Good interviews in themselves, but they sparked some other thoughts.
It seems to me that from the Austrian school has emerged a Free Banking school, that are connected but also separate at the same time.
The Free Bankers go into great detail about their ideal banking model on micro and macro levels, while Austrians focus more on business cycles and the causes of them rather than a detailed solution. By the same token, the Free Bankers don't talk about the problems as much as they should.
It is natural that both groups, (if they are really divided as I perceive), would come together and create a joint presentation of beliefs regarding problems and solutions. But this doesn't seem to be the case.
I see a Hayekian-Rothbardian divide. Hayek, in favor of Free Banking, Rothbard, in favor of Full Reserve Banking. At the same time, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
My compromise would be to advocate politically Free Banking, while arguing Full Reserve Banking from a financial perspective. That isn't just in the name of compromise, I think it is actually the best solution consistent with liberty and sound economics.
I hope my thoughts on this are coherant. Does anybody agree with me? Additional thoughts?