Ron Paul: Fractional Reserve Banking

[EddieG]

in a 100% reserve system, how would loans be made?

The loans would come from actual savings (e.g. passbook savings accounts). You get interest to reflect the slightly increased risk of default. Under this system, moral hazard wouldn't exist and banks would be far more careful about who gets loans... Plus the economy itself would be far more stable since gov't counterfeiting wouldn't exist.

 

[Conza88]

Me insult anyone who disagree with me. Me lie and say people don't have argument when they do, even if me no recognize it as valid.

Me go hit squirrel with stick now. Him make me angry, try to steal me nuts.

flamebaiter doesn't help forum

​

 

[Conza88]

Ron Paul is a politician, which means he believes in government, and participates in it, I don't care if he "ideally" wishes there was none. Conza is the guy who spits on anybody who defends the State, the government or anybody who's not as anarchist as he is, then he turns around and asks us why we support Ron Paul (and then says he likes to keep his name private so he can one day infiltrate the state he hates).

Re-post:

He uses it as a soundbite in an age of manufactured consent. Have you any evidence of him defending the State when presented with anarcho-capitalism?

I don't. There is a video I saw, which I am still trying to find. He was asked at a rally, an informal question from a guy with a cam, about Lysander Spooner's argument - the Constitution of No Authority.. he took the question, but refused a follow up... which was needed to make the point lol... He knew the argument. He was a friend of Rothbard's... what do you expect? lol...

He's smart enough to use the Constitution as his sound bite & default position, it's awesome rhetorically when you have very little time to make a point.

Speech by US Congressman Ron Paul at the "Prague Spring Lecture", Czech Republic, 29 May 2006

Theme: "Ludwig von Mises and Politics"

Ron Paul is hosted by Czech President Vaclav Klaus at the launch of the "Czech Translation of Human Action" organized by Liberální Institute.​

YouTube - (2/5) Ron Paul is hosted by President Klaus in Prague

6min45secs - 9min01secs.

See: He essentially uses it to make it easier, to get a pass on it. Soundbite. Rhetoric.

Washington Warp: Why Even Good People in the Beltway Can't Think Straight by Jeffery Tucker (25min):

"DC culture has the effect of turning people into secret anarchists or secret totalitarians."

I think it's clear which way Ron would lean.

And repost:

He doesn't want those paychecks at all. He is against the aggression. He supports civil disobedience. He supports Lysander Spooner, Martin Luthur King and Gandhi. "Don't steal, the government hates competition" is on his desk.

....

He didn't convey that. And that's not what I am either. Do their actions support the initiation of violence. Votes, etc. They are sanctioning an action of aggression. And yes, Ron is in that position - but again, it would exist without him. And he never adds to the aggression, ALL he does - day in and day out is try to REMOVE the aggression.

...

Well such is the problem of democracy / constitutional republic. As we know about Hoppe's analysis - the best type of government is a Monarchy - WHILST the State exists. For then it is blatantly obvious, there is no "we are the government" fallacy. It is clear as day, there are overlords and parasites etc.

If we had a monarchy, there would be no justification for a Ron Paul - WHAT, SO, EVER... I think Walter Block has a good analysis on it somewhere... he disagrees with Rothbard about the "can you be head of the Fed?" question. I think he comes to the conclusion, that you cannot print anymore money.. what so ever. And must do you best to remove the infringements upon the market / not enforce them / turn a blind eye etc. Will try find it.

 

[Conza88]

Nihilism is somebody who believes in less rules than Conza88, because he believes in the bare minimum, and anybody who believes in more is a Statist who hates freedom, anybody who believes in less is a retarded nihilist.

There is a difference between RULES and LAWS. Property owners can set whatever RULES they want.

Your point fails, try again.

Nihilist, libertinist, anarchist are the words he fears and hates, because he hates anybody who believes in freedom more than he does. He wants to force his idea of freedom on others who disagree with him.

Not the words, but what they represent.

Believing in NO RIGHTS is NOT FREEDOM. What you BELIEVE in is the POWER to use INITIATE VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHERS...

I don't want to force anything on anyone... Natural Law will always be there... just as economic laws will be. You can't outrun them for long.

You can do what you want scumbag, just realise in an anarcho-capitalist society, there is naturally going to be less theft.

Private Courts, private defense agencies, property owners actually have full control of their property... there is no MONOPOLY on justice anymore. The market will be given the opportunity to work, finally.

'Second amendment' i.e citizens defending themselves... more chance of that. Street owners hiring security guards to make them safer if needed obviously... etc etc.

Scumbags like you who would steal stuff if you could get away with it and going to be pwned pretty quickly...

