Fractional reserve vs. ZERO reserve banking

[jon_perez]

"Curiously, many people have argued that it would be impossible for banks to make money if they were to operate on this “100 percent reserve” basis (gold always represented by its receipt).

... We come now to perhaps the thorniest problem facing
the monetary economist: an evaluation of “fractional reserve banking.” We must ask the question: would fractional reserve banking be permitted in a free market, or would it be proscribed as fraud?"...​

Ummm.... The exact question I have is through what mechanism does Rothbard propose that 100% reserve banking be implemented? Is it through a body with regulatory powers such as a central bank? If not via legally enforced regulation, then through what? Out of a banker's inate goodness and honesty??? Maybe you were counting on the latter! ROTFLMAO!

Check all my posts carefully, nowhere have I said that Rothbard was advocating fractional reserve at all, so I don't know which hat (or orifice, most probably) you are pulling all this stuff from.

So far, you are getting an F in understanding. F for f*ked up.

Private courts mate. Don't worry, you're still learning.

Sorry, I don't think you understand your Rothbard at all. Please read some more and this time with sincere effort.

 

[jon_perez]

I don't like doing this but here's the definition of FRAUD

1 a: deceit, trickery ; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick

2 a: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor ; also : one who defrauds : cheat b: one that is not what it seems or is represented to be

Whats wrong with two people agreeing what to do with their own money & wealth?

What's wrong with a bank devaluing the money the customer has no problem devaluing? How is CONSENTED MODIFICATION OR ALTERATION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY FRAUD?

Hehe, at this point Conza88's feet are so far up his mouth and @ss that all the shouting we hear are from the pain of him trying to pull them out.

 

[Conza88]

Ummm.... The exact question I have is through what mechanism does Rothbard propose that 100% reserve banking be implemented? Is it through a body with regulatory powers such as a central bank? If not via legally enforced regulation, then through what? Out of a banker's inate goodness and honesty??? Maybe you were counting on the latter! ROTFLMAO!

OH LMFAO, maybe you should READ THE FCKEN TEXT? No?

Would that be a way of getting your answer? Hmmm? A chapter too big for you?

You think all those options you gave are the only alternatives? eh? Wow.. so ignorant.

The mechanism.. Competition. You know the market.. the risk of runs... Fraud.. you don't think there is a market for justice? Hoowww retarded of you.

Check all my posts carefully, nowhere have I said that Rothbard was advocating fractional reserve at all, so I don't know which hat (or orifice, most probably) you are pulling all this stuff from.

So far, you are getting an F in understanding. F for f*ked up.

Sorry, I don't think you understand your Rothbard at all. Please read some more and this time with sincere effort.

And you're getting an F for failure to comprehend.

 

[Conza88]

Hehe, at this point Conza88's feet are so far up his mouth and @ss that all the shouting we hear are from the pain of him trying to pull them out.

Don't waste my time. Please refute these articles. They explain my position. I agree with them entirely, the arguments are sound.

Refute them and you refute me.

Is Fractional Reserve Banking Fraudulent? by Walter Block

What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray N. Rothbard

Fractional Reserve Banking by Murray N. Rothbard

See sig. Nuff' said.

 

[Volitzer]

The Money Masters.

The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America

 

[Optatron]

Don't waste my time. Please refute these articles.

Refute the articles because you're already refuted?

Or the articles don't even address whether VOLUNTARY, CONSENSUAL fractional banking is acceptable?

I found this in Block's text

Because there is no such thing as a square circle, and, in order for a contract to be a valid one, not only must both parties agree to it (neither lies to the other), but, also, the contract must be in accordance with LOGIC (e.g., the law of non contradiction), and "sales" of square circles clearly are not compatible with that consideration.

This blatantly ignores that if two people agree what a SQUARE CIRCLE IS, WHY IS THAT WRONG?

Or, if "square circle" is "nothing", and two people agree, "I give you $2 in exchange for SC" actually just means "I give you $2 in exchange for nothing" to you.
Why is that wrong?

A square circle doesn't exist in your understanding, but why is it your business if two people can agree on what they want between each other?

 

[Conza88]

Refute the articles because you're already refuted?

Or the articles don't even address whether VOLUNTARY, CONSENSUAL fractional banking is acceptable?

