Hello,
I am a layperson only recently exposed to the Austrian school of economics. I'm fascinated by it and I'm buying what you're selling. I do have a question:
I've read a few books by Murray Rothbard and he's critical of the fractional reserve banking system. What I do not understand: without fractional resreve banking, how can money be loaned and how could a bank possibly pay me interest? I certainly understand the risk of fractional reserve banking, especially when rerserve requirement is very low but I don't understand what the alternative is.
Thanks.
Don
Thanks for your answer.
But - how do you loan the first dollar? i.e., if, as a bank, all my deposits must be backed, isn't 100% of my money not loanable?
This is an easy answer:
There are a bunch of ways to get money without making fractional reserve loans on deposits that users can claim immediately:
1. Most Common: Issue equity. That is you sell ownership in a bank, normally done through stock holders but can be done through a mutual system. In either case the investors are not contractually obligated to be paid the money back. Understand that if the bank makes more than the interest rates then the investors get more money paid back. There are many more insurance companies that use the mutual system and it has advantages.
2. Contract deposits now for money later. A certificate of deposit is an example. The agreement for higher interest rates means the depositor has limit access to their deposit unlike a checking account or passbook savings. This method includes selling long term bonds.
In all likelyhood there would arise, in a stateless society, two different kinds of institutions.
The first would be a true financial intermediary, who would facilitate the loaning of money. There profits would be the result of arbitrage. For example, person A comes to the bank offering them money for 5% per annum, they would then lend this money at a rate higher than that and (e.g. 6% per annum) and then pocket the difference as a profit.
The second would be more like a warehousing business with whom individuals would conduct a monetary irregular deposit contract. The bank would charge a sum of money in order to guard the gold (or whatever other commodity) and this is how they would make money.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
dmuldoon:how do you loan the first dollar?
You have to get a depositor (or an investor) to allow you to do so. That's what a CD is for example. Remember you only need to maintain 100% backing for demand deposits.
The definitive work on this subject from an Austrin perspective is De Soto's book Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles. It's available online in pdf format here.
Shawn77:I don't see how FRB is any different than taking the petty cash fund on friday and putting it back on monday. Certainly this constitutes a voluntary action on someones part but does that mean it has emerged through natural voluntary action.
Savers are paid interest with FRB.
"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."
Esuric:Savers are paid interest with FRB
ok this maybe an advantage of FRB but it in no way explains how it came about voluntarily.
DD5:the buyer agreeing to the seller's terms hardly eliminates the fraud, but only makes him a collaborator in the fraud along with the seller against all other owners of gold. Now of course, if these new gold accounts are NOT introduced into the market as real gold substitutes backed up by 100% the face amount and safely secured in some vault, then no fraud takes place at all, but then we are no longer talking about anything even remotely related to fractional reserve banking.
So if everyone agrees it's still fraud? I don't understand your position here.
Esuric: DD5:the buyer agreeing to the seller's terms hardly eliminates the fraud, but only makes him a collaborator in the fraud along with the seller against all other owners of gold. Now of course, if these new gold accounts are NOT introduced into the market as real gold substitutes backed up by 100% the face amount and safely secured in some vault, then no fraud takes place at all, but then we are no longer talking about anything even remotely related to fractional reserve banking. So if everyone agrees it's still fraud? I don't understand your position here.
Please read everything before you respond.
DD5: Esuric: DD5:the buyer agreeing to the seller's terms hardly eliminates the fraud, but only makes him a collaborator in the fraud along with the seller against all other owners of gold. Now of course, if these new gold accounts are NOT introduced into the market as real gold substitutes backed up by 100% the face amount and safely secured in some vault, then no fraud takes place at all, but then we are no longer talking about anything even remotely related to fractional reserve banking. So if everyone agrees it's still fraud? I don't understand your position here. Please read everything before you respond.
Again:
"Now of course, if these new gold accounts are NOT introduced into the market as real gold substitutes backed up by 100% the face amount and safely secured in some vault, then no fraud takes place at all, but then we are no longer talking about anything even remotely related to fractional reserve banking"
Shawn77:ok this maybe an advantage of FRB but it in no way explains how it came about voluntarily.
If its engaged in voluntarily, it doesn't really matter how it may have come about. It no longer continues to be a form of fraud even if it started as one.
DD5:Please read everything before you respond.
You're defining it as fraud right off the bat. If all parties agree, that is, without compulsion, how can it be fraudulent?
Esuric: DD5:Please read everything before you respond. You're defining it as fraud right off the bat. If all parties agree, that is, without compulsion, how can it be fraudulent?
If everyone agrees, then
1. You are no longer talking about demand deposits, but something else; i.e., demand deposit with a clause
2. If these claim tickets do not masquerade as demand deposits, then they are no different then other financial instruments, but they are not money. They cannot possibly hold on to their face value.
This is not a Fractional Reserve Banking system.
DD5:2. If these claim tickets do not masquerade as demand deposits, then they are no different then other financial instruments, but they are not money. They cannot possibly hold on to their face value.
How do you come to this conclusion? As long as the supply of money does not exceed the demand for cash holdings, the purchasing power of money will not decline. Theoretically, frb can be sensitive to changes in the demand for money and react to it efficiently.
DD5:1. You are no longer talking about demand deposits, but something else; i.e., demand deposit with a clause
So some people don't understand how banking operates whatsoever? Are you saying that they're exploited? You sound like the "liberal" who demands government intervention because people are "ignorant" and therefore not able to make their own decisions.
How would everyone engage in FRB voluntarily. In an FRB system everyone is effected by it regardless of whether they wish to or not.
Shawn77:How would everyone engage in FRB voluntarily. In an FRB system everyone is effected by it regardless of whether they wish to or not.
They would demand warehouse institutions. These institutions would hold onto their savings for a fee.
Esuric: DD5:2. If these claim tickets do not masquerade as demand deposits, then they are no different then other financial instruments, but they are not money. They cannot possibly hold on to their face value. How do you come to this conclusion? As long as the supply of money does not exceed the demand for cash holdings, the purchasing power of money will not decline. Theoretically, frb can be sensitive to changes in the demand for money and react to it efficiently.
Why do you try evade the point by resorting to a theory about demand.
Are these claim tickets masquerading as "demand deposits" or aren't they? It's a very simple question which I think I am entitled to get a Yes or No response without talking about demand. We can talk about demand later.
You voluntarily open bank accounts. You voluntarily accept money. You don't have to participate if you don't want to.
Esuric: They would demand warehouse institutions. These institutions would hold onto their savings for a fee.
How would this address the depreciation due to credit expansion. You canmake an argument that FRB is a better system in aggregate, but on an individual basis some will be losers whether they agree or not.
DD5:Are these claim tickets masquerading as "demand deposits" or aren't they? It's a very simple question which I think I am entitled to get a Yes or No response without talking about demand. We can talk about demand later.
This question has been answered for you already. No. The claims are "demand deposits with a clause."