Fractional reserve lending is NOT inherently fraudulent


Bad premises:

1. Banks are “inherently bankrupt” because they issue far more warehouse
receipts to cash (


You assume reciepts of cash that represent a physical commodity are the only form of currency or money. That's why your head is stuck on "you can't have more titles than cars".

2.
But a 100 percent gold reserve requirement would not be just
another administrative control by government; it would be part
and parcel of the general libertarian legal prohibition against
fraud.

Only if customers have demanded that gold was the only acceptable form of money to start with. If customers didn't care, or agreed to have alternative forms of currency, devalued upon the banker's will, what's fraud about it?
 
Optatron, are you a state agent sent to this website as part of an undercover operation intending to undermine and obfuscate the freedom movement with convoluted and misdirecting arguments which attempt in some way to justify the existence of that state?


-Rob
 
Optatron, are you a state agent sent to this website as part of an undercover operation intending to undermine and obfuscate the freedom movement with convoluted and misdirecting arguments which attempt in some way to justify the existence of that state?


-Rob

He's working for the FED. :eek:
 
Bad premises:

1. Banks are “inherently bankrupt” because they issue far more warehouse
receipts to cash (


You assume reciepts of cash that represent a physical commodity are the only form of currency or money. That's why your head is stuck on "you can't have more titles than cars".

XVII. INDIRECT EXCHANGE

11. The Money-Substitutes

Claims to a definite amount of money, payable and redeemable on demand, against a debtor about whose solvency and willingness to pay there does not prevail the slightest doubt, render to the individual all the services money can render, provided that all parties with whom he could possibly transact business are perfectly familiar with these essential qualities of the claims concerned: daily maturity as well as undoubted solvency and willingness to pay on the part of the debtor. We may call such claims money-substitutes, as they can fully replace money in an individual's or a firm's cash holding. The technical and legal features of the money-substitutes do not concern catallactics. A money-substitute can be embodied either in a banknote or in a demand deposit with a bank subject to check ("checkbook money" or deposit currency), provided the bank is prepared to [p. 433] exchange the note or the deposit daily free of charge against money proper. Token coins are also money-substitutes, provided the owner is in a position to exchange them at need, free of expense and without delay, against money. To achieve this it is not required that the government be bound by law to redeem them. What counts is the fact that these tokens can be really converted free of expense and without delay. If the total amount of token coins issued is kept within reasonable limits, no special provisions on the part of the government are necessary to keep their exchange value at par with their face value. The demand of the public for small change gives everybody the opportunity to exchange them easily against pieces of money. The main thing is that every owner of a money-substitute is perfectly certain that it can, at every instant and free of expense, be exchanged against money.

If the debtor--the government or a bank--keeps against the whole amount of money-substitutes a 100% reserve of money proper, we call the money-substitute a money-certificate. The individual money-certificate is--not necessarily in a legal sense, but always in the catallactic sense--a representative of a corresponding amount of money dept in the reserve. The issuing of money-certificates does not increase the quantity of things suitable to satisfy the demand for money for cash holding. Changes in the quantity of money-certificates therefore do not alter the supply of money and the money relation. They do not play any role in the determination of the purchasing power of money.

If the money reserve kept by the debtor against the money-substitutes issued is less than the total amount of such substitutes, we call that amount of substitutes which exceeds the reserve fiduciary media. As a rule it is not possible to ascertain whether a concrete specimen of money-substitutes is a money-certificate or a fiduciary medium. A part of the total amount of money-substitutes issued is usually covered by a money reserve held. Thus a part of the total amount of money-substitutes issued is money certificates, the rest fiduciary media. But this fact can only be recognized by those familiar with the bank's balance sheets. The individual banknote, deposit, or token coin does not indicate its catallactic character.

The issue of money-certificates does not increase the funds which the bank can employ in the conduct to its lending business. A bank which does not issue fiduciary media can only grant commodity credit, i.e., it can only lend its own funds and the amount of money which its customers have entrusted to it. The issue of fiduciary media enlarges the bank's funds available for lending beyond these limits. [p. 434] It can now not only grant commodity credit, but also circulation credit, i.e., credit granted out of the issue of fiduciary media.