YouTube - Say hello To My Little Friend

 

[Conza88]

Thanks Dr. Paul

Back on track:

YouTube - Ron Paul: "The Federal Reserve is a Government Unto Itself"

Ron Paul:

"The Federal Reserve works in collusion with big banks, because money is created not only by the federal reserve, but by Fractional reserve banking. And for that reason it is an empire that they have."​

 

[Optatron]

There is a difference between RULES and LAWS. Property owners can set whatever RULES they want.

Your point fails, try again.

but only insofar as they conform to the rules of your anarcho-capitalism, respecting life and property of others.

Not the words, but what they represent.

Believing in NO RIGHTS is NOT FREEDOM. What you BELIEVE in is the POWER to use INITIATE VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHERS...

What I believe is freedom from having to answer to others or justify what you believe is right to people who have no respect for your opinion.

I don't want to force anything on anyone... Natural Law will always be there... just as economic laws will be. You can't outrun them for long.

Thanks for admitting you can outrun them for a while, to some, that's all that ever matters. You want to force property rights on people who don't want to respect it, just like I want to force privacy and intellectual property rights on people like you.

You can do what you want scumbag, just realise in an anarcho-capitalist society, there is naturally going to be less theft.

What's the definition of an ancap society? Where everybody adheres to the rules? Where nobody disagrees with the ideology?

Private Courts, private defense agencies, property owners actually have full control of their property... there is no MONOPOLY on justice anymore. The market will be given the opportunity to work, finally.

Only if nobody abuses their wealth to recreate a monopoly
Only if nobody one day decides to abuse the system and take advantage of the greed, need, desperation and inherent corruptible souls.

'Second amendment' i.e citizens defending themselves... more chance of that. Street owners hiring security guards to make them safer if needed obviously... etc etc.

You don't need the 2nd amendment if you have the guns already.
Why are you citing laws or government documents as if you believe in government?

Scumbags like you who would steal stuff if you could get away with it and going to be pwned pretty quickly...

You're assuming there won't be more scumbags on my side, if that were the case (that majority is pro-property and pro-order, we'd not be where we are today). The reason we become more statist and more socialist (and getting worse generation by generation) is because people don't behave and victims beg for more government to solve problems.

As long as scum exist, keep dreaming about your ideal world. Why do you want anarcho-capitalism, but not anarchism? You obviously see where there needs to be force and violence to maintain a certain order. You obviously feel the need to enforce property.

You obviously are afraid to give out your personal information because you know you can be harmed (then turn around and say you have no right to privacy as if you'd not prefer to have it regardless).

 

[Conza88]

but only insofar as they conform to the rules of your anarcho-capitalism, respecting life and property of others.

What rules? Everything in an ancap society is privately owned. You set the rules.... as long as they don't violate natural law.

Violate natural law, and you are violating natural rights... do that and if the victim chooses to enact on it to get restitution / damages back etc.. then you'll face natural justice.

What I believe is freedom from having to answer to others or justify what you believe is right to people who have no respect for your opinion.

I don't respect someone who wants to steal from me and kill others if they can. I don't respect those who violate natural law.

Thanks for admitting you can outrun them for a while, to some, that's all that ever matters. You want to force property rights on people who don't want to respect it, just like I want to force privacy and intellectual property rights on people like you.

You can violate the laws of gravity.... until you run out of fuel and come crashing to the ground. You can print money all you want, until you get hyper inflation and boom, you just destroyed the currency.

I'm not admitting anything, nor conceding... you missed the point.

You want to ENFORCE the INITIATION OF VIOLENCE on me, via the State. You are a statist / socialist.

What's the definition of an ancap society? Where everybody adheres to the rules? Where nobody disagrees with the ideology?

Capitalism... private owns of the means of production. If it moves privatize it, if it doesn't move privatize it. (Block)

Only if nobody abuses their wealth to recreate a monopoly
Only if nobody one day decides to abuse the system and take advantage of the greed, need, desperation and inherent corruptible souls.

Wrong, only governments can create monopolies. i.e Use coercion to restrict competition. Fail.

You don't need the 2nd amendment if you have the guns already.
Why are you citing laws or government documents as if you believe in government?

The conception of it, what it implies... personal defense. Right to defend your property.

You're assuming there won't be more scumbags on my side, if that were the case (that majority is pro-property and pro-order, we'd not be where we are today). The reason we become more statist and more socialist (and getting worse generation by generation) is because people don't behave and victims beg for more government to solve problems.

Wrong. The reason government grows is because of democracy, special interests and politicans. See; Democracy the God that failed.

As long as scum exist, keep dreaming about your ideal world. Why do you want anarcho-capitalism, but not anarchism? You obviously see where there needs to be force and violence to maintain a certain order. You obviously feel the need to enforce property.

