Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 168

Thread: The Return of Sound Money

  1. #61

    Default

    Also, what's the April 19th significance for you?
    Listen my children and you shall hear
    Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
    On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
    Hardly a man is now alive
    Who remembers that famous day and year.

    He said to his friend, "If the British march
    By land or sea from the town to-night,
    Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch
    Of the North Church tower as a signal light,--
    One if by land, and two if by sea;
    And I on the opposite shore will be,
    Ready to ride and spread the alarm
    Through every Middlesex village and farm,
    For the country folk to be up and to arm."

    Then he said "Good-night!" and with muffled oar
    Silently rowed to the Charlestown shore,
    Just as the moon rose over the bay,
    Where swinging wide at her moorings lay
    The Somerset, British man-of-war;
    A phantom ship, with each mast and spar
    Across the moon like a prison bar,
    And a huge black hulk, that was magnified
    By its own reflection in the tide.

    Meanwhile, his friend through alley and street
    Wanders and watches, with eager ears,
    Till in the silence around him he hears
    The muster of men at the barrack door,
    The sound of arms, and the tramp of feet,
    And the measured tread of the grenadiers,
    Marching down to their boats on the shore.

    Then he climbed the tower of the Old North Church,
    By the wooden stairs, with stealthy tread,
    To the belfry chamber overhead,
    And startled the pigeons from their perch
    On the sombre rafters, that round him made
    Masses and moving shapes of shade,--
    By the trembling ladder, steep and tall,
    To the highest window in the wall,
    Where he paused to listen and look down
    A moment on the roofs of the town
    And the moonlight flowing over all.

    Beneath, in the churchyard, lay the dead,
    In their night encampment on the hill,
    Wrapped in silence so deep and still
    That he could hear, like a sentinel's tread,
    The watchful night-wind, as it went
    Creeping along from tent to tent,
    And seeming to whisper, "All is well!"
    A moment only he feels the spell
    Of the place and the hour, and the secret dread
    Of the lonely belfry and the dead;
    For suddenly all his thoughts are bent
    On a shadowy something far away,
    Where the river widens to meet the bay,--
    A line of black that bends and floats
    On the rising tide like a bridge of boats.

    Meanwhile, impatient to mount and ride,
    Booted and spurred, with a heavy stride
    On the opposite shore walked Paul Revere.
    Now he patted his horse's side,
    Now he gazed at the landscape far and near,
    Then, impetuous, stamped the earth,
    And turned and tightened his saddle girth;
    But mostly he watched with eager search
    The belfry tower of the Old North Church,
    As it rose above the graves on the hill,
    Lonely and spectral and sombre and still.
    And lo! as he looks, on the belfry's height
    A glimmer, and then a gleam of light!
    He springs to the saddle, the bridle he turns,
    But lingers and gazes, till full on his sight
    A second lamp in the belfry burns.

    A hurry of hoofs in a village street,
    A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark,
    And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing, a spark
    Struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet;
    That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light,
    The fate of a nation was riding that night;
    And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
    Kindled the land into flame with its heat.
    He has left the village and mounted the steep,
    And beneath him, tranquil and broad and deep,
    Is the Mystic, meeting the ocean tides;
    And under the alders that skirt its edge,
    Now soft on the sand, now loud on the ledge,
    Is heard the tramp of his steed as he rides.

    It was twelve by the village clock
    When he crossed the bridge into Medford town.
    He heard the crowing of the cock,
    And the barking of the farmer's dog,
    And felt the damp of the river fog,
    That rises after the sun goes down.

    It was one by the village clock,
    When he galloped into Lexington.
    He saw the gilded weathercock
    Swim in the moonlight as he passed,
    And the meeting-house windows, black and bare,
    Gaze at him with a spectral glare,
    As if they already stood aghast
    At the bloody work they would look upon.

    It was two by the village clock,
    When he came to the bridge in Concord town.
    He heard the bleating of the flock,
    And the twitter of birds among the trees,
    And felt the breath of the morning breeze
    Blowing over the meadow brown.
    And one was safe and asleep in his bed
    Who at the bridge would be first to fall,
    Who that day would be lying dead,
    Pierced by a British musket ball.