While the quantity of money-certificates is indifferent, the quantity of fiduciary media is not. The fiduciary media affect the market phenomena in the same way as money does. Changes in their quantity influence the determination of money's purchasing power and of prices and--temporarily--also of the rate of interest.

Earlier economists applied a different terminology. Many were prepared to call the money-substitutes simply money, as they are fit to render the services money renders. However, this terminology is not expedient. The first purpose of a scientific terminology is to facilitate the analysis of the problems involved. The task of the catallactic theory of money--as differentiated from the legal theory and from the technical disciplines of bank management and accountancy--is the study of the problems of the determination of prices and interest rates. This task requires a sharp distinction between money-certificates and fiduciary media.

The term credit expansion has often been misinterpreted. It is important to realize that commodity credit cannot be expanded. The only vehicle of credit expansion is circulation credit. But the granting of circulation credit does not always mean credit expansion. If the amount of fiduciary media previously issued has consummated all its effects upon the market, if prices, wage rates, and interest rates have been adjusted to the total supply of money proper plus fiduciary media (supply of money in the broader sense), granting of circulation credit without a further increase in the quantity of fiduciary media is no longer credit expansion. Credit expansion is present only if credit is granted by the issue of an additional amount of fiduciary media, not if banks lend anew fiduciary media paid back to them by the old debtors.

2.But a 100 percent gold reserve requirement would not be just
another administrative control by government; it would be part
and parcel of the general libertarian legal prohibition against
fraud.

Only if customers have demanded that gold was the only acceptable form of money to start with. If customers didn't care, or agreed to have alternative forms of currency, devalued upon the banker's will, what's fraud about it?

Representing more property, than there actually is = Fraud, and thus implicit theft. See the non government counterfeiting chapter 14, of Defending the Undefendable.. it ideals with what you are talking about. FRB = Fraud. You move the goal posts and post something that isn't actually FRB and try make the case for it. Fail.
 
Optatron, are you a state agent sent to this website as part of an undercover operation intending to undermine and obfuscate the freedom movement with convoluted and misdirecting arguments which attempt in some way to justify the existence of that state?


-Rob

short answer : no

I wish I was paid for posting.

2nd, undermine the freedom movement?

If you say so.
 
Would rate of inflation be controlled if we had the latter?

Some may have such priveleges, but to say or think all banks can do that is to undermine the authority and need for the Fed, ain't it?

Well, you need to realize that all of the banks in the US are basically extensions of the Fed. The Fed prints the money more or less at the request of the banks (or the government, or anyone else that's well connected), just like blood flows from the heart to the muscles when they are working. Although the Fed is in control, and cuts them off when it wants to (generally according to policy, but it seems that they can violate their own policies at will, whenever they "need" to, so it's totally arbitrary now).

That, combined with the practice of printing money for government use (where the government bails out banks via special programs and the FDIC) is what causes inflation.
 
As we discussed in many previous threads, there's a difference between

A. Taking $10 in, lending $9, keeping only $1.
vs.
B. Taking $10 in, claiming to have $100, and lending out $90.
vs.
C. Taking $10, keeping it all.

A. Is the typical bank operation of fractional reserve
B. Is outright printing money, increasing money supply, "lending money that doesn't exist"
C. Simply depositing money and doing nothing with it.

The act of A in and of itself is NOT fraudulent, it ONLY is fraudulent if the depositor of the original $10 was told he can cash it at any time, and it won't be lent out without his consent (it which case, it's a broken promise or breach of contract). It's also fraudulent if a borrower was told the $9 he borrows wasn't originally borrowed from somebody else, and isn't aware can be asked back any time.

http://www.market-ticker.org/archives/1019-Rebuttal-To-Mish-FRL.html

WHAT'S WRONG WITH FRACTIONAL RESERVE AND LENDING IF EVERY PERSON AFFECTED AGREES TO EVERY PART OF IT?

