I have given thought to this and I can't find any a priori demonstration that fractional reserve banking is bad. Sure, it multiplies money in the economy and may create inflation, but it might very well be equilibrated with the investment-spending-saving behaviors of the people.
I usually check any issue by asking if it violates some hardcore axiomatic principle, but I can't think of any principle violated by fractional reserve banking.
People who deposit money in a bank already know the money will be used for loans. If they had a problem with that they would put the money in a safe box instead. So there is no moral problem involved.
Then there is the inflationary issue.
Some guy deposits money in the bank, the bank will pay a fee to the first guy (being a intermediary) and could lend all the money at a higher fee to someone else. The second guy uses it to buy a new car for his taxi company. The car dealer will pay for his expenses (including buying more cars) and deposit the rest of the money. The car manufacturer, at his time, will pay his expenses and deposit the surplus. The same will happen with every other person who becomes and indirect receiver of the loan. Most of the money will be flowing through the market, only a small part will be saved. An equilibrium will be achieved sooner or later. The bank (if it expects to recover the money) can only lend to people with guarantees and projects that have a sound plan, which are scarce. The surplus of money in any economy is scarce too. The lending doesn't go on ad infinitum, it will stop at a point that depends on the current situation of the economy.
The only problem could occur when someone doesn't really want to loan the money, but just it keep there to facilitate the handling of money by issuing checks instead of having to carry (for example) gold or silver with him all the time. Then he agrees to pay a fee to the bank, and expects to be able to withdraw the money at anytime. If the bank makes loans using that money then the banker really is committing fraud. Otherwise, he is not.
The issue really comes down to sound banking practices. Fractional reserve, as based in fixed term deposits, isn't immoral at all. The danger for any person making a deposit would be the same as if he was lending it directly to some friend. His friend's project may fail and he may have to execute the guarantee, maybe will lose his money, maybe will have to go to a trial to recover something.
Actually, informal loans could be considered banking operations with a zero-reserve.
So, what's the problem? What am I missing here? Why is everybody against it?
Pity the theory which sets itself up in opposition to the mind!
Carl Von Clausewitz
gussosa: The only problem could occur when someone doesn't really want to loan the money, but just it keep there to facilitate the handling of money by issuing checks instead of having to carry (for example) gold or silver with him all the time. Then he agrees to pay a fee to the bank, and expects to be able to withdraw the money at anytime. If the bank makes loans using that money then the banker really is committing fraud.
The only problem could occur when someone doesn't really want to loan the money, but just it keep there to facilitate the handling of money by issuing checks instead of having to carry (for example) gold or silver with him all the time. Then he agrees to pay a fee to the bank, and expects to be able to withdraw the money at anytime. If the bank makes loans using that money then the banker really is committing fraud.
What you have just described as "fraud" is fractional reserve banking.
gussosa: The issue really comes down to sound banking practices. Fractional reserve, as based in fixed term deposits, isn't immoral at all.
The issue really comes down to sound banking practices. Fractional reserve, as based in fixed term deposits, isn't immoral at all.
"Fractional reserve, as based in fixed term deposits" doesn't make any sense.
It's the fractional reserve system, not fiat, that's the problem - in theory, you could have 100% reserve banking with fiat money, and it wouldn't be a problem. I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to talk about "fractional reserve" on term deposits (even in a strong 100% reserve system, term deposits would have "0% reserves" - it doesn't make sense not to loan that out)
bigwig:If there aren't bank runs (99% of the time), doesn't it mean that depositers would not touch that money and thus allow it to be loaned out in a free market?
Not necessarily, because money can be transferred from one account to another without being withdrawn and redeposited - i.e., it doesn't have to exist to be used in payment. Given Internet banking, etc., a modern bank could allow you to specify how much you want to keep on demand for immediate use and let you put different amounts in various-length term deposits (e.g., they could offer 24 hour, 7 days, 30, 60, 90 days, 6 months, 1, 2, and 5 years, say), where they'd offer continuously varying higher or lower interest rates on each length depending on their need for loanable funds, etc. (I mean the offered rate would vary perhaps several times a day; once you committed some money to it, you'd get whatever rate was offered at that time); when you put some money into, say, a 7 day account, it would disappear from your current balance and be returned (with interest) 7 days later (you could have some sort of calendar display showing your future balances as well as the current balance) - now the banks could legitimately loan out your money (with no reserve requirement!), except whatever you keep on demand (for which you'd pay a fee), and hardly anybody would keep any significant amount on demand, and bank runs would be impossible. But that's not what they do today.
Fractional Lending is the root to our dysfunctional financial system. This is why we need the FED to be our “lender of last resort”. Just think about a world without it; banks could only loan those deposits which depositors want to invest and gain a percentage. All other deposits have to be kept and can not be loaned. When this is done balance sheets are balanced and we don’t need any central bank to provide for anything. Market interest rates are to be determined by the supply of depositors to bank (expecting to earn a return) and companies, individuals and governments borrowing this money from banks. There is no room for mistakes here and business cycles are avoided.
Julio: Fractional Lending is the root to our dysfunctional financial system. This is why we need the FED to be our “lender of last resort”. Just think about a world without it; banks could only loan those deposits which depositors want to invest and gain a percentage. All other deposits have to be kept and can not be loaned. When this is done balance sheets are balanced and we don’t need any central bank to provide for anything. Market interest rates are to be determined by the supply of depositors to bank (expecting to earn a return) and companies, individuals and governments borrowing this money from banks. There is no room for mistakes here and business cycles are avoided.
