I think we are.. At least we should be.
Wholly irrelevant. Nobody is saying that the bank must return to you the same atoms of gold you deposited.
That’s right, that would be a warehouse. The thing is that fiduciary media should be backed completely in any given commodity, with is previously agreed by contract. That’s what the gold standard is about, equating a “money unit” and a quantity of a given commodity (gold in this case).
Now Bob can sue for breach.
This. Well said.
In the event that the bank needs more gold it sells its loan assets and converts to gold to meet redemptions. You seem to understand this concept if I say the bank will sell it’s silver assets and convert to gold but seem to think non-physical commodity can not be sold in the same way.
Try again.
Wrong, the bank simply sells other assets and converts to gold and meets redemptions. Very simple.
Well, if you can do that then there’s no problem. But of course you can’t because in the scenario I’m talking about the gold has been LENT not converted to another liquid asset.
You obviously dont understand that financial instruments can be just as liquid as commodities. You seem to thnk selling silver to convert to gold is quite simple yet selling financial assets to convert to gold is impossible. So if this is the only point of disagreement then you have to agree that if it were true that financial instruments were just as liquid as selling silver then FRB must not be fraud. Agreed? So the only question is can financial instruments be as easy to convert to gold as silver is? I think the obvious answer is yes.
You are obviously not reading anything I am posting so why do you bother making up stuff and responding. You have not added any coherent information to this debate nor addressed any specific question or scenario. Instead you insist things are being said that are not. More anti-freedom nonsense from you.
Will this scenario be allowed by the anti-freedom group like yourself…You give me two ounces of gold and I give you a piece of paper that says you can comeback and reddem the paper for 2 ounces of gold…is that ok? Knowing no other information is that ok?
In the scenario I have provided, prove in every case that the bank will not be able to meet it’s redemptions as outlined in the contract. Please prove your claim.
yes, very good, your banks are really gamblebank lotteries, for which the price of the ticket is paid in gold, but i suppose if they are lotteries then they are not banks. oh and the house always wins.
but getting back to the serious business of what exactly is this particular note you imagine being issued, so long as you print on the notes, *our bank does not keep 100%" reserves, receiver beware though art gambleing that we have kept gold in our vaults, even though we are not obliged to have gold in our vaults only to give you whatever gold we might be able to find after you put us on notice (an arbitrary 60days) even though we might not find any, then i’m all for it. i dont imagine that aynone would choose to deposit, or any merchant accept payment in a purely speculative medium when sound money is an option. but there are crazy people in the world, so you might find a very niche market.
That’s true. Do I dare guess that MaxLiberty would be the first to participate? Lol.
Let’s imagine that a bank is started with one billion dollars worth of silver. This bank accepts gold as deposits but always converts all gold into silver for storage so it has 0 gold reserves. The bank does allow redemption in gold if requested. If the bank only has one million dollars of gold redemption notes outstanding, do you consider the depositors to be gambling? Do you think it highly likely that the bank will fold because it has 0% reserves of the redeemable commodity advertised on the notes?
As for your assertion that no one would bank there, this is the type of bank you use right now and you have lots of other options but you choose fractional reserve banking.
Yes, loaning money now has become “crazy” according to the anti-freedom crowd. Your right I am sure in a free society nobody will ever loan money because it’s crazy.
We’re still missing the point. We should discuss if it should be legally enforceable the action of emitting fiduciary media without having its backing commodity according to the “standard”. Should it be outlawed? I prefer a pure gold standard, but I think the free market will tell which one is better. Anyway, any free banking system is much better than a central banking monopoly.
you seem to ignore the fact that you suppose a purely whimsical arrangement. a mere unenforceable promise that the bank will do the correct thing and gather the necessary gold it needs in time to make good. even though its never obligated to possess the right amount of gold to hand over to the person with note.
you also artfully ignored discussion of possible text for the note. perhaps you should photoshop up for us a suggestion. until you do i must assume it would be worded as i posited.
When was the last time you said anything truthful? Lol.
I truly wonder if you are retarded, or you pretend to be retarded so that you can claim that your SCAM is not a SCAM because you don’t understand why it is a SCAM.
The bank doesn’t have any asset backing its notes. The bank has lent gold to debtors who used it to buy stuff. The bank can’t sell the stuff that the debtors own when the creditors show up to cash their notes.
Now, only a true idiot would claim that such situation is no different than the bank having silver at hand instead of gold. Only a true idiot would say that, or a fraudster.
What assets does the bank have that it can liquidate to meet all redemptions? Office desks and chairs aren’t worth all that much.
quite correct, I know. I’ve exposed all of your strawmen, to boot.
Seriously: can you have a discussion on this topic without simply lying about the anti-FRB stance?