Fraud means somebody was lied to, somebody was not told the whole story, but what if DEPOSITOR KNOWS, BANKS KNOWS, BORROWER KNOWS, ALL AGREE?

Nice post.

I think "A" is the true meaning of the term, "Fractional Banking". It was adopted to make it possible to keep money on hand for the depositors that needed to get their money out. If a bunch of people made a run on a bank, other banks could lend their reserves to them and keep ahead of it.

Since that time I think A,B, and C have been adopted in a feeding frenzy of illicit lending.

The main fundamental flaw in the whole system is fiat currency. It allows our government to create interest bearing treasury notes out of thin air to give to the Federal Reserve system to hold for the fake money it creates out of thin air.

That alone has done away with the ability for freedom to flourish anywhere in the world. No matter who you are, or where you are, if you our your friends decide on any venture using real assets or hard earned money those that control the fiat banking system can get their own way over yours. All they have to do is fire up their presses!

I've seen it used against supposedly free people all of my life.

Take for instance the stock market. I've seen it on the news many times where they get on and tell you the market is up because of this lame excuse or that but have they ever gotten on and said the stock market is up because the people that didn't' have any money, wanted to get their way, so they printed a bunch up and deflated the value of the real hard earned money people held in their pockets?

Take a look. They must of reprinted the real money at least ten times over.

2508h-inflationgraph.jpg


Now look at the Dow Industrial Average going up. Is it going up today because some bozo did or didn't find a boil on his butt?

30DJIA.jpg


All of my life every raise that I got I thought I was getting a little ahead for myself. All the while I was either going nowhere or getting farther behind because of people in the government spending money they don't have and deflating the value of the real money people have in their pockets. It is sort of a hidden tax on top of all of the other taxes and new rules we have to follow.

Is it any wonder people can no longer afford to go to work and make a living?
 
In the above Consumer Price Index chart see how the little bump occurred when we created fiat money for some of the wars like the war for independence. When we went back to money that represented real assets it always returned to representing a real value.

Now we have some many wars going I can't even keep track of them all. I think out of the 150 countries or so in the world we have troops stationed in about 120 of them.

It is not only the fake money created to wage war against others the undermines the value of the dollar, take a look at the new health plan. They are using money to sell the American people on their version of a health care plan. It seems to me to be the agenda of the globalist to get this plan through. The president says it will be for every body. That is six billion people at my last count as we no longer have any borders.

Also do we really need the government to print up money for government front organizations like La Raza or the political parties for that matter? Couldn't we all give all we want to them on our own if we were ever allowed to receive all of the money we earned at work?
 
Last edited:
Nice post.


Is it any wonder people can no longer afford to go to work and make a living?

Why is when people show a chart of US dollar, or CPI, inflation, they MUST always show data that extends before 1913?

As if nothing else changed for 100 years.
 
A good summary of free-banking's defense of the possibility of non-fraudulent fractional reserve banking from Lawrence White:

Gold standard advocates should also find deregulation of inside
money congenial with their free-market outlook. Some have, it is
true, defended 100 percent reserve requirements on banknotes and
demand deposits on the grounds that fractional reserve banking is
somehow inherently fraudulent.’
6 But it is difficult to see why fraud
is inherent in the issue of—as opposed to the failure to redeem—
ready claims to gold against which less than a 100 percent reserve is
held at any moment, provided that the claimholders not be misled
about the arrangement. If it is inherently fraudulent for a bank, is it
also inherently fradulent for an insurance company to issue more
claims than it could redeem were all to come due at a single moment?
It seems more just to say that a claimholder suffers an actionable
breach of contract only when the claim issuer actually fails to honor
the claim, not when the issuer’s ability to honor all its claims (in the
event of their arriving simultaneously and unexpectedly) falls below
100 percent. It is at least not clear why such a non-bailment contract
between bank and customer is inadmissible. The legal prohibition
of fractional-reserve banking would mean an abridgement of freedom
of contract and a blockage of opportunities for mutually beneficial
exchange. Under a gold coin standard with deregulation of inside
money, those individuals who insist on 100 percent bank liquidity
could have their wants satisfied by 100 percent reserve institutions.
Individuals who prefer the higher interest that a fractional-reserve
bank can pay (because it holds some interest-earning assets) would
likewise be free to hold contractual claims to gold issued by those
institutions. Historical experience with free banking in Scotland indi-
cates that fractional-reserve banks under conditions of free contract
can operate with sufficient security to outcompete 100 percent reserve
banks totally, though this fact of course does not answer the normative
jurisprudential question of whether such freedom of contract should
be allowed.
 
