Bernie Sanders the FRAUD Hypocrite

[Ender]

what about my loan example? as long as people are liable for their risks i see no issue. if the insurance company had to pay out to everyone at the same time, it would be the same as a FRB having every deposit/lender wanting their loan back at the same time. I think we can agree on the fed which does multiply the money supply through FRB in a run away fashion. There should not be the authority to do such things, just as there should not be the authority to prevent someone from risking their money if they choose to lend it out. as long as people are liable for their risks.

Insurance is also a scam.

My Grandfather always said it was a poker game- he's betting there will be no disaster in his life- the insurance co betting there will be.

 

[Gumba of Liberty]

what about my loan example? as long as people are liable for their risks i see no issue. if the insurance company had to pay out to everyone at the same time, it would be the same as a FRB having every deposit/lender wanting their loan back at the same time. I think we can agree on the fed which does multiply the money supply through FRB in a run away fashion. There should not be the authority to do such things, just as there should not be the authority to prevent someone from risking their money if they choose to lend it out. as long as people are liable for their risks.

Again, not exactly. Imagine if a casino did not have enough money to pay out their winners, what would happen? The winners would sue and take the assets of the casino. If the casino did not have enough assets to cover the balance then the winners would take the assets of the owners of the casino (limited-liability is fictional). The same thing would happen if an insurance company, without sufficient funding, was able to convince people into making monthly payments. In the end, the insurance company would get sued and forfeit their assets. Now, if the company put a clause into their contract that said that they would be unable to pay if fill-in-the-blank happened, fully-disclosed to the customer, then the insurance company would be in the right.

Regardless, neither example is the same as fractional-reserve banking which would be the equivalent of a casino issuing more chips than cash it has on hand or insurance companies which promise more benefits by using the money of new beneficiaries to pay old beneficiaries (Ponzi Scheme). It must be understood that fractional-reserve anything makes that institution more profitable in the short-term but more unstable in the long-term and this has devastating effects on the economy especially when money, one-half of every transaction, is the product being manipulated. If you want a stable, sustainable, free and moral civilization you must not allow businesses to claim to have more assets than they actually have. Again, Rothbard has the answer you are looking for. I appreciate the discussion though, I have not had this much fun on RPF's in a while.

 

[afwjam]

But aren't you forgetting all the people who borrowed the money from the bank, they have promised to pay it back and they most likely have assets of value bought with the money borrowed. Now if they deposit the money borrowed and the bank loans it out again it would seem to be creating more on the balance sheet then there are assets to back it up, but I really don't think that's what someone would borrow money for. I'm not a fan of FRB or insurance companies, casinos or socialism. But if I'm not forced to be part of it and those that do take the risk are held liable, I'm not seeing a problem with it. If a FRB had a run, I assume they would have to call in all the loans, if they could not raise the assets the bank would be delinquent and in debt to the depositors, who assuming a free market most likely signed onto the risk in contract with the hopes of getting more money back then they deposited, kinda like buying stock in a company. I also enjoy having "real" discussions here on RPF, it's a hell of a lot better then the gossiping and story telling folks seem to like around here these days.

 

[Gumba of Liberty]

But aren't you forgetting all the people who borrowed the money from the bank, they have promised to pay it back and they most likely have assets of value bought with the money borrowed. Now if they deposit the money borrowed and the bank loans it out again it would seem to be creating more on the balance sheet then there are assets to back it up, but I really don't think that's what someone would borrow money for. I'm not a fan of FRB or insurance companies, casinos or socialism. But if I'm not forced to be part of it and those that do take the risk are held liable, I'm not seeing a problem with it. If a FRB had a run, I assume they would have to call in all the loans, if they could not raise the assets the bank would be delinquent and in debt to the depositors, who assuming a free market most likely signed onto the risk in contract with the hopes of getting more money back then they deposited, kinda like buying stock in a company. I also enjoy having "real" discussions here on RPF, it's a hell of a lot better then the gossiping and story telling folks seem to like around here these days.

I understand your premise but here is my problem with it:

If Person A pays Person B every month in exchange for Person B providing Person A with a future service (Insurance). I see nothing wrong with that.
If Person A places a bet with Person B in exchange for the opportunity to increase the size of their holdings (Casino). I see nothing wrong with that.
If Person A trusts Person B to hold, save and allow them access on demand to their money and Person B loans Person A's money to Person C. I see a problem with that. In this situation Person A & C both claim the same asset at the same time. (FR Banking) This is an accounting trick, otherwise known as fraud and bankers should be held accountable for this manipulation.

 

[Ender]

I understand your premise but here is my problem with it:

If Person A pays Person B every month in exchange for Person B providing Person A with a future service (Insurance). I see nothing wrong with that.
If Person A places a bet with Person B in exchange for the opportunity to increase the size of their holdings (Casino). I see nothing wrong with that.
If Person A trusts Person B to hold, save and allow them access on demand to their money and Person B loans Person A's money to Person C. I see a problem with that. In this situation Person A & C both claim the same asset at the same time. (FR Banking) This is an accounting trick, otherwise known as fraud and bankers should be held accountable for this manipulation.

'Zactly.

 

[Ender]

But aren't you forgetting all the people who borrowed the money from the bank, they have promised to pay it back and they most likely have assets of value bought with the money borrowed. Now if they deposit the money borrowed and the bank loans it out again it would seem to be creating more on the balance sheet then there are assets to back it up, but I really don't think that's what someone would borrow money for. I'm not a fan of FRB or insurance companies, casinos or socialism. But if I'm not forced to be part of it and those that do take the risk are held liable, I'm not seeing a problem with it. If a FRB had a run, I assume they would have to call in all the loans, if they could not raise the assets the bank would be delinquent and in debt to the depositors, who assuming a free market most likely signed onto the risk in contract with the hopes of getting more money back then they deposited, kinda like buying stock in a company. I also enjoy having "real" discussions here on RPF, it's a hell of a lot better then the gossiping and story telling folks seem to like around here these days.

And thanks for that- very refreshing to read & partake in discussions that don't turn into name-calling crapola. I've learned a lot from real and thought-provoking POVs from others that don't necessarily jibe with mine.

 

[RJB]

Insurance is also a scam.

My Grandfather always said it was a poker game- he's betting there will be no disaster in his life- the insurance co betting there will be.

I see it more as the insurance company are betting that their lawyers will "prove" that your disaster is actually not a disaster that warrants you getting your money back.