Fractional Reserve and Property Rights

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Maxliberty

Will this scenario be allowed by the anti-freedom group like yourself

I love your lies.

@Maxliberty

…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?

Why wouldn’t it be? And no–your lies will not count. You must show–not state–that your position is true. Yet I know that you cannot do that. So go ahead and lie–that’s all you have.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Maxliberty

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

By lots you mean “pretty close to none”. It’s strange how you have no concept of counting.

Remember: frac-reserve is legally mandated in pretty much every country, as is the monopoly granted to the central banks. So please: no more lies from you.

[Bostwick]

@ivanfoofoo

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.

Not so.

No one argues that the bank can’t issue whatever they want. The question is, when the bank fails, are the depositors entitled to get their money back? If its a bailment, they are. If its a loan, they are not.

Or you could ask, is it an unavoidable business error or is it criminal malpractice? Its obviously avoidable, so that only leaves one other option.

[Harry_Felker]

@JackSkylark

Anyways, No one ever puts cash in a bank expecting their money to just sit there in a vault,

Complacency = legitimacy?

@JackSkylark

so that when they come back for it they will get back the exact piece of paper with the exact serial number.

Not saying that, if we are using a free market bank there are assertions we can make about free market feduciary media, most likely it will be a commodity based currency, if it is not minted gold coins, it is bank notes that represent stored gold, and the gold is redeemable on demand…

@JackSkylark

So, obviously neither the depositor nor the bank has agreed to just hold the money till the depositor gets back. But, the bank is contractually obligated to fulfill, on demand, the claim the depositor has ‘purchased’ and now ‘holds’ - not the exact same pieces of paper he brought in.

One does not need the exact bills I deposited, in the following example down the thread, Bob deposits gold, (i think jim) recieves Bob’s notes as payment and needs the gold for purchases for his business…

What the bank is saying in giving out “on Demand” notes is that they have the gold in reserve to cover them, but if they give out notes for 100% of the gold they receive, and all these notes are called in on one day (regardless of likelihood) the bank has a situation where two claims on the same property is applicable, therefore there is a fraud…

If Max or Scineram made the claim that they would contractually bind depositors by issuing a % of the gold in notes to the customers, there would be no argument, because there would be no fraud…

[Harry_Felker]

@scineram

@Harry Felker

And they do not, so now what???

Now Bob can sue for breach.

Bob is not redeeming them, Bob has Jim’s Products, Jim is holding notes that he cannot use and wants his gold, are you claiming that Jim, without a written contract with the bank of Scineram has the right to sue the bank, or should he sue Bob, or how about both???

Meanwhile his store goes out of business…

Or, people would be wise to the fraud that is FRB…

And any bank that practices such might do it less fraudulently…

[Harry_Felker]

@Maxliberty

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.

I do not have to do such…

I go with the old Irish joke…

You build 100 houses to be called carpenter

You chop down 1000 trees to be called lumberjack

But you F___ one sheep…

One fraudulent occurance makes it a fraud, prove it will work in every scenario that everyone gets their money on demand…

[JackSkylark]

FRB is the same as an on demand loan - you do not have property rights over the actual money you have just given to the bank/debtor, instead you now have a legal claim/right to redeem upon demand a certain amount of a certain good as stated in the contract. This is not fraud, unless the bank is selling you a receipt of deposits in which the deposits are fictional. FRB is not fraud in and of itself.

in the same way I can make a contract with you to produce some quantity of of some good on demand. The contract is valid and is only broken if and when I can not produce - not before. A banking contract is only broken when they can not produce the good on demand.

[scineram]

@Harry Felker

Bob is not redeeming them, Bob has Jim’s Products, Jim is holding notes that he cannot use and wants his gold, are you claiming that Jim, without a written contract with the bank of Scineram has the right to sue the bank, or should he sue Bob, or how about both???

The note is the contract. Between the holder and the bank. Notes are underwritten by managers and directors. Courts recognized this.

[scineram]

@JackSkylark

FRB is the same as an on demand loan - you do not have property rights over the actual money you have just given to the bank/debtor, instead you now have a legal claim/right to redeem upon demand a certain amount of a certain good as stated in the contract. This is not fraud, unless the bank is selling you a receipt of deposits in which the deposits are fictional. FRB is not fraud in and of itself.

in the same way I can make a contract with you to produce some quantity of of some good on demand. The contract is valid and is only broken if and when I can not produce - not before. A banking contract is only broken when they can not produce the good on demand.

[Y] This, again.

[nirgrahamUK]

hi jack. what is printed on the note?

