Can someone explain to me how is fractional reserve banking not counterfeiting? If I understand it correctly, the bank has a reserve i.e. real solid money. They then apply a fraction to that reserve and claim that they can then lend out notes based on the fraction? How is this different than if I took a gold coin and wrote out a note saying it was five gold coins and then bought five coins worth of goods, with one coins value?
Also, do you think that in a free society that full reserve banking would eventually become more preferable than fractional reserve? Should a fractional-reserve banknote be accepted?
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
I think of it more as fraud than counterfeiting; as the bank is comitting to more obligations than it may be capable of obliging to. However, I suppose it is in fact counterfeiting, insofar as, they are creating money.
And under a free society there would ultimately be a free banking system. Considering this fact, each bank's money's value would, likely, be more stable under a full reserve system. As a result it is likely that a free banking system would at least be less fractional than today's system.
'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking
Rothbard compared fractional reserve banking to selling phony warehouse receipts. It is a very good analogy.
The sollution: debentures.
Debentures aren't the same thing as money.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
No, but you can grant a debenture to a bank, and allow them to lend your money provided you are given some return. This eliminates the problem of ''fraud''.
It doesn't eliminate the problem of fraud with people who simply deposit their money in a bank.
Sorry. I should have been clearer. If it was legaly determined unlawful - due to fraud - to have a fractional reserve system, the only way banks could raise money to lend would be through debentures. The banks would not be allowed do anything with deposits other than safe guard them.
Ah okay, yes I agree with that. Thanks for the clarification.
Do you think that in a free society full reserve would phase out fractional reserve? I ask because I think it's clear that there could be no grounds in a free society in which an individual could bring FRB's to court solely on the fact that they practiced FR. There would be no 'law' to declare it illegal. This troubles me. The state currently sets the reserve rate, so I wonder if that rate wouldn't eventually climb towards 100% on average.
It's quite hard to say. It depends on lots of variables.
One possiblity is that private judiciaries would outlaw fractional reserve banking on the basis of fraud. In this case individuals could bring banks to court for commiting fraud by using a fractional reserve system.
But ultimately, even if fractional reserve banking was legal, banks would have to keep higher reserves to prevent their money from losing value.
Vladimir Ulyanov: It's quite hard to say. It depends on lots of variables. One possiblity is that private judiciaries would outlaw fractional reserve banking on the basis of fraud. In this case individuals could bring banks to court for commiting fraud by using a fractional reserve system. But ultimately, even if fractional reserve banking was legal, banks would have to keep higher reserves to prevent their money from losing value.
This is exactly what I find most likely but I wanted to see what other misesians had to say on the matter.
Jargon:Do you think that in a free society full reserve would phase out fractional reserve? I ask because I think it's clear that there could be no grounds in a free society in which an individual could bring FRB's to court solely on the fact that they practiced FR. There would be no 'law' to declare it illegal. This troubles me. The state currently sets the reserve rate, so I wonder if that rate wouldn't eventually climb towards 100% on average.
Commodity money means that one literally owns stuff, not just digits. If a bank gave one or more others competing claims over the (commodity) money you deposited with it, it would thus be committing fraud. The reasoning is that, in order for a bank to give out a claim to property, it must first have a higher claim over the property. Presumably you didn't transfer ownership of your money to the bank when you deposited it.
It is not fraud, this issue has been dealt with several times, yet people still chose to believe this nonsense. The true Misesian point of view is the free banking position. The Misesian realizes that the cause of boom and bust cycles are not because of fractional reserves but of central banking itself. Also, George Selgin states this and this is an empirical fact : every significant 100-percent bank known to history was a government-sponsored enterprise, which depended for its existence on some combination of direct government subsidies, compulsory patronage, or laws suppressing rival (fractional reserve) institutions.
Here is some relevant blog posts on free banking
One Book, Two Views, Who's Right?
Mr. Rothbard on the Suffolk Bank
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:It is not fraud, this issue has been dealt with several times, yet people still chose to believe this nonsense.
Where do you think it's been "dealt with"?
Whether you consider it to be "nonsense" is irrelevant to me, FYI.
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:The true Misesian point of view is the free banking position.
I don't care whether I hold what you call "the true Misesian point of view".
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:The Misesian realizes that the cause of boom and bust cycles are not because of fractional reserves but of central banking itself.
Then how do you explain e.g. the Panic of 1907?
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:Also, George Selgin states this and this is an empirical fact : every significant 100-percent bank known to history was a government-sponsored enterprise, which depended for its existence on some combination of direct government subsidies, compulsory patronage, or laws suppressing rival (fractional reserve) institutions.
Empirical evidence does not a deductively logical argument make.
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:Here is [sic] some relevant blog posts on free banking One Book, Two Views, Who's Right? Mr. Rothbard on the Suffolk Bank
Those both constitute appeals to authority, as far as I can tell.
[ quote user=''Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo'']The true Misesian point of view is the free banking position.[ / quote]
Were we not just talking about free banking.
[quote user=''Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo'']The Misesian realizes that the cause of boom and bust cycles are not because of fractional reserves but of central banking itself.[ / quote]
No, booms and busts are caused by an cerdit expansion which is not backed by real savings.
It is my understanding that 100% reserve banking would not become preeminent in a free banking scenario due to the simple fact that bad money generally drives out the good and the temptation to make easy money with FRB is just too much for many to resist.
So for 100% RB to work FRB would have to be made illegal.
Virtually all the panics of the 19th century in america can be traced back to money/credit expansion under FRB - all this took place in an era where we basically did not have a central bank.
The main reason the dollar actally gaine in value in the 19th century was that we did operate under a sort of gold standard which was able to keep FRB excesses in check. You add Central banking to FRB and you have a recipe for continued devaluation of currency as we are seeing today.
In my opinion FRB is fraud in two ways: First, you have multiple claims and promises to the "same" quantity of money, which can't be fulfilled if theyu are all called in at once.
Second, it allows the creation of money out of thin air. This additions to the money supply lead to inflation, which devalues the money & savings of people who have had to work hard for thiers.
Most everyone here agrees that money creation and credit expansion are bad when central banks do it. Doing these bad things on a smaller level does not make for a winning argument.
''It is my understanding that 100% reserve banking would not become preeminent in a free banking scenario due to the simple fact that bad money generally drives out the good and the temptation to make easy money with FRB is just too much for many to resist.''
Under a free banking system, nobody would hold a devaluing currency. This will keep credit creation in check. If a bank devalues its currency it will will all its buiness.
''Most everyone here agrees that money creation and credit expansion are bad when central banks do it. Doing these bad things on a smaller level does not make for a winning argument.''
There may still be trade cycles under a free banking system, but they would be much milder than in our current system.
Vladimir Ulyanov: Under a free banking system, nobody would hold a devaluing currency. This will keep credit creation in check. If a bank devalues its currency it will will all its buiness.
Why take any of the risks? Why allow credit/money creation at all? I've read article upon article here at Mises.org, they all say "credit/money creation out of thin air" = bad and distorting for any economy.
Why does creating money/credit out of thin air get a pass under "free banking'?
Vladimir Ulyanov: There may still be trade cycles under a free banking system, but they would be much milder than in our current system.
And they would probably be milder still with a 100% RB system. Why not go with the system that would upset things the least?
I wasn't saying that we should settle for a free banking system, however, you made it sound as if a bank could create nearly unlimited credit under a free banking system; which simply is not true. However, I do agree with you, I would prefer a 100% reserve system.
"It is my understanding that 100% reserve banking would not become preeminent in a free banking scenario due to the simple fact that bad money generally drives out the good and the temptation to make easy money with FRB is just too much for many to resist."
Bad money doesn't drive out good money. If you're referring to Gresham's Law, the correct way to say it is artificially overvalued money drives out artificially undervalued money. In the case of fractional reserve bank money vs 100% reserve bank money, there's little reason to believe either are artificially over- or undervalued (mainly because there is no state to set an arbitrary ratio between the 2) therefore neither money would drive the other from circulation.
Also, the definition of what is "good" money and what is "bad" money is arbitrary.
Now it could be the case that one kind of banking is indeed a better business model, thus leading to the adoption of that kind of banking on the market, but that isn't quite the same as saying one kind of money is driving the other out of circulation.