Indeed. I told you that a gold standard and free banking are not mutually exclusive - you ignored it and posted the same quote. I don’t think there’s much else I can add…
0h…more pseudo-scientific babbling about velocity and the like. Again, that doesn’t explain why people would choose a depreciating currency or depreciating ‘fiduciary’ media.
Huge non-sequitur maybe ? What’s the connection between baking being privileged in the past and future events ?
I think you misunderstood that conversation. I said law can be unjust and therefore should not exist. Knight seemed to act like unjust law literally doesn’t exist. I never said FRB was unjust.
Not sure what do you want me to elaborate on. I think that Rothbard, Hoppe and Huelsmann are aware that you need to pay a fee for warehousing. Nobody is pretending that the fee doesn’t exist.
As I said, you are confusing four (or maybe more) things :
If you don’t understand fine. The currency isn’t really depreciating if the demand for it is increasing, increasing the supply meets equilibrium.
So the history of banking has always been a privileged industry, but we still have reason to believe in a full reserve system why? I can’t speak for the future.
But you didn’t correct a thing. You just through out all of the history of banking history “We know from history that banking has always been a privileged industry” thats not a correction.
Fine. No history can be invoked from either side then, its tainted. We are both going to have to be reduced to purely theoretical grounds if we stick to your disregard.
You said: “Legally, a demand deposit is not considered a warehouse claim nor is treated like one by banks and depositors.”
Positive legalities are not based on truth. They are based on an arbitrary defining. Therefore to try to use a definition based on arbitrary whims isn’t getting to the truth. And then you went on to state that these arbitrary definitions (legalities) are unjust? But then went on to state you are not talking about the nature of demand deposits but rather the current system which is an arbitrary system using arbitrary definitions back to square one. Hence why the discussion seems bogged. Cause it’s one side seemingly defining the truth of a concept and the other side, your comments, using arbitrary conceptual definitions.
That can bog any discussion down when one side is trying to communicate the true definition and another person is focused on an arbitrary definition. It would have been interesting if you kept up with that discussion in the other thread to resolve it.
The original point was that checking accounts and CDs are both claims to future money, the difference being CDs specify the time of withdrawal. After a few pages of debate, people basically accepted this (though not is so many words) and the discussion moved to the difference in liquidity between the two.
The 100% reservists said that loans from CDs shouldn’t be counted as new money because the CDs themselves are generally illiquid. This is not strictly true, as they are used in payment for certain types of transactions, but it is reasonable to say that money expansion from CDs is not as great under the current system.
Then the debate moved to its current state in which Avram, Giles and I claim that limitations on the payment system by the imposition of 100% reserves will cause CDs to begin trading as money. Therefore, it will operate in basically the same way as the current system. I still don’t see what is so controversial about this as checks and electronic money evolved within the current system without government decree. In Somalia, unbacked paper money circulates without government decree.
My point was that I don’t care what the definition is. I had no interest in continuing the discussion because it had no substantive content. All defenitions are arbitrary. I don’t believe in natural law so saying certain laws are “not true” means nothing to me. I don’t understand what you are getting at.
So you discuss something that you don’t know (?) or don’t care what it’s definition is, which begs the question (?) if you use the term.
So you believe people absolutely communicate without understanding each other?
Well how could you ever understand what I’m getting at since according to you “all” the terms we are using have different definitions. So we might as well stop now don’t you think? That is of course if you understood the words I used.
Words have no intrinsic meaning. That is all I am saying. Knight came into the conversation midway and so was using a different definition than the one that we had been using. He seemed caught up on the definition and was unable to discuss the actual concepts at hand. I wasn’t going to argue definitions and so I dopped the conversation. I know what definition he was using and I know what definition I used. I even began referring to modern checking accounts to avoid confusion. It really isn’t very complicated and I’m not making any deep philosophical arguments here.
Wilderness, you just didn’t get the direction of Jake’s post… you’ve strawmanned his argument by making it way too narrow - while he was, in fact, speaking on a very broad level.
That’s exactly what I’m wondering. Notice many are, on both sides possibly, saying the other side doesn’t know what this means or that means. I wasn’t sure, but I’m more inclined now to think that various definitions are being used for terms throwing off the discussion. I don’t know for sure though.
I’m not trying to be deep either. I’m simply pointing out something that is becoming more obvious to me and thus why I said the discussion is a bogged down. And of course when discussing a concept and then signifying it’s definitional latch to “modern checking accounts” is devoid of a free market analogy, so, that would seemingly only further muddle the discussion. For at least both sides are trying to discuss the free market (devoid of government), but “modern checking accounts” are not in a free market.