[scineram]

“The Royal Bank of Scotland promise to pay the bearer on demand £1.00 sterling at their head office”

[nirgrahamUK]

"The Royal Bank of Scotland promise to pay the bearer on demand £1.00 sterling at their head office "

first of all thats a mere promise.

to even get close it should say

“the Bearer has a property right to £1.00 sterling (by weight of silver some number of grams) presently owned by the Royal Bank of Scotland, (and for honesty sake) unless the Royal Bank of Scotland dont have silver.”

[scineram]

@nirgrahamUK

first of all thats a mere promise.

A legally enforcable one, that is, a contract.

@nirgrahamUK

“the Bearer has a property right to £1.00 sterling (by weight of silver some number of grams) presently owned by the Royal Bank of Scotland, (and for honesty sake) unless the Royal Bank of Scotland dont have silver.”

But this is false. How could have a property right in something owned by the bank?

[Juan]

The dishonesty of some people here is staggering. For the record, free banking assumes

1. underlying commodity money
2. no regulations
3. courts that enforce property rights.

Today we have

1. fiat money
2. total cartelization of the system through central banking
3. monopolistic provision of ‘justice’ - that is the courts are a mafia working for the state and against property rights.
4. wholly socialist ‘deposit insurance’

Despite all that some people here babble macroeconomic nonsense about ‘equilibrium’ and the wonderful efficiency of the banking mafia. Sickening.

[nirgrahamUK]

@scineram

But this is false. How could have a property right in something owned by the bank?

does the bearer of your note have any property right at all? what does he have property right over?

[nirgrahamUK]

my point about the note that it underlines exactly the dilemma that you guys have for propounding fiduciary media, how to give it the veneer of contractuality, without tying people to sound practice-legitimate activity.

@scinerams

is it your position that you want:-

1. a fully enforceable claim which is always existent but is only ‘enacted’ at the moment of demand , which constitutes an instantaneous transfer of property right over some definite quantity of commodity money from the bank to the claimant (without the claimant having owned the gold in the interim before withdrawal (as is the case with a bailment) )
2. to give the bank permission to gamble that you (and others like you) will not enact this ‘withdrawing’ ownership transfer against the bank to an extent beyond what they can accomodate, despite that being a figure you will be entirely ignorant of, just so that in the meantime the gold can be lent out (at the banks risk!)

but

3. if the bank loses the bet, you dont want to lose, since you have a fully enforceable claim against the bank. Therefore, we can expect that the
wages of ex-bankers now working at mcdonalds are garnished and their private property auctioned off until the gold property debt is paid
off to you. sounds like a bad deal for bankers/ [:^)]

[Maxliberty]

@Juan

@Max the FRAUDSTER

And if no gold was loaned out but it had all been converted to silver, is that still fraud too? So to meet demand requests I have to convert silver to gold, is that fraud if I sell silver and buy gold to meet demand requests.

@Max the FRAUDSTER

Wrong, the bank simply sells other assets and converts to gold and meets redemptions. Very simple.

@Max the FRAUDSTER

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.

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.

Juan typing in caps doesn’t make your arguement more convincing. Also, I understand that you believe that only physical commodities have value so loan contracts and other things like stocks, and bonds are of no value in your mind so banks can not use these as assets to be converted to meet redemptions in physical commodities. We will just have to agree to disagree. I think stocks, bonds, loan contracts, mortgages and all kinds of other financial instruments and contracts have real value that can be used to back liabilities of banks or anything else.

[Maxliberty]

@Angurse

@Maxliberty

Wrong, the bank simply sells other assets and converts to gold and meets redemptions. Very simple.

@Maxliberty

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.

What assets does the bank have that it can liquidate to meet all redemptions? Office desks and chairs aren’t worth all that much.

i guess you don’t believe financial instruments like stocks, bonds, loan contract, options…on and on…have any value. Contracts that are secured by some collateral have value, the idea that they are worthless is ludicrous. If a bank holds a mortgage on a house then its not worthless. The value may be subject to debate but it almost certainly will not be zero. Your assertion that it is zero just doesnt hold true.

[Juan]

@Max

Juan typing in caps doesn’t make your arguement more convincing.

I’m just highlighting the fact that you are a FRAUDSTER. I use caps for clarity’s sake.

Also, I understand that you believe that only physical commodities have value so loan contracts and other things like stocks, and bonds are of no value in your mind so banks can not use these as assets to be converted to meet redemptions in physical commodities.

Strawman.

Now, I address what I said or admit you are a fraudster.

[nirgrahamUK]

guessing that other people are wrong is not a good way to argue.