http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/2012/08/imf-backs-full-reserve-banking/
Talk is cheap, besides how would the IMF enforce such a policy even if it really wanted to enact it? A much better solution is to get rid of the IMF the World Bank and super-national and national banking regulation and central banking. Then banks will experience real market forces that will determine if 100% reserves are the best way to do business. It will also determine what to do with banks that lend out too much money.
Indeed. The French socialists at the IMF ('regulation school') and Rothbardians are, surprisingly enough, in agreement on many issues.
"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."
interesting, but why would the IMF suggest 100% reserves? That would put them virtually out of business. unless IMF is predicting another huge collapse in banking on the horizon. So they can claim 'well we were telling people we believe in 100% reserves, but the greeding banks do whatever they want. If we just had the power to control all the banks we could of prevented it."
i think ive been watching too many 9/11 conspiracy videos today.
Could be that the IMF is aware of the degree to which sovereign debtors have exported their problems across the world, to the point where capacity has been reached and there is nowhere else upon which to dump them.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Reading the page it seems the IMF is actually tying 'private' money to increased debt and usury. They likely support and would enforce 100% reserves in the same way the US Constitution supported and enforced limits on government power. Or in other words, not all. But it sure is a soothe song that would lubricate the 'sale' of any policy they may be trying to sell to right wingers and libertarian types. But of course the issue would then be, who defines 100% reserves, who defines the split between credit and deposit banking, and who defines what the reserves themselves have to be. More worthless paper backing existing worthless paper means diddly shit. And technically banks are always at 100% reserves; they generally ha ve 100% of the reserves they are required to have by law.
So at base any policy they're pushing would rest on the assumption that a bunch of thieving bankster assholes who have made a generational business out of ripping people off and screwing them at every turn have had a sudden change of heart. And I seriously doubt that will happen. Theiving bastardy is probably encoded in their frigging genes at this point.
"Scientists recently discovered a new gene they have named the FDIC 3 gene, and apparently it is associated with severe tendencies toward thievery and the ability to sell bullshit to large masses of people..."
Esuric: Indeed. The French socialists at the IMF ('regulation school') and Rothbardians are, surprisingly enough, in agreement on many issues.
The Fisher plan and the old Chicago school proposal for 100% is hardly the "Rothbardian" plan.
When did I say it was the "Rothbard" plan?
Orrrr, it could be a silent intellectual revolution of the austrian school, that is influencing a multinational bank like the IMF?
Think positive guys.... I can (only have so much) hope that they arent evil after all,
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org