Optatron, are you a state agent sent to this website as part of an undercover operation intending to undermine and obfuscate the freedom movement with convoluted and misdirecting arguments which attempt in some way to justify the existence of that state?


-Rob

Optatron is completely wrong about everything he posts especially the stuff in this thread. Just add him to your ignore list like I did. It isn't worth arguing with an irrational person.



Fractional reserve banking IS fraud. There is no way around that. And you cannot contract or inform your way around that. That would just make the people you contract with co-conspirators. It is a fraud against everyone who holds money.

Conza is right. Optatron is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Optatron is completely wrong about everything he posts especially the stuff in this thread. Just add him to your ignore list like I did. It isn't worth arguing with an irrational person.



Fractional reserve banking IS fraud. There is no way around that. And you cannot contract or inform your way around that. That would just make the people you contract with co-conspirators. It is a fraud against everyone who holds money.

Conza is right. Optatron is wrong.

that hurts my feelings.
 
Is insurance inherently fraudulent?

It depends on the structure of the plan. FDIC insurance is inherently fraudulent because it was easily proven this past year that they do not have the money to back the amount of bank failures that occurred. AIG's insurance operation was inherently fraudulent. It is possible to model an insurance portfolio by extending more potential claims than collateral you have to back it up. I'm not opposed to regulating insurance companies to prevent excessive practices that firms that AIG put forth. IMO, insurance is one of the worst functions that exist in society. They are designed to provide safety nets. Outside of catastrophic occurrences, the most important safety net that people should have is a high savings rate. If our government wants to act totalitarian, they should force people to save. Ironically, their use of force would truly be acting in our best interest. This is how Singapore has managed to fund it's entire health care system. They literally force people to put a percentage of their paycheck into a savings account that can only be used for health care. As forceful and totalitarian as it sounds, it's worked much better than the friggin socialist single payer health care systems proposed by all kinds of nutjobs in Academia and Government. Not for nothing, but most of us don't need insurance.
 
Optatron is completely wrong about everything he posts especially the stuff in this thread. Just add him to your ignore list like I did. It isn't worth arguing with an irrational person.



Fractional reserve banking IS fraud. There is no way around that. And you cannot contract or inform your way around that. That would just make the people you contract with co-conspirators. It is a fraud against everyone who holds money.

Conza is right. Optatron is wrong.

Not all fractional reserve banking involves national currencies. Many banks did it quite successfully using gold and silver back in the 1800's. The CURRENT system is fraudulent, but NOT ALL systems involving fractional reserve banking are. That is the point of this thread, and you sadly missed it.
 
It depends on the structure of the plan. FDIC insurance is inherently fraudulent because it was easily proven this past year that they do not have the money to back the amount of bank failures that occurred. AIG's insurance operation was inherently fraudulent. It is possible to model an insurance portfolio by extending more potential claims than collateral you have to back it up. I'm not opposed to regulating insurance companies to prevent excessive practices that firms that AIG put forth. IMO, insurance is one of the worst functions that exist in society. They are designed to provide safety nets. Outside of catastrophic occurrences, the most important safety net that people should have is a high savings rate. If our government wants to act totalitarian, they should force people to save. Ironically, their use of force would truly be acting in our best interest. This is how Singapore has managed to fund it's entire health care system. They literally force people to put a percentage of their paycheck into a savings account that can only be used for health care. As forceful and totalitarian as it sounds, it's worked much better than the friggin socialist single payer health care systems proposed by all kinds of nutjobs in Academia and Government. Not for nothing, but most of us don't need insurance.
I agree under the condition you drop "inherent" as a description of the fraud of AIG. While one may argue with the intelligence of CDS and the models used to calculate risk of default, I see no reason why such contracts are inherently fraudulent. They only became a vehicle for fraud (a term which implies intentional wrongdoing) once it was obvious that there would be a lot of defaults and there was no way AIG could make payments on their obligations.
 