    You know the rest. In the books you have read
    How the British Regulars fired and fled,---
    How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
    >From behind each fence and farmyard wall,
    Chasing the redcoats down the lane,
    Then crossing the fields to emerge again
    Under the trees at the turn of the road,
    And only pausing to fire and load.

    So through the night rode Paul Revere;
    And so through the night went his cry of alarm
    To every Middlesex village and farm,---
    A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
    A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
    And a word that shall echo for evermore!
    For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
    Through all our history, to the last,
    In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
    The people will waken and listen to hear
    The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
    And the midnight message of Paul Revere.

    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 05-03-2017 at 05:04 PM.
    The rebel of the 21st Century will be old-fashioned.

    No enemies to the right



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Yes, well, I am just happy for responses. Keep them coming, everyone!
    Well, that's a key component of happiness and contentment: Low expectations.
    What now?

  4. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    I disagree, but I've been wrong before. Even if we assume FRB isn't economically unsound, you have to admit it would be nearly impossible for 100% reserve banking to coexist. The money multiplier effect allows startups to easily inflate the local currency and buy up assets. It would be a competition between the reserve and non-reserve banks. And if they are on even intellectual footing as "acceptable" then 100% reserve banking is out because FRB can just use part of the money multiplier to bribe customers.
    That's another way of saying that FR banks would be able to offer better/cheaper services.

    Anyway, FRB has got to go, in my opinion. It's economically unsound and prone to abuse, and there's nothing other than arbitrary rules that tell us what the reserve fraction should be.
    That's a feature of the state's interference in banking. Absent that, the market regulates the reserve requirement.

    Banks' disincentive to overinflate is the very real threat of bankruptcy (with no Fed to bail them out).

    It's going to take more than "it was fine before centralization" to convince me. I would say it led to centralization.
    What led to centralization in the banking industry was the recognition among bankers that, in a free market, they paid dearly for over-inflation.

    They lobbied for the creation of the Fed et al to allow them to do what they could not do previously.

    To your "long term, clear thinking, patience" strategy. Just sounds like wishy-washy gradualism to me. You don't seem to have a problem with current systems, just want to be closer to the circle of power.
    If that's what you're hearing, you're not listening.
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  5. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If that's what you're hearing, you're not listening.
    Probably not. You don't agree with Ron Paul. You think FRB is just fine. The only system you propose is a a free school where the tests to get in are really hard.

    I really like the idea of allowing the market to determine what backs the currency, make sure there are no-fraud laws, and really look into the matter whether or not we should have fractional reserve banking. Yes, you have the Fed creating money out of this air, but then this is magnified by fractional reserve banking which is really fraudulent. And all it does is build financial bubbles guaranteeing the business cycle and the collapses, and as long as you patch it together, the longer you do that, the bigger the bubble. And now we’re in the midst of a big correction. - Ron Paul

    https://www.ronpaul.com/2009-11-14/e...serve-banking/
    Guess, I've just been on Ron Paul Forums too long. I get a little tired of anonymous people acting smart but openly contradicting Ron Paul's ideas.

    Why didn't you just come out with "There's nothing wrong with FRB." instead of this soft-attack of "Well, I don't really see the financial incentive of using gold in such small amounts."? Why make me dig so hard?

    Anyway, thanks for the workout.
    What now?

  6. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Yea, I've never really understood the appeal of this kind of service (either for PMs or crypocurrencies).

    Say I earn and spend $5000 monthly, with the funds usually deposited into a checking account on Day 1 of the month.

    A service such as the OP's protects that $5000 (less as the month goes on, as I spend it) from inflation, but that's it.

    Unless one is carrying abnormally large cash balances for some reason, it's a pretty minor benefit.

    ...potentially more than offset by fees, forgone interest, and variation in the gold price.
    Your point is that with such a small amount of money as $5,000, any benefit is going to be minor, so what's the point? Your point is taken. However, to many people $5,000 is a non-trivial amount of money. For your example person, for example, it represents a month's worth of wages, a month of life -- hardly a trivial sum!

