Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Short question on fractional reserve banking

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 4 Replies | 3 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
115 Posts
Points 5,265
inquisitiveteenager posted on Fri, Aug 21 2009 10:31 PM

If a bank lends out more notes than gold, hasn't it sealed its fate of bankruptcy at that moment?

The minute you have more claims on gold than gold available doesn't that mean that inevitably, sooner or later, the bank will go bust?

Some writers say banks 'run the risk' of going bust but i thought going bust is inevitable if you loan out more money that you have.

If there is 'only a risk' how can a bank escape the risk and get away with it FRB?

You see, to me it looks as though the only way a bank can get away with it is if the person borrowing the unbacked money returns it to the bank before it is deposited at another bank, but that is an unrealistic situation, isn't it?

  • | Post Points: 50

All Replies

Top 10 Contributor
Male
5,538 Posts
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Fri, Aug 21 2009 11:17 PM
Either the bank will fail to redeem some notes - i.e. bankruptcy - although it may be a temporary suspension of 'conversion' - a temporary bankruptcy of sorts...

...Or else, the notes will trade at a discount.

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."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
418 Posts
Points 7,525

It is critically dependent on the depositors not all withdrawing their money at the same time. The more reserves a bank keeps, the less likely it is that they might go bankrupt (as they have more money actually backing the notes at a given time). Consequently, one can gather that full-reserve banking would prevent going bankrupt from withdrawals.

Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
3,113 Posts
Points 60,515
Answered (Not Verified) Esuric replied on Sat, Aug 22 2009 2:05 AM
Suggested by Esuric

inquisitiveteenager:

If a bank lends out more notes than gold, hasn't it sealed its fate of bankruptcy at that moment?

The minute you have more claims on gold than gold available doesn't that mean that inevitably, sooner or later, the bank will go bust?

Yes, FRB must inevitably destroy itself.

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
418 Posts
Points 7,525
Esuric:

Yes, FRB must inevitably destroy itself.

I'm highly critical of fractional-reserve banking (as are most others here), but to say that it "must inevitably destroy itself" is hyperbole. It really depends on a variety of factors, including both the likelihood of a bank run occurring and the ability of bankers to foresee or fail to foresee one. Not only that, but when fractional-reserve banking is a state-sponsored endeavor (like it is today), such banks are pretty well insulated from the inherent faults in the model.

Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (5 items) | RSS