Not all fractional reserve banking involves national currencies. Many banks did it quite successfully using gold and silver back in the 1800's. The CURRENT system is fraudulent, but NOT ALL systems involving fractional reserve banking are. That is the point of this thread, and you sadly missed it.

No all fractional systems are fraudulent. The one now used is. So were all the previous ones since the English goldsmiths invented it. National or local. They are all fraudulent. I don't care if they were successful. What does that have to do with anything? Lots of frauds are successful. If any bank loans out any money that another person has the ability to withdraw it is fraud no matter who knows about it or what contracts you made. Loaning out money in a CD isn't fraud. The depositor does not have access to the money at the time. Any time the depositor has access to the money/gold/silver and it is loaned out that money is on the books twice and increases the amount of money in the system. That is fraud.
 
Is insurance inherently fraudulent?

no, but lottery, retail and alternative health products are.

No matter who agrees, as long as you don't delivery 100% of your promises, it's fraud.

This is coming from somebody who believes it's OK to copy somebody's book without permission and compensation, that you can't own ideas of intellectual property, but somehow you don't get to utter the words "this represents gold" if you don't literally mean it (and if you do, you're a fraudster if you don't deliver).
 
No all fractional systems are fraudulent. The one now used is. So were all the previous ones since the English goldsmiths invented it. National or local. They are all fraudulent. I don't care if they were successful. What does that have to do with anything? Lots of frauds are successful. If any bank loans out any money that another person has the ability to withdraw it is fraud no matter who knows about it or what contracts you made. Loaning out money in a CD isn't fraud. The depositor does not have access to the money at the time. Any time the depositor has access to the money/gold/silver and it is loaned out that money is on the books twice and increases the amount of money in the system. That is fraud.

No, it doesn't increase the money if it's not being used or circulated, also, if it's not in the terms of agreement where, how the money is represented, or the loaning party fails to verify the existence of the money, it's THEIR FAULT.

By your definition, selling tobacco is fraud because they didn't tell you it's absolutely deadly for you.
 
I want to clear something up. Fractional reserve banking does multiply money. Going back to the original post, it's true that the banks are practicing scenario A (deposit $10, lend out $9) but the end result is scenario B (deposit $10, $100 in credit gets created) Here's how:

The fed gives $10 to bank A.
Bank A lends $9 to borrower A.
Borrower A gives the check for $9 from bank A to pay depositor B.
Depositor B deposits the $9 check in bank B.

Bank B returns the check to bank A, and bank A gives $9 in actual reserves to bank B.
Bank B deposits $0.90 in reserve, and lends out $8.10 to borrower B.
Borrower B pays depositor C with the $8.10.
Depositor C deposits $8.10 in bank C.

Bank C returns the check to bank B, and bank B gives $8.10 in actual reserves to bank C.
Bank C deposits $0.81 in reserve, and lends out $7.29 to borrower C.
Borrower C pays depositor D with the $7.29.
Depositor D deposits the $7.29 in bank D.

Bank D deposits $0.72 and lends out $6.57.
Bank E deposits $0.65 and lends out $5.91.
Bank F deposits $0.59 and lends out $5.32.
Bank G deposits $0.53 and lends out $4.78.


And so on and so forth.
At this point, the total amount of credit extended to the people is:
$9 + $8.10 + $7.29 + $6.57 + $5.91 + $5.32 + $4.78 = $46.97

So that's $46.97 worth of credit chasing $10 of actual reserves. So when all is said and done, the banks really are holding in reserve a fraction of what they lent out. It's not too hard to see how $10 becomes $100 through this process.
 
Back
Top