    You do lose the interest your bank might be paying you for your checking account. However, for a typical checking account currently, that is a small fraction of a percent.

    The benefit is any appreciation gold may have. If, let us say, inflation in a year is 4% and gold goes up in terms of the dollar by 4%, what do you gain as a Midas customer? If your average account balance is $2,500 (halfway between $5,000 at the beginning of the month and $0 at the end) then you have gained $100 that year. Sweet! Actually, not as sweet as it sounds: you have merely come out even, because while in terms of dollars you have gained, the purchasing power of each dollar has gone down because of inflation. On the other hand, had you had a normal checking account, you would have lost 4% minus .1% or whatever interest your bank gives to checking accounts (if any).

    So, look, this is not going to make you into a millionaire. But, some people might prefer it. Also, I intend for there to be many, many other advantages as time goes on.

    If we were in the midst of a hyperinflationary episode, with money noticeably losing value on a daily basis, this might make sense.

    Till then, I don't really see the point.
    The thing about hyperinflation is that it can come on pretty quickly and suddenly. In fact, historically it usually does. There is not going to be a warning: "Caution! Hyperinflation approaching in 12 months! Please exit the dollar in an orderly fashion."
    The rebel of the 21st Century will be old-fashioned.

    No enemies to the right

  7. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    I'm in the camp that thinks fractional reserve banking should just be illegal. It's counterfeiting. So yeah, of course it's popular because counterfeiting is lucractive business. Any society that is going to transition is going to have to be educated about why this particular brand of counterfeiting needs to be outlawed and is bad.
    Fractional reserve banking means that a bank is required to keep some of their funds in "reserve"- ie, not loaned out. There are two other alternative forms of banking available. One- allow a bank to loan out as much money as they want to (a no- reserve form of banking) or a 100% reserve banking where banks are not allowed to loan out any of the money that they have. If a business needs to borrow money to expand their production or meet payroll, they will be unable to get it from a bank. Since the bank is unable to generate revenues from lending in this case, they would have to make money off fees- charging you to keep your money there and for moving your money around. Which of those two alternatives would you prefer and view as more "legal"?

    Fractional reserve banking can exist with or without a central bank and it can exist with metal based money or fiat based money (technically, metal backed currencies would also be "fiat" meaning their value is declared by the government). Bubbles can and will occur no matter what form of money or banking you choose. Fraud can also occur with any of them.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-03-2017 at 05:28 PM.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  8. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Fractional reserve banking means that a bank is required to keep some of their funds in "reserve"- ie, not loaned out. There are two other alternative forms of banking available. One- allow a bank to loan out as much money as they want to (a no- reserve form of banking) or a 100% reserve banking where banks are not allowed to loan out any of the money that they have. If a business needs to borrow money to expand their production or meet payroll, they will be unable to get it from a bank. Which of those two alternatives would you prefer and view as more "legal"?

    Fractional reserve banking can exist with or without a central bank and it can exist with metal based money or fiat based money (technically, metal backed currencies would also be "fiat" meaning their value is declared by the government).
    Thanks, cap. But me and Ron Paul think it's fraudulent is my point.

    There might still be one or two others around here that agree with us.
    What now?

  9. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    Thanks, cap. But me and Ron Paul think it's fraudulent is my point.

    There might still be one or two others around here that agree with us.
    Is it the lending of money you consider fraudulent? Do you prefer the 100% reserve bank then?
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-03-2017 at 05:31 PM.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  10. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Fractional reserve banking means that a bank is required to keep some of their funds in "reserve"- ie, not loaned out. There are two other alternative forms of banking available. One- allow a bank to loan out as much money as they want to (a no- reserve form of banking) or a 100% reserve banking where banks are not allowed to loan out any of the money that they have. If a business needs to borrow money to expand their production or meet payroll, they will be unable to get it from a bank. Since the bank is unable to generate revenues from lending in this case, they would have to make money off fees- charging you to keep your money there and for moving your money around. Which of those two alternatives would you prefer and view as more "legal"?

