I understand their argument about how it could be legally and morally permissable to allow banks to offer FRB, but does anyone here understand their practical argument? Can someone explain why they think issuing fiduciary media can benefit society as a whole over a long-term time period?
It seems to me it is simply based upon preference, but as Hoppe, Block, and Hulsmann rebut, preference is not indicative of social benefit when the preference is a violation of property rights.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Juan:Now, hopefully having answered this "Are you a fascist? ", Would you mind explaining how creating 'credit' out of thin air (FRAUD) is good for innovation ?
parody answer: its good like setting a minimum wage law is good for automating elevators
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
GilesStratton: Thedesolateone: (1) The "demand for money" point is no point at all. There is an infinite demand for money (savings) for investment projects. There is a scarce amount of savings to be doled out. This is regulated by the price system. First off, money and savings are not the same thing. Secondly, Rothbard has disposed of this nonsense, there is not an infinite demand for money any more than there is for any other good. To say so would be silly.
Thedesolateone: (1) The "demand for money" point is no point at all. There is an infinite demand for money (savings) for investment projects. There is a scarce amount of savings to be doled out. This is regulated by the price system.
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."
nirgrahamUK: Juan: Now, hopefully having answered this "Are you a fascist? ", Would you mind explaining how creating 'credit' out of thin air (FRAUD) is good for innovation ? parody answer: its good like setting a minimum wage law is good for automating elevators
Juan: Now, hopefully having answered this "Are you a fascist? ", Would you mind explaining how creating 'credit' out of thin air (FRAUD) is good for innovation ?
GilesStratton: Thedesolateone:(1) The "demand for money" point is no point at all. There is an infinite demand for money (savings) for investment projects. There is a scarce amount of savings to be doled out. This is regulated by the price system. First off, money and savings are not the same thing. Secondly, Rothbard has disposed of this nonsense, there is not an infinite demand for money any more than there is for any other good. To say so would be silly.
Thedesolateone:(1) The "demand for money" point is no point at all. There is an infinite demand for money (savings) for investment projects. There is a scarce amount of savings to be doled out. This is regulated by the price system.
First off, money and savings are not the same thing. Secondly, Rothbard has disposed of this nonsense, there is not an infinite demand for money any more than there is for any other good. To say so would be silly.
I clarify the difference between money and savings in (2)
And I've read what Rothbard said. He's talking about actual demand at the effective price
I'm saying: relative to the supply, the demand for any good (prior to the setting of the price) is infinite.
EDIT: Perhaps I should clarify my terminology? From on desire = want the good, demand = buy the good
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
at any one time the demand for goods and services is bounded by the present supply of goods and services, (Says Law)
this is often emphasised by calling it Real Demand,. at least that is my laymans understanding
Accidentally edited by Thedesolateone
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Thedesolateone:And I've read what Rothbard said. He's talking about actual demand at the effective price
I know, but clearly there's an effective "price" of money at any time.
Oops
Did I just edit your response to say what I wanted to say?!
Bad economics, this. Demand for money isn't "infinite," demand is never infinite, because resources aren't infinite! To demand something, you have to be willing to fork over somne wealth or current income to get it! To demand money, you have to be willing to refrain from spending it on other things.
Selgin:Bad economics, this. Demand for money isn't "infinite," demand is never infinite, because resources aren't infinite! To demand something, you have to be willing to fork over somne wealth or current income to get it! To demand money, you have to be willing to refrain from spending it on other things.
....unless. a bank will imagine it can use someones money twice and loans it to you......... hey.............
The quote from Hoppe about conservativism and libertarianism illustrates his way of reasoning in all its naked glory: a sweeping assertion, emphatically stated using pretentious terms, that happens to be either meaningless or just plain false. You might as well substitute "black" and "white" for "libertarianism" and "conservatism": the statement would remain equally insightful.
Admittedly, the quote from Hoppe is at least less obnoxious than that from Aquinas, praising the burning of persons for not holding the right beliefs! Or perhaps Hoppe has proven that Aquinas' view is really perfectly consistent with libertarianism!
why do you prefer to discuss qoutes out of context when you could be discussing criticisms of arguments that you are party to?
Selgin: White responded to it at some length long ago. Alas, his reply is only available in hard copy. The reference is: "Banking Without a Central Bank: Scotland Before 1844 as a 'Free Banking' System," in Forest Capie and Geoffrey Wood, eds., Unregulated Banking: Chaos or Order? (London: Macmillan, 1991): 37-62. White also responds to Sechrets's Cato Journal critique in the same issue (Winter 1991). Unfortunately, the response isn't included in Cato's pdf version!
White responded to it at some length long ago. Alas, his reply is only available in hard copy. The reference is: "Banking Without a Central Bank: Scotland Before 1844 as a 'Free Banking' System," in Forest Capie and Geoffrey Wood, eds., Unregulated Banking: Chaos or Order? (London: Macmillan, 1991): 37-62. White also responds to Sechrets's Cato Journal critique in the same issue (Winter 1991). Unfortunately, the response isn't included in Cato's pdf version!
I could not find an accessible response by White either. But surely, you should be able to comment on it yourself since you are clearly relying on this fact. Rothbard's analysis is crystal clear. It is only a matter of disputing the actual historical facts. The facts as presented if taken to be accurate, can only lead to one conclusion: The free banking in Scotland is a myth.
There is therefore no reason to assume that FRB could flourish in a free banking system. Mises and later Rothbard showed that free banking would lead to a hard money near 100% reserve banking system. Can you at least show in theory (Praxeology) that such a system could flourish?
Proffesor White is lecturing about free banking at the FEE sumer seminar in NY. I want to go, just so I confront him on this issue.
Well, I'm doing both, aren't I? But really, these little quotations are too revealing to pass without comment. And there was a thread going about libertarianism, was there not?
I was being rhetorical.