I found this in Block's text

Because there is no such thing as a square circle, and, in order for a contract to be a valid one, not only must both parties agree to it (neither lies to the other), but, also, the contract must be in accordance with LOGIC (e.g., the law of non contradiction), and "sales" of square circles clearly are not compatible with that consideration.

This blatantly ignores that if two people agree what a SQUARE CIRCLE IS, WHY IS THAT WRONG?

Or, if "square circle" is "nothing", and two people agree, "I give you $2 in exchange for SC" actually just means "I give you $2 in exchange for nothing" to you.
Why is that wrong?

A square circle doesn't exist in your understanding, but why is it your business if two people can agree on what they want between each other?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block110.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block111.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block114.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block120.html

 

[Optatron]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block111.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block114.html

as I' answered above

. I did so because there is no such thing as a square circle; thus, buying or selling one of these would be incompatible with property rights. Since they do not exist, no one can own any of them.

Ok, you can't own them, but what if I said

"You can get a SC for $2" and you know a SC doesn't exist, so you get nothing in return, why is that wrong if we agree?



How is that fraud by any sense?

 

[Optatron]

Let me just say this, in closing, as a sort of general response. I regard it as fraud if there are more titles to a given amount of property, than there is property. For example, if there are 1000 cars in a small town, and there are 1100 titles to these cars. It is still fraud, no matter who agrees.

Agreed.

But what if it was honest that 100 of them were NOT actual titles that point to cars?

What if the 100 remaining titles said "NOT VALID, FOR NOVELTY PURPOSE ONLY"

What if 100 of them said "these are not the only copies, please consult issuer for actual ownership information"

What if I agreed to pay $1 FRN for a Monopoly game bill, is that wrong? (it's stupid, but what's fraud about it)

 

[Optatron]

In his view, my response was unworthy of further discussion.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block120.html

if somebody has poisoned the well and said "it's fraud no matter who agrees", then YES, I will not waste time with him.

 

[jon_perez]

Would that be a way of getting your answer? Hmmm? A chapter too big for you?

You think all those options you gave are the only alternatives? eh? Wow.. so ignorant.

YOU DID NOT READ MYSTERY OF BANKING, which is why you are unaware that Rothbard proposed that free market actions would be all that were needed to eventually make fractional reserve banking unfeasible. No private courts, no regulatory body would be needed. Rothbard does not propose these mechanisms at all. Read Chapter 8 of Mystery of Banking.

You are a jerk who loves to shoot his mouth off without bothering to understand anything at all, not what a poster is trying to say, nor even the stuff that YOU yourself claim to be quoting from.

This is what I posted verbatim:

so, iirc, Rothbard advocates completely "free" (unregulated?) banking, meaning no central bank to impose reserve requirements among other things. Would the experience of these countries correspond (at least to some degree) to that idea of Rothbard's?

and this is how you replied:

You are essentially wrong in every regard to Rothbard's positions.

Apparently, YOU WERE WRONG, and all your efforts to try to worm your way out of admitting so by setting up strawmen (e.g. claiming I said things which I did not) are rather pathetic and frankly, despicable.

Grow up.

 

[Conza88]

YOU DID NOT READ MYSTERY OF BANKING, which is why you are unaware that Rothbard proposed that free market actions would be all that were needed to eventually make fractional reserve banking unfeasible. No private courts, no regulatory body would be needed. Rothbard does not propose these mechanisms at all. Read Chapter 8 of Mystery of Banking.

You are a jerk who loves to shoot his mouth off without bothering to understand anything at all, not what a poster is trying to say, nor even the stuff that YOU yourself claim to be quoting from.

This is what I posted verbatim

and this is how you replied:

Apparently, YOU WERE WRONG, and all your efforts to try to worm your way out of admitting so by setting up strawmen (e.g. claiming I said things which I did not) are rather pathetic and frankly, despicable.

Grow up.

Negative. Again, he advocates a 100% reserve banking. Since FRB is fraud.

And I have the pdf of Mystery of Banking... I skimmed in ages ago. How about you go check out the WHOLE section where Rothbard talks about "MONEY IN A FREE SOCIETY".. yeah it's in the book YOU haven't read.

And I specifically remember scanning the last part of Mystery of Banking..

