de residencia en definitiva.La entrevista a los cà ³nyuges por parte de un oficial migratorio es una pieza fundamental en el proceso de remocià ³n de dichas condiciones. La finalidad es convencer al oficial de que se trata de un matrimonio real y no de uno de conveniencia por los papeles.Si la pareja ya se ha divorciado o se ha separado las opciones para que el cà ³nyuge extranjero obtenga la green card definitiva se reducen notablemente, pero hay algunas posibilidades.  ¿Cà ³mo se inicia la remocià ³n de las condiciones de la green card? Debe solicitarse la remocià ³n de las condiciones 90 dà ­as antes de que expire la green card condicional, que tiene fecha de expiracià ³n de dos aà ±os a contar desde la fecha de su aprobacià ³n. Para ello el trmite se inicia completando la planilla I-751. Durante este proceso una de las piezas fundamentales es la entrevista ante un oficial migratorio y a la que deben acudir ambos cà ³nyuges.  ¿Quà © se puede hacer si la fecha de la cita para la entrevista resulta inconveniente? En determinadas circunstancias, Inmigracià ³n puede admitir un cambio en la fecha. Estas son las reglas sobre cà ³mo solicitarlo si no se puede acudir a la cita con el USCIS.  ¿Cunto dura la entrevista para la tarjeta de residencia por matrimonio? La entrevista por parte de un oficial de inmigracià ³n al matrimonio formado por un ciudadano/a americano/a y su esposo o mujer extranjero dura, de media, de diez a quince minutos. Se debe responder de manera concisa a las preguntas. Es altamente recomendable no hablar de asuntos sobre los que no se ha preguntado, entre otras cosas, para evitar problemas por hablar en exceso. Si el oficial  de inmigracià ³n necesita una aclaracià ³n o ms datos, asà ­ lo dir.  ¿Hay algà ºn tipo de preguntas estndar para la entrevista para la green card por matrimonio? En realidad, no existe un listado de preguntas estndar, aunque siempre se pregunta por la fecha de la à ºltima entrada a Estados Unidos por parte del cà ³nyuge extranjero. Asimismo, son tà ­picas las preguntas sobre dà ³nde se conocieron, el nombre de los hermanos de ambos y ciertas cosas personales, sin entrar en la intimidad de la pareja ni tampoco asuntos rebuscados. Tambià ©n pueden preguntar sobre el hogar familiar, las familias respectivas, etc. Este es un ejemplo de 65 preguntas que pueden hacer en la entrevista, pero el oficial migratorio puede preguntar cualquier cosa que estime pertinente y que le sirva para determinar si se trata de un matrimonio de buena fe.  ¿Quà © documentacià ³n debe llevarse a la entrevista? Para ingresar al edificio donde tendr lugar la entrevista es necesario llevar un I.D. oficial emitido por el gobierno. En el caso del ciudadano estadounidense puede ser la licencia de manejar, pasaporte, identificacià ³n militar, etc. En el caso del cà ³nyuge extranjero se admite su pasaporte, aunque està © expirado. Adems, es necesario llevar el original de toda la documentacià ³n de la que se envià ³ fotocopia cuando se realizà ³ la aplicacià ³n. El fin es que el oficial de inmigracià ³n pueda comparar el original con la copia. Asimismo, debe llevarse original y fotocopia)de documentos que no existà ­an en el momento en el que se envià ³ la solicitud de tarjeta de residencia para el cà ³nyuge extranjero. Por ejemplo, ya que se trata de un matrimonio, puede suceder que hayan sido padres de un nià ±o o una nià ±a despuà ©s de la solicitud. Entonces debe llevarse copia oficial del acta de nacimiento y fotocopia de la misma. Tambià ©n deben llevarse al dà ­a la documentacià ³n sobre pago de impuestos, ingresos, etc. Asimismo, llevar fotocopias en color de las fotografà ­as de la pareja colocadas en grupos de dos o tres en una misma hoja, seà ±alando los nombres de los que aparecen en las mismas, fecha en la que fueron tomadas y lugar. Es muy recomendable que alguna de ellas tenga como objeto reuniones familiares. Se puede llevar el lbum de bodas, pero no hay que fotocopiarlo.  ¿Quà © puede suceder tras la entrevista? Es posible que se notifique justo despuà ©s de la entrevista que ha tenido lugar la remocià ³n de ls condiciones, pero es ms comà ºn es que el oficial de inmigracià ³n decida notificar por correo. Tambià ©n puede ocurrir que se solicite ms documentacià ³n. En este caso entregar a la pareja una hoja con el listado de documentos que faltan y el plazo mximo para enviarlos. Para evitar problemas es recomendable enviarlos por correo certificado en la que quede constancia de la fecha. Y por supuesto que el oficial de inmigracià ³n puede negar la peticià ³n de la tarjeta de residencia porque cree que puede tratarse de un fraude, en otras palabras, un matrimonio falso para conseguir los papeles. En este caso, puede haber consecuencias legales, adems de no obtener la green card.  ¿Quà © sucede cuando la pareja se separa antes de la entrevista? Por razones varias, el matrimonio puede separarse o divorciarse antes de que la tarjeta de residencia se convierta en definitiva. En la mayorà ­a de los casos eso significar que el migrante se quedar sin la tarjeta de residencia y deber abandonar Estados Unidos a menos que cuenta con otra cobertura legal que le permita mantener un estatus migratorio legal en el paà ­s. Sin embargo, cabe destacar que en determinadas ocasiones hay opciones para el cà ³nyuge extranjero para que pueda obtener una tarjeta de residencia definitiva. a pesar del divorcio, si se cumplen una serie de requisitos. A tener en cuenta: ventajas e inconvenientes de matrimonio con ciudadano Los cà ³nyuges de ciudadanos americanos pueden solicitar la ciudadanà ­a por naturalizacià ³n a los tres aà ±os de convertirse en residentes permanentes. A diferencia de lo que ocurre con el resto de los inmigrantes, que deben esperar cinco aà ±os. Por otro lado, casarse con un estadounidense no garantiza ni parar un procedimiento de deportacià ³n ni que se pueda sacar  la green card. La situacià ³n es complicada en los casos en los que el cà ³nyuge extranjero ingresà ³ a EE.UU. cruzando ilegalmente la frontera. Tambià ©n tienen un problema serio los migrantes que han sido condenados por alguna felonà ­a. En estos casos, lo recomendable es asesorarse con un buen abogado migratorio y ver si se podrà ­a calificar para un perdà ³n provisional o, si no es posible, cules son las posibles opciones. Este es un artà ­culo informativo. No es asesorà ­a legal.

Documentary Summaries Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Documentary Summaries - Essay Example Lars Larson, a gay man, is the documentary’s first interviewee and speaks positively and in an undisguised manner about being a homosexual. The interview is followed by a CBS News poll that shows opinions from Americans that homosexuality harms America even more than prostitution or adultery. Another gay man is interviewed and he talks about coming out and being treated like a wounded animal, which differs from the opinion of the next interviewee, Warren Adkins, who claims his family treated him warmly. The documentary then talks about homosexuality’s legal aspects with North Carolina Judge James Craven, who notes that the US should decriminalize homosexuality like in England. Frank Kameny, the co-founder of the Washington D.C. Mattachine branch then makes an impassioned plea to allow security clearance for homosexuals. There is also a debate on homosexuality between Albert Goldman and Gore Vidal who argue for and against homosexuality respectively. The interviews end w ith a family man who claims he is gay and that the US was too narcissistic for two men to form a long-term relationship. The documentary ends with the filmmaker contending that the homosexual in America is anonymous, displaced, and an outsider. One of the most poignant moments in the documentary is the short interview involving the gay man, Warren Adkins, who contends that one’s sexual orientation is their innermost aspect and that, just as a heterosexual would not give their orientation up; a homosexual like himself would not either (Kraemer 1). He responds to a question on what causes him to be a homosexual by saying that he does not concern himself with it, putting his homosexuality in the same category as having blonde hair. He contends that he does not dwell on why he is gay, just as a person with blonde hair would not worry about the chromosomes or genes that caused them to have blonde hair. As a part of the broadcast documentary’s research, the TV station carrie d out a demographic survey, which found that at least 90% of people in the US considered homosexuality to be a sickness (Kraemer 1). Majority of them even favored legal punishment for acts of homosexuality carried out anywhere, including sex between two consenting adult males in private. One fascinating aspect of this segment is the manner in which it completely neglects to do a survey on lesbians as part of the society of homosexuals, while also portraying homosexual men as incapable of being monogamous long-term unions and as naturally promiscuous. Even as this point to the failures of civil rights and general trauma that these issues caused in the late 60s, it is interesting that the same debate rages on to date as the world argues on gay marriage and the right of gay men and lesbians to legalize their monogamous relationships in the long term. It leaves one wondering whether a documentary made on lesbians and gays today would sound as antiquated and foreign as this documentary f ifty six years from today (Kraemer 1). While this documentary was made and released at a time when the United States had transgender people, bisexuals, gay men, and lesbians had come out, these people were fewer than they are today, as well as courageous (Kraemer 1). This documentary is particularly important when looking at the people, in this case men, who have fought for the equality of homosexuals in society. Because these people were courageous enough to be on a documentary, including Albert Goldman and Lars Larsson, they made things happen and were important in the progress made towards equality. This documentary, especially its uninspiring and biased ending that claims homosexuals are