I must admit that I've never understood the clain that two individuals claim the same property under fractional-reserve banking. Will someone explain this to me? One is the debtor, right?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Shifting the burden of proof fallacy.
scineram:Nothing logically fallacious.
Knight_of_BAAWA:What is it you do when you give your money to a bank for demand deposit? You are giving it to a warehouse for safekeeping.
scineram:Now this a fallacy
scineram:Why the hell on earth would I want to give them cash and pay for it?
Knight_of_BAAWA:The bank, while a central location and thus easily-known to anyone who would want to steal money, is usually a secure place to hold your money.
scineram:There is no need for them to hold it
Knight_of_BAAWA:Someone else has done the security planning for you. You pay the bank a maintenance fee and you get to keep your money in a secure location.
scineram:I do not. I would not. I rather earn interest on the deposit.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And courts have actually ruled that demand deposits are bailments. Of course, they did so before banking was essentially nationalized in most countries.
scineram:When and where?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Now then: prove that when you pay for a storage garage you are allowing the loaning of your items. Prove it.
scineram: I cannot. I don't do that.
Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Wut? It may be like it never happened, but it did happen. 1. If that tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, there is no consequence to its have fallen and so it's like it never happened at all for all intents and purposes. There is no ideal realm where all things are seen and heard all the time. All phenomena require an observer for their having happened to matter at all. 2. But it doesn't matter because nothing comes of it. It counts for nothing.
Daniel: Wut? It may be like it never happened, but it did happen.
Wut?
It may be like it never happened, but it did happen.
1. If that tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, there is no consequence to its have fallen and so it's like it never happened at all for all intents and purposes. There is no ideal realm where all things are seen and heard all the time. All phenomena require an observer for their having happened to matter at all.
2. But it doesn't matter because nothing comes of it. It counts for nothing.
For the record, I agree with you, Jacob, about the argument for ethics. I am not afraid to say that the only real law that exists is the law of the gun and that in a life or death situation, arguing with your attacker about why he's in the ethical wrong for pointing his loaded gun at you will probably not save your life. That said, however, I think point number one is a weak one.
That one isn't being watched isn't necessarily a determining factor in the actions of one person or another. After all, we never know when we're being watched if the watcher is a skilled ninja equipt with unparalleled recon skills. However, the real determining factor is a personal feeling of probability that your actions will come and affect you later. Arguing about whether if a tree falls in the woods and is not heard does it matter doesn't really matter in the modern world. What matters is probability of being heard and the probability therein that the hearer will come back to get you.
existence is elsewhere
Wilmot of Rochester:I am not afraid to say that the only real law that exists is the law of the gun....
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: Wilmot of Rochester:I am not afraid to say that the only real law that exists is the law of the gun....don't ever expect to be invited as a guest to my house.
Another case of the individuals are to be soldiers and let's not have foresight and prepare ahead of time kind of person, Wilmot seems. Very dangerous indeed, wouldn't want him near me at all either. And thus a bank taking property is fine unless his posse brings more guns, yet the bank can loan out for more guns, so his posse can get another bank to loan him more money to get more guns, and then another bank can help the first bank get even more guns and then he can get more banks to ratio their reserves to get more guns and on and on the 'might makes right' mentality goes - perpetual.
Wilmot of Rochester: Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Wut? It may be like it never happened, but it did happen. 1. If that tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, there is no consequence to its have fallen and so it's like it never happened at all for all intents and purposes. There is no ideal realm where all things are seen and heard all the time. All phenomena require an observer for their having happened to matter at all. 2. But it doesn't matter because nothing comes of it. It counts for nothing. ... That one isn't being watched isn't necessarily a determining factor in the actions of one person or another. After all, we never know when we're being watched if the watcher is a skilled ninja equipt with unparalleled recon skills.
...
That one isn't being watched isn't necessarily a determining factor in the actions of one person or another. After all, we never know when we're being watched if the watcher is a skilled ninja equipt with unparalleled recon skills.
Hasty generalization. But even if it were true, it could never be proven.
Wilmot of Rochester:However, the real determining factor is a personal feeling of probability that your actions will come and affect you later.
You're addressing an issue seperate from that which I brought up.
Wilmot of Rochester:Arguing about whether if a tree falls in the woods and is not heard does it matter doesn't really matter in the modern world.
Subjective.
Wilmot of Rochester:What matters is probability of being heard and the probability therein that the hearer will come back to get you.
Yet, you bothered to join the debate. Albeit, you addressed a seperate issue.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I would invite him, and subesquently state the rules that there are no outside firearms allowed in my home, if he does not want to abide by the rules, he is free to not enter my home...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Maxliberty: Knight_of_BAAWA: You have to show that they are the same. Onus of proof is upon you. Oh, don't let me stand in your way. I want to be amazed by your linguistic legerdemain. I want to see how you will demonstrate that giving your money to a bank so that only you have use of it is exactly the same as lending it to them for a minute and they'll pay you interest on it. Please. Show it. As Walter Block and his colleague demonstrated at a recent conference there is no meaningful difference between a time deposit and a demand deposit. I was saying that for several months prior to their "revelation" by the way. So all we have are timed deposits. You loan your money to the bank under the following conditions: You can have your money back anytime you want. If for some reason the bank doesnt have your money then you agree to wait up to 60 days for the bank to liquidate assets and pay you. Thats all fractional reserve banking is. The banks always place contingency clauses because they understand that if everyone asks for their money back at once that they will not have it. That is not fraud. That is what banks currently do now, that is what the contracts actually say not a hypothetical Austrian fantasy. The whole nature of loaning money comes with risk. If you don't want to loan the bank your money then don't. Put your money in a mattress or a safe deposit box or some other storage device. Your claim that you give the money to the bank so that only you will have use of it is false. The banks do not make this claim, read the actual contracts, that should matter to you. It is the Austrians trying to confuse the issue. Anyone who actually reads the contracts is not confused.