"The objectives, after the discussion in this work, should be clear: (a) to return to a gold standard, a commodity standard unhampered by government intervention; (b) to abolish the Federal Reserve System and return to a system of free and competitive banking; (c) to separate the government from money; and (d) either to enforce 100 percent reserve banking on the commercial banks, or at least to arrive at a system where any bank, at the slightest hint of nonpayment of its demand liabilities, is forced quickly into bankruptcy and liquidation. While the outlawing of fractional reserve as fraud would be preferable if it could be enforced, the problems of enforcement, especially where banks can continually innovate in forms of credit, make free banking an attractive alternative. But how to achieve this system, and as rapidly as humanly possible?"​

You left this out when quoting me... I wonder why?

The mechanism.. Competition. You know the market.. the risk of [bank] runs... Fraud.. you don't think there is a market for justice?

 

[jon_perez]

Negative. Again, he advocates a 100% reserve banking. Since FRB is fraud.

So exactly when/where did I say that Rothbard did not advocate 100% reserve banking?

It seems that all you were after in your original post was an opportunity to point out how "wrong" someone was (and perhaps to impress others as to how "smart" you were), by substituting a convenient strawman in place of actually attempting to understand what others are trying to say.

I'm not surprised at this though, because you have proven your limited intellectual capacity by resorting to insults at the first sign of challenge to your assertions. It really does seem that for you, a "frutiful discussion" would be finding someone who managed to parrot the exact same ideas back to you using a different set of phrases.

In the vain hope that you might actually muster enough IQ this time around to figure out what I was trying to say in my original point, I reiterate it here: Since Rothbard advocated free, unregulated banking as a means to eventually end up with 100% reserve banking, how does the removal of reserve requirements in the Australian, Canadian, etc... banking systems square with Rothbard's hypothesis that free, unregulated banking - in the context of the absence of a regulatory body imposing reserve requirements - would eventually lead to 100% reserve banking?

If you are unable to fully comprehend the question (much less give a coherent answer) please stop wasting my time and yours with confrontational gimmicks that only serve to highlight the juvenile streak in your character.

 

[Optatron]

Negative. Again, he advocates a 100% reserve banking. Since FRB is fraud.

Advocating X in no way means non-X is fraud.

 

[Conza88]

Advocating X in no way means non-X is fraud.

OH but he DOES advocate X because 'non-X' is fraud.

 

[armstrong]

I liked the idea of getting goverment out of money

 

[Optatron]

OH but he DOES advocate X because 'non-X' is fraud.

i dont doubt he believes non-X is fraud, or maybe I dont know what he means exactly by X and non-X. The logic doesn't always work vice versa, is my point.

 

[Conza88]

i dont doubt he believes non-X is fraud, or maybe I dont know what he means exactly by X and non-X. The logic doesn't always work vice versa, is my point.

Yes of course. But in this instance, that logical syllogisms DO add up and my statement is correct because HE DOES equate that as such. It is part and parcel of the reasoning. He supports 100% reserve banking, for the precise reason it is not fraud / FRB is fraud.

 

[buffalokid777]

It's only fraud if bank didn't tell customers how it worked.

What if they did, and people agreed to it?



not so fast.

inflation I agree, but it's not hidden or theft if people know about it in advance and agreed to it. It can be inherently deflationary as well if they never let you withdraw.



Yes, it's theft if I did it without your consent, but if I had your consent, that's not theft, and it's not wrong, is it?

I think you are correct optatron.

You understand the laws of the universe we exist in. Force people to do something. The results will be very bad,

Give them enough rope to hang themselves and they probably will. That is the double edged sword of freedom.

Some will make good choices.....

Some will make bad.....

But let them decide their fate by their own hand.

 

[Conza88]

I think you are correct optatron.

You understand the laws of the universe we exist in. Force people to do something. The results will be very bad,

Give them enough rope to hang themselves and they probably will. That is the double edged sword of freedom.

Some will make good choices.....

Some will make bad.....

But let them decide their fate by their own hand.

There are no laws of the universe according to optatron. (Wait for the contradiction) ....

There is no double edged sword of FREEDOM. People will make good or bad decisions REGARDLESS of their overlords / in slavery or in freedom. That is human nature. Your distinction is erroneous and fallacious.