    Fractional reserve banking can exist with or without a central bank and it can exist with metal based money or fiat based money (technically, metal backed currencies would also be "fiat" meaning their value is declared by the government). Bubbles can and will occur no matter what form of money or banking you choose. Fraud can also occur with any of them.
    The underlined is incorrect.

    Loans would just come from time deposits rather than demand deposits.
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  11. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Do you prefer the 100% reserve bank then?
    Yes, me and Ron Paul both do. You should look him up. Spread the word. Guy has some great ideas.
    What now?

  12. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The underlined is incorrect.

    Loans would just come from time deposits rather than demand deposits.
    If you can loan from any of your deposits, you are talking a fractional reserve form of banking. You prefer a particular kind of fractional reserve then.

    I haven't done the numbers for a while but one time I did and came up with about ten percent of deposits being demand deposits and 90% of deposits being time deposits. If a bank has a ten percent reserve requirement (as most do today) then your conditions would be met.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-03-2017 at 05:34 PM.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  13. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The underlined is incorrect.

    Loans would just come from time deposits rather than demand deposits.
    Another important point.

    You know, not being straightforward and sufficiently explicit, doesn't make you seem smarter or more knowledgeable. It just makes you passive aggressive.

    Everyone knows the current system loans out demand deposits.
    What now?

  14. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    If you can loan from any of your deposits, you are talking a fractional reserve form of banking.
    No, fractional reserve banking refers to a bank's practice of loaning out demand deposits.

    i.e. the bank keeps on hand only a fraction of the funds required to repay all demand liabilities

    Time deposits are another matter entirely; there's no need for any reserve, ever, because depositors cannot withdraw them on demand.
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  15. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    Another important point.

    You know, not being straightforward and sufficiently explicit, doesn't make you seem smarter or more knowledgeable. It just makes you passive aggressive.

    Everyone knows the current system loans out demand deposits.
    And I said nothing to the contrary.

    I was describing how full reserve banking would work.
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  16. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    No, fractional reserve banking refers to a bank's practice of loaning out demand deposits.

    i.e. the bank keeps on hand only a fraction of the funds required to repay all demand liabilities

    Time deposits are another matter entirely; there's no need for any reserve, ever, because depositors cannot withdraw them on demand.
    It is still fractional reserve banking. You are just applying a 100% reserve on some types of accounts and no reserve on other types.

    http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/...rvebanking.asp

    What is 'Fractional Reserve Banking'

    Fractional reserve banking is a banking system in which only a fraction of bank deposits are backed by actual cash on hand and are available for withdrawal. This is done to expand the economy by freeing up capital that can be loaned out to other parties.

    Banks are required to keep a certain amount of the cash depositors give them on hand available for withdrawal. That is, if someone deposits $100, the bank can't lend out the entire amount. That said, it isn't required to keep the entire amount either. Most banks are required to keep 10% of the deposit, referred to as reserves. This reserve requirement is set by the Federal Reserve and is one of the Fed's tools to implement monetary policy. Increasing the reserve requirement takes money out of the economy, while a decrease in the reserve requirement puts money into the economy.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  17. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    And I said nothing to the contrary.

    I was describing how full reserve banking would work.
    Oh, I thought you were implying that your understanding of FRB was that demand deposits were NOT loaned out.

    And here I was, angry at myself for you not being forthcoming and me falsely condemning you as an FRB supporter.

    I have moved you from possibly redeemed back into FRB supporter category.
    Last edited by wizardwatson; 05-03-2017 at 05:43 PM.
    What now?

  18. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    It is still fractional reserve banking. You are just applying a 100% reserve on some types of accounts and no reserve on other types.

    http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/...rvebanking.asp
    Well, technically he's right. A time "deposit" isn't really a deposit. It's a contractual loan essentially. The depositor of a C.D. for instance is loaning the money explicitly to the bank. Savings accounts are the same way assuming they are not on demand. These facilities could still exist with a 100% reserve bank, because there's no counterfeit effect.
    What now?

  19. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    It is still fractional reserve banking. You are just applying a 100% reserve on some types of accounts and no reserve on other types.

    http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/...rvebanking.asp
    It sounds like we're arguing about semantics.