I hope we all agree that if the people using a bank agree to how the system is being used then there is no fraud. So the question is do you think in a free society, people will agree to use this fractional reserve type of system? I say Yes.
I hope we all agree that if the people using a bank agree to how the system is being used then there is no fraud.
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:I hope we all agree that if the people using a bank agree to how the system is being used then there is no fraud. In your fantasy world people would agree to put money in the bank so that the bank owner can run a ponzi scheme...keep dreaming - it's free.
Please explain the actual mechanics of why you think it is a ponzi scheme. If I agree how my money will be used and the risk associated with it how is that a violation of a libertarian principle?
Please explain the actual mechanics of why you think it is a ponzi scheme.
Juan:Please explain the actual mechanics of why you think it is a ponzi scheme. It's been explained ad nauseam. Please read any critique of FRB.
So I am not free to do with my money as I please. What is the point of a free society if you can't bank where you want?
jpk: The good old FRB debate. Merging two world views into one theory creates a seam. It is at this seam that a new theory is weakest. The reason this debate always pops up is because it hilights a criticial weakness in the seam sown by Murray Rothbard in his merger of Austrian economics with libertarianism. Traditional austrian economics via Mises provides a sound economic critique of FRB. Libertarianism, on the other hand, espouses the primacy of contract. According to the libertarian, if two consenting adults choose to enter into an FRB style contract no one can forcibly prevent them from doing so. This denial and acceptance of FRB puts the austrian economist and the libertarian at odds. Sowing together these two intellectual edifices with their differing opinions on FRB is therefore impossible, though Rothbard has attempted to do so (as has De Soto), usually through long and drawn out legalist arguments. There is such a panopoly of debates on this subject on Mises.com because it's pretty easy for many to see through Rothbard's weak seam; the inherent contradiction between Austrianism and libertarianism. At the same time, the anti-FRB fire control crowd comes to parrot Rothbard and man the weak link. Fireworks ensue. On the whole, Austro-libertarians just need to accept the FRB weak-link as the price to pay for uniting two grand theories. To assume an entire intellectual edifice to be coherent and non-contradictory is sheer silliness.
The good old FRB debate.
Merging two world views into one theory creates a seam. It is at this seam that a new theory is weakest. The reason this debate always pops up is because it hilights a criticial weakness in the seam sown by Murray Rothbard in his merger of Austrian economics with libertarianism.
Traditional austrian economics via Mises provides a sound economic critique of FRB. Libertarianism, on the other hand, espouses the primacy of contract. According to the libertarian, if two consenting adults choose to enter into an FRB style contract no one can forcibly prevent them from doing so. This denial and acceptance of FRB puts the austrian economist and the libertarian at odds.
Sowing together these two intellectual edifices with their differing opinions on FRB is therefore impossible, though Rothbard has attempted to do so (as has De Soto), usually through long and drawn out legalist arguments. There is such a panopoly of debates on this subject on Mises.com because it's pretty easy for many to see through Rothbard's weak seam; the inherent contradiction between Austrianism and libertarianism. At the same time, the anti-FRB fire control crowd comes to parrot Rothbard and man the weak link. Fireworks ensue.
On the whole, Austro-libertarians just need to accept the FRB weak-link as the price to pay for uniting two grand theories. To assume an entire intellectual edifice to be coherent and non-contradictory is sheer silliness.
Maxliberty: Juan:Please explain the actual mechanics of why you think it is a ponzi scheme. It's been explained ad nauseam. Please read any critique of FRB. So I am not free to do with my money as I please. What is the point of a free society if you can't bank where you want?
Tell me how depositing money in a demand deposit isn't a bailment but is, as you claim, a loan.
And then explain how this is different from 'leasing' your money to the bank through a timed deposit.
MaxLiberty:So I am not free to do with my money as I please. What is the point of a free society if you can't bank where you want?
jpk:Traditional austrian economics via Mises provides a sound economic critique of FRB.
scineram:A very good point. I was wondering about the same.
Which point, this one?
According to the libertarian, if two consenting adults choose to enter into an FRB style contract no one can forcibly prevent them from doing so.
That's actually the whole point of contention, if that is a valid contract or not.
And a total strawman due to the use of 'force', according to the 'libertarian' no one can force anyone into doing anything. Generally speaking, of course.
Juan:Sorry, but the problem is not whether FRB as a contract is valid or not. The point is that the people who advocate FRB either don't understand it, or are lying, or both.
Since we're contradicting each other allow me to explain.
If it is fraud then any voluntary contract would be invalid as it is based upon fraud.
Juan:Now, despite such a contract and its debatable validity, FRB will fail for economic reasons, which is something that FRB advocates constantly deny, as if they didn't understand economics. It baffles me.
It has had such a successful history after all...
The only FRB system that hasn't failed is the current one and the jury's still out on that one. If Iceland is any indication of things to come the verdict will be in soon enough.
jpk: Merging two world views into one theory creates a seam. It is at this seam that a new theory is weakest. The reason this debate always pops up is because it hilights a criticial weakness in the seam sown by Murray Rothbard in his merger of Austrian economics with libertarianism. Traditional austrian economics via Mises provides a sound economic critique of FRB. Libertarianism, on the other hand, espouses the primacy of contract. According to the libertarian, if two consenting adults choose to enter into an FRB style contract no one can forcibly prevent them from doing so. This denial and acceptance of FRB puts the austrian economist and the libertarian at odds.
What on earth are you talking about? Have you actually read any Rothbard? (Hint: Rothbard opposed FRB very strongly indeed!)