So long as its customers understand that their bank does not keep full reserves this is obviously not fraud. Whether or not it has 'bad' economic effects is irrelevant. If it's not workable, then people won't use these banks. Since no libertarian supports banking regulation or government-generated credit money I don't see what the point of this debate is. The same goes for paralel private fiat currencies.
This is not to criticize people who are arguing about the economics of this or that monetary system on the market, but from a libertarian point of view I can not see the relevance at all. Even today most people understand the bank doesn't keep all their money; the issue is regulations the prevent competition in banking and credit houses, and nationalization of money; fractional reserve banking is at most a symptom of this.
It's not fraud if the depositors understand the possibility of bank runs, but the practicality of such an arrangement is debatable.
What I don't get is the camp that claims Mises did not see FRB as inflationary or an expander of credit. It is quite clear that the increase in available credit would have its effect on the bidding of prices and thus initiate a boom-bust cycle.
So, I don't know whether this came up already, but I thought this was the right thread to ask. By loaning money into existence, does fractional reserve banking lead to an increase in the money supply? And does this lead to economic bubbles in the same way as if government had printed money?
My answer to both questions is "Yes." In fact, I'm not sure what would prevent fractional-reserve free-bankers from printing (literally or digitally) as many bank notes as they want, aside from the threat of insolvency.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I lost track of this thread earlier. What z1235 said is what I was going to say. Deposit accounts can't be taken seriously as an investment. Indeed, only morons would contribute to a blind fund. In the present system if a mutual fund seller sold someone into something like that it would mean losing his license or worse. Those regulations are written more or less by people from banks. They essentially define their own business practice as unethical. They just don't bother mentioning that the deposit system logically falls in the category of investment funds and hope that nobody notices the contradiction.
We're not talking about fractional reserve banking anymore. We're talking about the issuance of inside notes. You can issue inside notes without practicing fractional reserve banking. An inside note is a product that you are offering the client, that the client accepts because the client prefers to hold a bank note than to gold for any number of reasons (easier to carry, lighter, et cetera).
I was talking about FRB notes, not inside notes in general. My argument has always been that personally identifying inside notes without FRB is the only viable solution. In other words, a transactional service without the investment aspect tacked on.
Deposit accounts can't be taken seriously as an investment.
I agree, in general, but this misses the point. The fact is that during periods of healthy economic activity, the demand for money is not likely to suddenly rise in some dramatic magnitude, and so the idea that banks will suddenly have to increase the supply of fiduciary media is a bit absurd. The most likely situation is where the supply of inside money is constantly changing, but mostly staying around a similar level. On the other hand, this doesn't mean that banks won't be operating on fractional reserves — the second facet of the free banker's argument is that because of the higher use of inside money, banks will get rid of outside money to save on costs (since less outside money is being used in clearings).
In the present system...
Let's get something straight. Selgin's model of free banking does not resemble the present system.
We were talking about bank notes. There's not difference between inside money and 'FRB notes'. 'FRB notes' are just fiduciary media. Fiduciary media is a branch of money substitute, which is what a bank note (inside money) is.
You have to me a little confused. My narrow argument concludes that the greater risk of losing the deposit from lower reserves is not matched by the supposed benefit of the interest paid on it. Therefore, FRB is not a service on the margin in that respect. I'm responding to the argument that it is.
I made a booboo. Personally identifying notes are not money. The reason that this would not suffer the problem of mass copying is that you would have to steal them individually to gain. You couldn't just have one and engineer it. There would be no reason to copy it. Only one is useful.
One thing I didn't explain before is the economics of copy. The issuing bank gains from its note only the interest margin. A copier gains the entire face value. Therefore, a copier can gain yet spend far more per unit to produce it. Same deal with software. If a boxed software item is selling for $50 Scrooge will benefit by spending up to $49.99 trying acquire it by alternative method. The publisher can't spend $49.99 preventing copy.
???????
You guys are redefining FRB with regards to the "FRB is fraud argument," which defines the deposits in FRB as demand deposits, not timed deposits as in CDs or "I'll pay you when I gets da money."
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Caley,
I think you lost sight of what you and I were actually arguing. This was your original comment,
The strongest argument is that you can't make money from images on paper in a world with photocopiers.
Like I've said before, this isn't an argument against fractional reserve banking. This is an argument against the issuance of inside money (paper banknotes). You then said that it didn't make sense to introduce techniques to avoid counterfeit note production, but I responded that this criticism is nonsensical since competition is what drives firms to accept higher costs, as long as they can still profit sufficiently from selling the product (which is what a paper banknote is).
That a counterfeiter has more to gain from producing a fake note than a bank producing a real note (whether true or not) is absolutely irrelevant.
Regarding fractional reserve banking, which is a topic I've tried to avoid arguing on this thread (except for the last post), you have to consider the possibility that the risk of not being able to cope with an increase in interbank clearings falls proportionally to the fall in the volume of returning bank notes (a byproduct of an increase in demand for money). If you don't think this is true, then you have to explain why not.
Daniel,
Who is?
The OP. (I should have specified)
@OP:
It would not be "illegal" to make gold-plated tungsten coins in a private law society so long as you did not deliver them on an explicit understanding that they are, in fact, gold coins (then it is definitely fraud). The rule in a free market is "buyer beware".
Similarly, it would not be illegal to issue fractional-reserve notes so long as the notes do not explicitly claim full-reserve status. I don't think notes from fractional-reserve banks would be any more desirable to consumers in a free market than gold-plated tungsten coins. Assayers certify the quality of gold bars and coins can be checked in various ways to ensure they are "the real deal." I imagine there would be an industry of banknote certification companies which would verify that your note is, in fact, fully backed by whatever it is supposed to be backed by. Faced with two customers holding a "gold gram note", one certified and one uncertified, which do you think I, as a vendor, will prefer? Gresham's Law operates in reverse in a free market in the production of money.
Clayton -