the fact that sound money costs something doesnt mean that it is not worth this cost.
a free market commodity standard such as gold is not unlibertarian in the least. the gold standard does not refer to a governmental standard, any more than the NAP standard of behaviour refers to a governmental standard (it doesnt)
governments favour FRB. you know this. they coopt gold standard systems and take the gold out of them, and leave them hollow shells of fiat ponzi schemes.
you need to show some adding and subtracting to justify that what you are doing is arithmatic and not handwaving
Hey Jake, a few pages ago you seemed to suggest that full reserve deposits wouldn’t prevent bank runs. I asked you to explain how bank runs would be possible if all credit transactions were done using CDs and you never replied. Did I misunderstand your position…or maybe what you said was nonsense ?
I never suggested that. The point I made was that the argument against FRB should be that they are susceptible to bank runs in the event of a crisis. FRB does not cause runs. Also, a time-deposit regime could be susceptible to collapse due to bad loans which is the major driver of runs under FRB anyway.
You’re right, there are more reasons than that for it to labeled as efficient though.
Of course and a free market gold standard has never truly existed, you know that. Its implementation historically have been alongside government though (in most cases), many “libertarians” advocate government adoption and many don’t seem to have a problem with outlawing of FRB.
Yes, they seek control over FRB because its more are more effective form of banking, FRB has an extremely high distribution effect. Just because government can use something for evil doesn’t diminish its actual value.
The lower the reserve ration the less seniorage the government can collect. Imagine a 1 billion dollar increase in the amount of money, under a 100% reserve the government collects 1 billion in seniorage. However, in and FRB sysyem with 10% reserves the government can only collect 1/10th.
The “free bankers” are trying to explain that Mises wrote the TMC to destroy the ABCT (you know, the thing he pretty much invented), and that divergence between the natural and market rate doesn’t lead to long-term malinvestments. They have also been kind enough to show us that supporting 100% reserves means supporting the LTV, and in favor of abolishing stocks and bonds. But their biggest contribution is that gold standards (people control the money instead of the state) are unlibertarian, inefifcient, and have never been chosen by the market ever (the last 6000 years has an illusion).