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
Esuric:Indeed you do.
Economics is wertfrei.
Spideynw:No one has ever chosen to use paper as currency (unless it is fiat) so there is no reason to believe anyone ever would in a free market, especially given the understanding we have of economics.
So how is it that people chose fractional reserve banknotes repeatedly through history.
Rothbardians cannot allow facts tinker with high theory.
I expect you are using a rather perculiar definition of 'chose'
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
Esuric:Just 17 more pages to go until you finally discredit Austrian economics.
I don't think he's attempting to discredit Austrian economics, as far as I'm aware he's putting forward an analysis in terms of monetary equilibrium theory. Now, George Selgin has done a lot of work an monetary equilibrium theory, as have other Austrians such as Steve Horwitz, for you to say that he's "discrediting" Austrian economics is disingenuous. Austrian economics neither began nor ended with Rothbard, who was very confused, to say the least, when it came to monetary theory.'
nirgrahamUK: I expect you are using a rather perculiar definition of 'chose'
Not really, at least, not as far as I know. Here's the thing, if you're so sure that FRB is an inefficient way of banking, then you should have no issue with letting it go head to head with 100% reserves in a free banking system. You're arguing like a lawyer, either fractional reserves are fraudulent and will, as a result, beat 100% and therefore need to be outlawed, or it's just an inefficient banking system that will lose out to the competition when it comes to it. You can't have it both ways.
Now, if you wish to chose the former route of argument you're going to have to deal with the fact that you're defining terms in such a way that you're conclusion follows. Historically deposits have been intepreted in the way Huerta de Soto points out and in the way Selgin and White define the term. At the end of the day what the term "deposit" means depends on local custom, you can't rule out FRB a priori because at some point in history in a particular place, people decided to use "deposit" to mean an easement.
Alternatively, you can use the second route, in which people simply don't want fractional reserves, they wish for all of their money to be in the vaults. But, that doesn't square with history. Now with Hoppe's, Block's and Rothbard's own arguments.
Wilmot of Rochester: I don't like central banks or the federal reserve, I'm not a fan of supply side economics, I don't go in for the hype about the stock markets, and I'm a neocon right-winger - because the two are apparently synonymous now - for finance.
I don't like central banks or the federal reserve, I'm not a fan of supply side economics, I don't go in for the hype about the stock markets, and I'm a neocon right-winger - because the two are apparently synonymous now - for finance.
Of course, you're a Keynesian pinko socialist commie who hates freedom. Of course, there was me thinking that monetary disequilibrium theory began with Clark Warbuton and was further expounded by later monetarists such as Leland Yeager, as well as Austrians such as Selgin and Horwitz.
Funny thing is, I'm pretty sure you're a free banker. Who favours genuine competition in banking, as opposed to the supression of various forms of banking.
Back to my hiatus, I just couldn't let all these fallacies go.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:Here's the thing, if you're so sure that FRB is an inefficient way of banking, then you should have no issue with letting it go head to head with 100% reserves in a free banking system. You're arguing like a lawyer, either fractional reserves are fraudulent and will, as a result, beat 100% and therefore need to be outlawed, or it's just an inefficient banking system that will lose out to the competition when it comes to it. You can't have it both ways.
poor reasoning Giles.
Here's the thing, if you're so sure that Being A Thief is an inefficient way of Making A Living, then you should have no issue with letting it go head to head with Legitimate Commerce in a free market system. You're arguing like a lawyer, either Stealing is theft and will, as a result, beat Legitimate Commerce and therefore need to be outlawed, or it's just an inefficient way to Make A Living that will lose out to the competition when it comes to it. You can't have it both ways.
GilesStratton:Not really, at least, not as far as I know. Here's the thing, if you're so sure that FRB is an inefficient way of banking, then you should have no issue with letting it go head to head with 100% reserves in a free banking system.
So you do not think fraud should be illegal? I guess you do not believe in contracts? You think that it is OK for someone to promise something and then break the promise? Because FRB promises that everyone banking with the bank can withdraw all their funds at anytime.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
banned:Do you disagree that "perfectly good" and "working car" are subjective phrases?
banned: Juan: Reducing the problem to "giving out slips of paper" reduces the discussion to meaninglessness. But that is precisely what issuing unbacked credit is.
Juan: Reducing the problem to "giving out slips of paper" reduces the discussion to meaninglessness.
People with keynesian or monetarist tendencies would most likely prefer unbacked money, as they would believe it to be the most efficient.
Naturally, I believe that people would likely choose sound money. However, that does not entail that unbacked money ought to be prohibited, and that banks that issue such money ought to be prosecuted for fraud.
If some people prefer unbacked credit, that option should be permitted.
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."
GilesStratton:Here's the thing, if you're so sure that FRB is an inefficient way of banking, then you should have no issue with letting it go head to head with 100% reserves in a free banking system.
Spideynw:So you do not think fraud should be illegal? I guess you do not believe in contracts? You think that it is OK for someone to promise something and then break the promise? Because FRB promises that everyone banking with the bank can withdraw all their funds at anytime.
Well, that's not really an economics issue, is it? It's a legal one.
Which is why I imagine Peter Boettke defined Rothbard as a property rights economist and not as an "Austrian" one.
Also, I don't know how much that is the case and it is a sticky issue, I suppose. It might just be that fractional reserve banking is a misnomer, because I was well aware of the fact that the bank lends out deposits.
existence is elsewhere
Wilmot of Rochester: Spideynw:So you do not think fraud should be illegal? I guess you do not believe in contracts? You think that it is OK for someone to promise something and then break the promise? Because FRB promises that everyone banking with the bank can withdraw all their funds at anytime. Well, that's not really an economics issue, is it? It's a legal one.
Economics and law are intertwined.
Spideynw:Economics and law are intertwined.
What part of law is wertfrei?
Wilmot of Rochester:Which is why I imagine Peter Boettke defined Rothbard as a property rights economist and not as an "Austrian" one.
banned: Spideynw:Economics and law are intertwined. What part of law is wertfrei?
How is economic analysis of law value ridden?
If there is something (gold, silver, etc.) to back up the notes, then there is no problem. But if you are simply "creating" money, then that's fraud.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
Nice assertion, but why?