Never said scum bags wouldn't exist. In fact, I've said the opposite previously retard. There will always be theft. There will just be less of it. See: monopoly as inefficient, then see: free market as efficient. There is a market for justice.

Why do I want to drink milk, and not potassium cyanide?

You obviously are afraid to give out your personal information because you know you can be harmed (then turn around and say you have no right to privacy as if you'd not prefer to have it regardless).

You have no RIGHT to privacy. Only property. This is you same old bullshit argument being recycled again and again... broken record mate.

You clearly got destroyed in that thread... and that's not just my opinion

 

[Conza88]

 

[Conza88]

​

 

[Nathaniel1984]

I believe somone asked about how full-reserve banks would make loans, and I think a few have given good answers. Hernando de Soto, in one of his books, gives the excellent historical example of the Bank of Amsterdam:

http://mises.org/books/desoto.pdf

Pg. 98 on the book's OWN page numbering

Except for a brief period of a year, i think, in which they have 75% reserves, and a few years in which they had basically 99% reserves, for most of their 170 year existence, they were full-reserve and functioned quite well, and were admired by a great many people for their honesty and consistency. They even made a modest profit despite the 'disability' of full-reserve. It was only when they began to wholesale abandon the principle, that they went under.

 

[Conza88]

​

Ron Paul on CNBC: End The Fed & Consider Outlawing Fractional Reserve Banking - 11/13/2009

7:40+

 

[ctiger2]

in a 100% reserve system, how would loans be made?

The exact same way they are now. The only difference is the bank would have zero leverage on the loaned money. They'd be making money the old fashioned way, off interest on the money loaned.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I believe somone asked about how full-reserve banks would make loans, and I think a few have given good answers. Hernando de Soto, in one of his books, gives the excellent historical example of the Bank of Amsterdam:

http://mises.org/books/desoto.pdf

Pg. 98 on the book's OWN page numbering

Except for a brief period of a year, i think, in which they have 75% reserves, and a few years in which they had basically 99% reserves, for most of their 170 year existence, they were full-reserve and functioned quite well, and were admired by a great many people for their honesty and consistency. They even made a modest profit despite the 'disability' of full-reserve. It was only when they began to wholesale abandon the principle, that they went under.

The Bank of Amsterdam made money by charging fees to depositors to keep their money. That is how they profited and stayed in business. Banks today earn the majority of their money though fees as well- not as much from interest income. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Amsterdam And it seems that there was a law which compelled local businesses to deposit money with it.

In Renaissance Europe, the currency of small states—such as Genoa, Hamburg, Venice, and Nuremberg—consisted in large part of the currencies of neighboring nations. The foreign money, clipped and worn, lowered the value of a country's currency. A country's own freshly minted money, therefore, bore an agio, being worth more than its stock currency. Furthermore, it was melted as soon as it was released, its metallic content being worth more than its nominal value.

In order to remedy this situation, a bank was founded in 1609 under the protection of the city of Amsterdam. This bank at first received both foreign and local coinage at their real, intrinsic value, deduced a small coinage and management fee, and credited clients in its book for the remainder. This credit was known as bank money. Being always in accord with mint standards, and always of the same value, bank money was worth more than real coinage. At the same time a new regulation was introduced; according to which all bills drawn at Amsterdam worth more than 600 guilders must be paid in bank money. This both removed all uncertainty from these bills and compelled all merchants to keep an account with the bank, which in turn occasioned a certain demand for bank money.

 

[Deft9]

I'm against mandatory reserve banking and I don't see why any libertarian would support it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mandatory" reserves. If a bank tells people they can have their money any time, they have to keep that money on hand. Otherwise it's fraud. Libertarians are not ok with fraud. If they're going to lend the money out, the depositor needs to be informed that his money is no longer available for withdrawal because it's been loaned out. Simple.

 

[Nathaniel1984]

The Bank of Amsterdam made money by charging fees to depositors to keep their money. That is how they profited and stayed in business. Banks today earn the majority of their money though fees as well- not as much from interest income. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Amsterdam And it seems that there was a law which compelled local businesses to deposit money with it.

You are correct. I didn't word my statement correctly.

But, I think people have given examples of how a full-reserve bank could work, and how there would be a difference between accounts that could be loaned out and those that couldn't.

If Banks are required to operate under general legal principles, then eventually, after some time, most, if not all, fractional reserve banking for all intents and purposes would end. No special priviledges for banks.

 

[Conza88]

​

Murray N. Rothbard presented this speech at the Michigan Libertarian Party Convention, held in Southfield, Michigan, in May 1989. This is an excerpt where he discusses Banking, FDIC, Fractional-Reserve Banking, Bank Runs, The FDIC and deposit insurance.

 

[Conza88]

Bump for the people who don't get it.