It would seem that using the printing press on currency always leads to trouble ( inflation, assault on savings ect ) , can you ever justify printing money?
Dustin S. Jussila: It would seem that using the printing press on currency always leads to trouble ( inflation, assault on savings ect ) , can you ever justify printing money?
No.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
scineram:My point was that it has been refuted in subsequent development by later Austrians.
But that's the central premise of ABCT. Can you explain why Mises, Hayek, Lachmann were wrong?
"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."
nirgrahamUK: Wilmot of Rochester:I would ask him why there are no bank runs in the Cayman Islands or in Andorra. they arent in competition with sound money?
Wilmot of Rochester:I would ask him why there are no bank runs in the Cayman Islands or in Andorra.
they arent in competition with sound money?
There money is sound. It's efficiently lended and received to give people back money in interest rates. Anyways, there doesn't need to be a gold dollar for there to be runs on the bank. Yet there aren't... Strange.
existence is elsewhere
Juan: Salerno:Today's fractional reserves are a fiction of accounting, and don't exist in fact. Because of deposit insurance and the Feds power to create new money, the public correctly perceives that all deposits are guaranteed at face value. Deposits are in fact risk-free claims to currency. Rochester:As far as Salerno's criticisms of fractional reserves, they seem devoid of empiricism and it's actually quite odd for him to argue that there really isn't any fractional reserve system today if he wants to simultaneously argue that fractional reserves are the cause of business cycles. Banks extend 'credit' which is not backed by savings. It can't get any more obvious than that...IF you know the basics.
Salerno:Today's fractional reserves are a fiction of accounting, and don't exist in fact. Because of deposit insurance and the Feds power to create new money, the public correctly perceives that all deposits are guaranteed at face value. Deposits are in fact risk-free claims to currency.
Rochester:As far as Salerno's criticisms of fractional reserves, they seem devoid of empiricism and it's actually quite odd for him to argue that there really isn't any fractional reserve system today if he wants to simultaneously argue that fractional reserves are the cause of business cycles.
But they must be... For then the banks would be fractional reserves. According to Salerno, they aren't.
Juan:I have no problem with admitting that there were two different versions of Mises and that I think the Mises that wrote The Theory of Money and Credit was better than the Mises of late. fact : frb is a fraud and 'inefficient' regardless of Mises managing to grasp that or not. fact : The views presented by Mises in HA are rather sensible regardless of your irrelevant opinions about them.
I have no problem with admitting that there were two different versions of Mises and that I think the Mises that wrote The Theory of Money and Credit was better than the Mises of late.
You can scream and kick about how fractional reserves are frauded all you like, it doesn't make it so - and it certainly doesn't sell your cause to actual economists.
And Hayek and early Mises did have very sensible ideas. Rothbard, not so much - at least on monetary economics.
Rochester:But they must be... For then the banks would be fractional reserves. According to Salerno, they aren't.
For then the banks would be fractional reserves.
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."
Wilmot of Rochester:And Hayek and early Mises did have very sensible ideas.
This idiot just keeps spewing his garbage until everyone gives up.
Juan: Rochester:But they must be... For then the banks would be fractional reserves. According to Salerno, they aren't. Sorry, I don't know what your pronouns are supposed to replace. "But they must be" - What are 'they' ? For then the banks would be fractional reserves. That doesn't even make sense does it ? "The banks would be fractional reserves" ? What ? I'm hardly interested in what pseudo-intellectuals think. Yes, Mises explains all the flaws in fiduciary media. Too bad it's beyond your grasp.
I'm hardly interested in what pseudo-intellectuals think.
Yes, Mises explains all the flaws in fiduciary media. Too bad it's beyond your grasp.
Salerno's point was that the US doesn't currently have fractional reserves. They is the banks must be fractional reserves.
As for pseudo-intellectuals... Well, you know what. Pass, actually.
And Mises's disagreements with currency was really more of a bet. Mises thought that fractional reserves would prove to have inadequacies and those inadequacies would not hold up in the end. Now, though there isn't a completely free market for banking, there is plenty enough evidence to show that the inadequacies Mises thought there would be were simply not there - he took a bet is all, he had no empirical evidence to really test it out, so we can't blame him too much for being wrong.
However, we can move on from the early 20th century, where these quaint concepts of gold and silver dollars that you can test with your teeth belong.
the banks must be fractional reserves.
Wilmot of Rochester:Salerno's point was that the US doesn't currently have fractional reserves. They is the banks must be fractional reserves.
wrong. you misunderstood him. salerno would tell you that there are fractional reserves, and that they produce the money multiplier effect, and that they set off boom and bust; only, when analaysing the RISK of bank a run, is there a deviation from what one would have in a free market in banking, to the extent that we are analysing risk there is not 'fractional reserve banking'
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
Juan:the banks must be fractional reserves. I'm rather confident that's not even a valid English sentence, let alone a meaningful one. And Mises's disagreements with currency was really more of a bet. Mises thought that fractional reserves would prove to have inadequacies and those inadequacies would not hold up in the end. Now, though there isn't a completely free market for banking, there is plenty enough evidence to show that the inadequacies Mises thought there would be were simply not there - he took a bet is all, he had no empirical evidence to really test it out, so we can't blame him too much for being wrong. Just making up stuff as you go eh ? So 'empirical evidence' has refuted economic reasoning ? And sound money theorists were and are all wrong ? And the dollar has not lost 98% of its value ? And what is it that you smoke ? However, we can move on from the early 20th century, where these quaint concepts of gold and silver dollars that you can test with your teeth belong. Meaning of that sentence ?
My mistake. Salerno's point was that the US currently does not have a fractional reserve system. So what's the complaint about, I wonder?
I'm not making anything up though, read Nigraham's post on Salerno.
And empirical evidence is just a supporter for one side of a debate. Mises' bet that fractional reserves would have serious enough flaws to make them lose in the market were wrong, bank runs don't exist in places where fractional reserve banks invest intelligently and prudently. I can't think of any other way warehouses would beat out banks than for banks to go under in runs.
No. People that believe in a sound banking system are still in the game; gold bugs, however, are wrong, yes.
nirgrahamUK: wrong. you misunderstood him. salerno would tell you that there are fractional reserves, and that they produce the money multiplier effect, and that they set off boom and bust; only, when analaysing the RISK of bank a run, is there a deviation from what one would have in a free market in banking, to the extent that we are analysing risk there is not 'fractional reserve banking'
So there isn't a fractional reserve bank but there is, well... Maybe Salerno would have just been safer not trying to confuse words and just saying there's a moral hazard for banks to lend.
http://www.fdic.gov/
would you also like to know how subsidies create distortions in the market which cause people to act in ways that do not represent valid market trends? Perhaps someone should spoon feed you some vegetable purée as well.
banned:fdic
A link?!? NO WAY!
If this doesn't shut me up...
No. People that believe in a sound banking system are still in the game;