You can’t debate someone who thinks the earth is flat, stars are dead kings, and people will accept notes from banks that aren’t backed by anything. Sorry! There are plenty of Keynesians who share your hatred of gold; but they don’t claim it’s unlibertarian, rather, they say it reminds them of feces and is unfashionable.
Fully agreed. (we’ve already covered this)
You have this bad habit of just making things up. Gold is great, it can fill teeth, it can…etc. and there are plenty of conservatives who share your dream of extremely poor banking.
Yes, and we’ve already obliterated your ridiculous arguments. First of all: “The issuer creates the present good that it surrenders in the exchange–the fiduciary media–practically out of nothing” - Theory of Money and Credit, Chapter 18.
Either way, the regression theorem tells us that people will only accept notes when they’re backed by something they truly value. Now, I know that you’ve never heard of this theory (again, the one that made Mises famous), but it’s logically sound, and history entirely supports it. The average person doesn’t care about your liabilities and/or equities. They use your money because they value it, or because there’s a gun pointed at their heads.
These are actual objections raised by Keynes regarding the gold standard. He cited Sigmund Freud who claimed that people value gold because it reminded them of their feces.
I challenge you to refute Kinsella on the non fraudulent nature of fractional reserves.
I don’t care about the so-called fraudulent nature of fractional reserves, I care about the business cycles they cause.
That an obliteration! quoting Mises saying nothing to actually refute. Amazing.
The thing is history doesn’t exactly exonerate all of what you just said.
And? That justifies you making things up how exactly?
Very bad habit.
Then I invite you to comment on the new thread here: Demand vs Time Deposits
Someone mentioned Walter Block earlier in an anecdote.
To Walter’s credit he is the most consistent 100% advocate and he recognizes the time deposit problem. He concludes that they too should be outlawed along with a bunch of other financial instruments. At least this is my understanding of his position.
But hes “Mr Libertarian.”
You’re the one who was telling everyone that they should read TMC.
Sure it does. No one will accept your notes, hence, your objection to the gold standard is void.
Reading comprehension seems to be a big problem for you. I was making a joke about your position on the gold standard. I was telling you to take your objections to a more friendly crowd, namely to the Keynesians.
I still don’t understand what Hayek and Mises mean when they say that newly created money can be beneficial if it’s demanded for money and not for capital? It would still cause relative price distortions, higher profits for lower order phases, and thus a contraction in the structure of production.
I made the comment.
I think you are right about his position. I don’t remember where I saw it but I think he said that loans should only be made out of bank capital. However, I still think this misses the point I made earlier which is that the multiplier would basically be the same under FRB as it would be in a zero transactions cost world with no banks.
I see. You deny the fact that FRB is inherently flawed - crises just happen for no reason. And then you try to dismiss full reserves by mentioning that all credit operations are risky.
Well, the fact remains, FRB is riskier than full reserves. Not to mention the other problems FRB has, both moral and economical, such as fraud and misallocation of resources triggered by inflation.
Thats an answer how? Regardless, Mises does make the case for fiduciary media in TMC, which was why I called for it.
Oh god! I’ve been obliterated! I don’t know how you manage to do it… oh wait…
And? That justifies you making things up exactly how?
Bad habits…
quote please.
Care to answer my challenge?
You cited the very paper in which he makes that argument just a few weeks ago! So either you were name dropping then or you’re being a pedant now.
This has to be a joke. As I read this post you’re actually insinuating that fractional reserve bankers are shills for Goldman Sachs?
Have you ever read Horwitz, White, Selgin or Sechrest? All free bankers who agree with the ABCT. Seriously, nobody ever denied that Mises consider the ABCT to be correct. People are saying that Mises was in favour of FRB at certain times in his career and that the ABCT isn’t caused by fractional reserves.
Once again, I don’t know what you’re talking about. And by the sounds of it, neither do you. The gold standard refers to the type of outside money that exists, FRB refers the way the banking system would handle inside money. The two are compatible and most free bankers are in favour of the gold standard are a type of outside money (although some such as Hayek and Yeager disagree).
I’ve studied the entire of that book, especially the macro section, in quite a bit of detail. If you wish to provide evidence that I’ve missed something, I’m all for it. But I just don’t recall anything about the regression theorem. (That said, it’s a great textbook)
his paper was in part about mis-matched timed deposits not all time deposits.
FYI, Fractional Reserve Banking is a sufficent, though not necessary, cause of ABCT.
Yes, I’m using the word fraud in a colloquial manner. Fraud == deceit, trickery. I didn’t read Kinsella’s article yet.
To clarify a bit : If you were to sell magical potions to the credulous I would call you a fraudster. It doesn’t mean I want to outlaw the selling of magical potions though.
At any rate, the banking industry has been and is involved in outright fraud - their business model can only exist thanks to legal tender laws and other privileges plus deceit and trickery.