• Gumba of Liberty's Avatar
    04-20-2016, 06:16 PM
    This.
    17 replies | 110 view(s)
  • Gumba of Liberty's Avatar
    04-20-2016, 07:28 AM
    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.
    46 replies | 823 view(s)
  • Gumba of Liberty's Avatar
    04-19-2016, 07:01 PM
    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. ;)
    46 replies | 823 view(s)
  • Gumba of Liberty's Avatar
    04-19-2016, 03:23 PM
    The difference between FR Banking and insurance is that with insurance you cannot simultaneously claim ownership over the money you spend on your insurance payment and make the payment. When you pay for insurance you no longer have that money, you are trading it in exchange for your insurance policy (hoping that your insurance company is solvent and not defrauding you). With FR banking you are claiming the ability to control both your funds and at the same time lend your funds to other people. If this doesn't make sense to you try reading Rothbard, he explains it better.
    46 replies | 823 view(s)
  • Gumba of Liberty's Avatar
    04-19-2016, 12:08 PM
    Not exactly. In a free market, individuals are free to gamble and speculate to their hearts desire with their own money under full disclosure. What you cannot do is simultaneously gamble your money and request to have access to your money on demand. I cannot lend my brother a cheeseburger and simultaneously control said cheeseburger at the same time. I might have a cheeseburger coming to me (once my brother pays me back) but once I lend the original, I no longer have a claim to the burger until I am paid back (hopefully). This is the nature of lending. If a bank can lend your money out and allow you to access your money at the same time there is fraud being perpetrated. This is the problem and under the free market system of natural law it would be illegal.
    46 replies | 823 view(s)
  • Gumba of Liberty's Avatar
    04-19-2016, 08:53 AM
    Scream it from the Mountain Tops.
    46 replies | 823 view(s)
  • Gumba of Liberty's Avatar
    04-19-2016, 07:15 AM
    Fractional-Reserve banking is fraud, plain and simple. Banks have two distinct functions: Warehousing or protecting commodity-backed savings accounts (depositors pay for this) & Lending or investing in profitable businesses (borrowers pay for this). Fractional-Reserve Banks merge these two responsibilities into one without the consent of the depositor. In a free-market economy, depositors, especially those with large savings accounts, would be asked by their banker if they would be willing to lend (invest) their money to produce a return (profit). The banker would have to convince the depositor that lending their money to a business was going to produce an actual profit and in no way would the depositor be able to access his or her saved money while it was lent out (similar to a CD). Compare this to our current fractional-reserve banking system and you can see that depositors are legally being fleeced out of their own capital as bankers lend their money out for them to unworthy borrowers for 7% while they are receive returns of <1%. This would not exist without government intervention and court rulings that erode and manipulate property rights for units of exchange (money). Remember, the Federal Reserve did not start the boom-bust cycle, it only coordinated and intensified it. Fractional-Reserve Banking (along with terrible state and local currency and banking regulations) caused the banking panics before and after the Civil War. In order for a free market to sustain and flourish this must be understood by those in the Liberty Movement and on top of that, it is a great way to persuade socialists that America has never truly been a capitalist (natural-rights protecting) country considering that fractional-reserve banking & chattel-slavery existed (at the State-Level) before the Civil War and the Gilded Age not only nationalized fractional-reserve banking but it saw the establishment of limited-liability corporations that still haunt us today.
    46 replies | 823 view(s)
  • Gumba of Liberty's Avatar
    04-18-2016, 06:21 PM
    Your anger is misguided my young padawan. Private jets are miraculous inventions (net-positive good things paid for with Bernie's money). Property-owning, rule-setting Patriarch and Matriarch land-owners (Kings and Queens w/o the ability to violate natural rights) are good things. Lying politicians that claim ownership over entire nation-states and dictate one-size-fits-all policies for diverse populations while simutanisouly selling out to the highest bidder and securing their own private fortunes? Not so much. Getting rich off hard work and peaceful trade = America (The one from the Declaration). Getting rich off working with the government to screw over your fellow man through fraudulent banking practices (fractional reserve/central banking) and privatizing profits while socializing loses (limited liability corporations; subsidies; bailouts; govt. regulations etc.) = Old Europe, back from the dead. My advice, it's time for another (more perfect) American Revolution. Afterward, if you still "Feel the Burn", wake us son. That's herpes.
    46 replies | 823 view(s)
No More Results
About Gumba of Liberty

Basic Information

Signature


"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds" - Sam Adams

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
377
Posts Per Day
0.20
General Information
Last Activity
04-20-2016 06:17 PM
Join Date
03-30-2011
Referrals
1
No results to display...
No results to display...

04-20-2016


04-19-2016


04-18-2016


03-23-2016


03-07-2016