    The term "fractional reserve banking" normally refers to how banks handle demand deposits - not time deposits.

    If some people are using the term differently, well okay, what's in a word, but that's not what I'm talking about.
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  20. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    Oh, I thought you were implying that your understanding of FRB was that demand deposits were NOT loaned out.

    And here I was, angry at myself for you not being forthcoming and me falsely condemning you as an FRB supporter.

    I have moved you from possibly redeemed back into FRB supporter category.
    Explain to me Wiz who is being defrauded by fractional reserve banking.
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  21. #80

    Default

    Total savings deposits in the US: $9.2 trillion. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WSAVNS

    Total demand deposits in the US: $1.4 trillion. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DEMDEPSL

    Total deposits by adding the two figures: $10.6 trillion.

    If we require 100% reserves on demand deposits and zero reserve on savings deposits that gives us $1.4 trillion in required reserves.

    If we require a ten percent reserve on all deposits, we get $1.1 trillion in required reserves. Nearly the same thing.

    We basically already have the system you recommend.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-03-2017 at 05:52 PM.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  22. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    It sounds like we're arguing about semantics.

    The term "fractional reserve banking" normally refers to how banks handle demand deposits - not time deposits.

    If some people are using the term differently, well okay, what's in a word, but that's not what I'm talking about.
    The definition does not specify any particular type of accounts- only to "deposits". Both savings and demand accounts are types of deposits.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  23. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Explain to me Wiz who is being defrauded by fractional reserve banking.
    I don't want to derail Helmuth's thread.

    You want to be educated, here you go:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/11/...ng-fraudulent/

    I'm not the one who disagrees with 100% reserve banking, and Helmuth's general aim. I'm not the one who doesn't see ending FRB as a "end game" and who disagrees with Ron Paul on FRB in general. That's you.

    Why should I give you the time? I know my level of intelligence and I've gathered enough of you to know the payoff for getting into long convo's with you where it won't benefit third party readers is negative. You might benefit, but I fear that will just make you a better arguer against people I'd rather have win arguments in opposition to you. So you don't get one-on-one special consideration from me. You're just an opponent for spectators.
    What now?

  24. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Explain to me Wiz who is being defrauded by fractional reserve banking.
    Is it fraud to loan out deposits? He did say that deposits are loans to the bank (which they are). If I loan you $20 and you loan that money to somebody else have you committed fraud? It is only fraud if you fail to repay the money you were loaned. So is lending out money you don't have. If making loans is fraud and depositing money in a bank is a loan then your deposit is also fraud.

    From Rockwell:

    But if I deposit some cash with the bank, I don’t retain my property interest. Instead, I’m making a loan to the bank and I obtain a contractual right to repayment on demand. If I demand my cash (plus interest, if any) and the bank fails to pay me, then I can sue it for breach of contract and demand expectation damages. If the bank were not a bank but just an ordinary borrower, and it was insolvent, then I have to race other creditors for its assets; otherwise, my contract right is converted into a claim in bankruptcy, and I have to share with other creditors. (Since it is a bank, I may well obtain full compensation from the government, but that is not relevant to the debate.)

    If you asked the bank whether it might lend out your money, it would most certainly tell you that it would. So it is not lying to you, and there can’t be fraud. Nor is there any other contradiction, incompatibility, or problem with the arrangement. Depositors take a risk that the bank will breach the contract but anyone who enters a contract takes the same risk.
    This says that a bank is NOT committing fraud by being a fractional reserve bank and making loans. They only commit fraud if they fail to pay you back.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-03-2017 at 06:03 PM.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  25. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Is it fraud to loan out deposits? He did say that deposits are loans to the bank (which they are). If I loan you $20 and you loan that money to somebody else have you committed fraud? It is only fraud if you fail to repay the money you were loaned. So is lending out money you don't have. If making loans is fraud and depositing money in a bank is a loan then your deposit is also fraud.
    You are lost too, apparently. A deposit is not a loan. If it was a loan how could you take it out whenever you wanted?

    Read link in post #82 zippy. Try to guess which side Rev is on, and which side I'm on.