Knight_of_BAAWA: You have to show that they are the same. Onus of proof is upon you. Oh, don't let me stand in your way. I want to be amazed by your linguistic legerdemain. I want to see how you will demonstrate that giving your money to a bank so that only you have use of it is exactly the same as lending it to them for a minute and they'll pay you interest on it. Please. Show it.
You have to show that they are the same. Onus of proof is upon you. Oh, don't let me stand in your way. I want to be amazed by your linguistic legerdemain. I want to see how you will demonstrate that giving your money to a bank so that only you have use of it is exactly the same as lending it to them for a minute and they'll pay you interest on it. Please. Show it.
As Walter Block and his colleague demonstrated at a recent conference there is no meaningful difference between a time deposit and a demand deposit. I was saying that for several months prior to their "revelation" by the way.
So all we have are timed deposits.
You loan your money to the bank under the following conditions:
You can have your money back anytime you want. If for some reason the bank doesnt have your money then you agree to wait up to 60 days for the bank to liquidate assets and pay you. Thats all fractional reserve banking is. The banks always place contingency clauses because they understand that if everyone asks for their money back at once that they will not have it. That is not fraud. That is what banks currently do now, that is what the contracts actually say not a hypothetical Austrian fantasy. The whole nature of loaning money comes with risk. If you don't want to loan the bank your money then don't. Put your money in a mattress or a safe deposit box or some other storage device.
Your claim that you give the money to the bank so that only you will have use of it is false. The banks do not make this claim, read the actual contracts, that should matter to you.
It is the Austrians trying to confuse the issue. Anyone who actually reads the contracts is not confused.
Is the bank legallly required to give you your money in sixty days even during bank runs?
Individualist:Is the bank legallly required to give you your money in sixty days even during bank runs?
In the United States the federal government does... up to $250k....
FDIC....
Another failure of socialism, they will print it to get it to you...
wilderness: nirgrahamUK: Wilmot of Rochester:I am not afraid to say that the only real law that exists is the law of the gun....don't ever expect to be invited as a guest to my house. Another case of the individuals are to be soldiers and let's not have foresight and prepare ahead of time kind of person, Wilmot seems. Very dangerous indeed, wouldn't want him near me at all either. And thus a bank taking property is fine unless his posse brings more guns, yet the bank can loan out for more guns, so his posse can get another bank to loan him more money to get more guns, and then another bank can help the first bank get even more guns and then he can get more banks to ratio their reserves to get more guns and on and on the 'might makes right' mentality goes - perpetual.
lol to nirgraham's post.
Wilderness,
You might not want me around you and that's fine, though honestly in conversation you're the one that appears to be most hostile and short tempered.
Moreover, it's not about violence and blood lust, that isn't where my position comes from. Emotions do prevent people from doing certain things that they personally think is wrong, but that doesn't make it an objective fact of ethics. My issue is that emotion is not ethics and these appeals to the idea that you must be dangerous if you are a moral subjectivist isn't one grounded in ethical theory - it's just a cheap shot on the internets.
Daniel: Wilmot of Rochester: Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Wut? It may be like it never happened, but it did happen. 1. If that tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, there is no consequence to its have fallen and so it's like it never happened at all for all intents and purposes. There is no ideal realm where all things are seen and heard all the time. All phenomena require an observer for their having happened to matter at all. 2. But it doesn't matter because nothing comes of it. It counts for nothing. ... That one isn't being watched isn't necessarily a determining factor in the actions of one person or another. After all, we never know when we're being watched if the watcher is a skilled ninja equipt with unparalleled recon skills. Hasty generalization. But even if it were true, it could never be proven. Wilmot of Rochester:However, the real determining factor is a personal feeling of probability that your actions will come and affect you later. You're addressing an issue seperate from that which I brought up. Wilmot of Rochester:Arguing about whether if a tree falls in the woods and is not heard does it matter doesn't really matter in the modern world. Subjective. Wilmot of Rochester:What matters is probability of being heard and the probability therein that the hearer will come back to get you. Yet, you bothered to join the debate. Albeit, you addressed a seperate issue.
Daniel,
Calm down. I wasn't addressing the issue, you're right, because I was referring to something Jacob said - hence quoting him. My goodness how shortly people lose their tempers online.
Wilmot of Rochester: Daniel, Calm down. I wasn't addressing the issue, you're right, because I was referring to something Jacob said - hence quoting him. My goodness how shortly people lose their tempers online.
... and Jacob was quoting me.
Individualist: Is the bank legallly required to give you your money in sixty days even during bank runs?
Yes, this is why it matters to read the contract you are signing. All I am for is letting people decide for themselves what relationship they want with their bank. The Austrians if they had their way would prevent this. It's very simple.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:Still advocating banking communism eh ?
No just freedom. Things like a mixed commodity bank that offers gold and silver or any other basket of commodities would basically be outlawed by the Austrians. I see no reason for such things. Let people decide the level of risk they want. Let the market determine what notes will be traded at a discount or at face value. I see no reason that should be imposed on anyone, by the Austrians or anyone else.