I must admit that I’ve never understood the clain that two individuals claim the same property under fractional-reserve banking. Will someone explain this to me? One is the debtor, right?
One may be the debtor, but despite being the debtor he is temporarily ‘owning’/using the money he loaned. The same money that supposedly is also available to the original depositor.
But the original depositor knows he won’t get all his money if the bank doesn’t have enough money on reserve to give him. The depositor agrees to this situation.
Does he know ?
Anyone can know how banks operate if he only wishes to find out. But even if he didn’t know at the time he deposited his money, he still agreed to the situation.
Anyone can know that i put rocks into the bag which I have emblazoned with the label “potatoes” if they only wished to find out… but even if they dont know at the time they gave me 2$ for the bag, they still agreed to the situation.
What false beliefs [parallel to the potatoes label] do banks wish to impress on the minds of the people? Most people know what happens during bank runs.
please provide your surveys /polls
You asked how duplicated claims arise.
Whoever gets a loan is given an amount of money which he supposedly uses to purchase something. The debtor has ‘claimed’ and used an amount of resources.
On the other hand, the depositor expects to get his money back whenever he wants it. He has a claim against the bank.
Now when you consider all depositors it’s easy to see that all their claims against the bank exceed the repayment capacity of the bank because resources have been lent and are under control of debtors. Both debtors and creditors are ‘claiming’ part of the same property.
About how people know nothing about banks loaning out deposits.
whatever claims you want to make about what most people know. come out and make them.
Go ask the average person what they think of fractional reserve banking.
What you will find with the Austrians is that they are unable to address the issue of people consenting to behaviour they dont agree with. The Austrians want to outlaw your ability to make a loan to someone because they don’t like the terms. Then the Austrians run around complaining about government mandates when they want the exact same control.
Go ask the average person what they think of liberty and I’m sure Giles “the coercive statist” Stratton will not be pointed out. I don’t know what’s going on with you or maybe I’m now realizing your state of mind. Yet I’m sure you’ll have some ad hominem attack you’d like to make after I post this.
If I put money in the bank as a savings account, gaining the average interest rate, with the condition I can retract my money at any time, did I agree to the bank making my money inaccessible? I would think not…
Lie.
You consented to them making money off it to pay your interest, right?
Wrong.
Not the question…
with the condition I can retract my money at any time, did I agree to the bank making my money inaccessible?
When was the last time your money was inaccessible? Tell me about it!