    I feel like all the Ron Paul supporters left and I'm like talking to NSA robots or something.
    What now?

  26. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    You are lost too, apparently. A deposit is not a loan. If it was a loan how could you take it out whenever you wanted?

    Read link in post #82 zippy. Try to guess which side Rev is on, and which side I'm on.

    I feel like all the Ron Paul supporters left and I'm like talking to NSA robots or something.
    Let's read post #77 and see what you said instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    Well, technically he's right. A time "deposit" isn't really a deposit. It's a contractual loan essentially. The depositor of a C.D. for instance is loaning the money explicitly to the bank. Savings accounts are the same way assuming they are not on demand. These facilities could still exist with a 100% reserve bank, because there's no counterfeit effect.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  27. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Is it fraud to loan out deposits?
    If the deposit is a loan, no. If it's a bailment, yes.

    Which is it? Well, that depends on what the bank and depositor agree to.

    If they're both under the impression that it's a loan, then it's a loan, and there's no fraud.

    If the bank lies to the depositor and tells him it's a bailment, then the bank's defrauded him.

    One can argue that in the actual system that presently exists, depositors are being defrauded, led to believe that their depositors are bailments. That's clearly not true, but, even if were true, it wouldn't mean that FRB should be outlawed. No more than a grocery store caught selling water as milk would justify outlawing all groceries. Any business can be fraudulent; you outlaw the fraud, not the entire business.
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  28. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    A deposit is not a loan. If it was a loan how could you take it out whenever you wanted?
    Do you know what a call loan is?

    Ever heard of a margin call?
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  29. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If the deposit is a loan, no. If it's a bailment, yes.

    Which is it? Well, that depends on what the bank and depositor agree to.

    If they're both under the impression that it's a loan, then it's a loan, and there's no fraud.

    If the bank lies to the depositor and tells him it's a bailment, then the bank's defrauded him.

    One can argue that in the actual system that presently exists, depositors are being defrauded, led to believe that their depositors are bailments. That's clearly not true, but, even if were true, it wouldn't mean that FRB should be outlawed. No more than a grocery store caught selling water as milk would justify outlawing all groceries. Any business can be fraudulent; you outlaw the fraud, not the entire business.
    Did the bank tell you they would not loan out any money? If you asked them, would they tell you they were not going to loan out your money? Do you expect a bank not to loan out any money? If you deposit money do you expect to get back the exact same notes you deposited in the same condition? Unless they did, it is not a bailment.

    Again from the Rockwell article:

    “If you asked the bank whether it might lend out your money, it would most certainly tell you that it would. So it is not lying to you, and there can’t be fraud. Nor is there any other contradiction, incompatibility, or problem with the arrangement. Depositors take a risk that the bank will breach the contract but anyone who enters a contract takes the same risk.”
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-03-2017 at 06:16 PM.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  30. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Did the bank tell you they would not loan out any money? If you asked them, would they tell you they were not going to loan out your money? Do you expect a bank not to loan out any money? If you deposit money do you expect to get back the exact same notes you deposited in the same condition? Unless they did, it is not a bailment.
    Zippy, I think you're gettng mixed up responding to Wiz and myself at the same time.

    I'm arguing that demand deposits are NOT bailments.

    I'm arguing that FRB is NOT fraudulent.

    We're in agreement (as least with respect to the legitimacy of FRB).
    "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

    - Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

  31. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Zippy, I think you're gettng mixed up responding to Wiz and myself at the same time.

    I'm arguing that demand deposits are NOT bailments.

    I'm arguing that FRB is NOT fraudulent.

    We're in agreement (as least with respect to the legitimacy of FRB).
    Sorry if I confused things.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. A Primer on Sound Money (Sound vs Unsound)
    By AlexMerced in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-16-2012, 03:19 PM
  2. Napolitano-Return to Sound Money
    By GeorgiaAvenger in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-27-2012, 11:46 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-19-2012, 04:59 PM
  4. Utah considers a return to sound money. Ron Paul mentioned
    By The Dark Knight in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-04-2011, 04:16 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 02:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •