Those are so tasty.
So what? What’s with your false dilemna? We shouldn’t bother ourselves with hypotheticals? Why are you so bitchy about the “Austrian fantasy”, and why should I care about what you have to say? Why don’t you start a new thread so we can discuss what ever the hell you want to discuss? I couldn’t care less as to what you think we should be discussing about at this point.
There was never a notion that there is no risk.
HSBC is a fractional-reserve bank, meaning they only keep a fraction of what they say they have. However, all of your money is available on demand. In the event that all customers demand their money back (bank run!) HSBC obviously won’t be able to pay everyone back. Luckily, the Final Services Compensation Scheme (read: government) insures all customers deposits for the first 50,000£.
Whats really happening is that the money supply is expandind beyond what it would otherwise be.
You are correct there wil be a bank run which is handled by the contract that says in that event a third party insurer will pay you. Where exactly is the fraud? If everyone ends up with their money how can you claim fraud? And for those who had more than 50,000 they clearly understood the risk involved. Again, where is the fraud?
If you are free not to accept the money that is being expanded, why should others be prevented from printing money and using it?
If only it was merely a third party insurer and not the state, there wouldn’t be a problem (at least as much of a problem) but we all know that simply isn’t the case. So doesn’t it make sense to actually discuss what is happening rather than a fiction?
They shouldn’t. Nobody is saying they shouldn’t. Privatize all money, banks, and insurers, and you’ll have the “Austrian Fantasy” you keep bringing up.
So how is the bank committing fraud?
You will find most Austrians here believe even in a free non government society that these types of contracts should be outlawed. So if you believe what you just said you are not in the Austrian camp, at least not on this forum.
I just ctrlf’ed the entire thread, nobody has said it was fraud, rightfully so, as it isn’t. Uneconomical definitely, scheme definitely, fraud no. Those who do consider it to be fraud are either using the term too loosely or are genuinely confused.
Please provide evidence.
its not a contract, its by government fiat. the cut-off used to be 30,000.and then they increased it to 50k. recently. in the event of runs. who pays? the tax-payer.
see the prior sentance
yes, there are risks to living in countries which have governments.
legal tender.
A friend of mine, when visiting israel stayed in a kibbutz, for, I think a week. His comment was “I’m not getting off the bed at 6 am to harvest oranges - that’s nuts”.
Hi, since you were talking to me a bit there, when did I say it was a fraud, I was saying nothing of the sort, I was simply saying that your property (in combination with all other property), despite the insurance from the government, is not really there. If a bank has $100,000 in “savings” deposits, it does not have $100,000 in the vault…
Never said that…
So the problem is government deposit insurance? I think we all agree.
Bull. You create strawmen and attack them. You never bother to address the real argument, and that’s getting old really fast.
Bull. You create strawmen and attack them. You never bother to address the real argument, and that’s getting old really fast.
To expose the contradictory nature of the system.
All done via banking law fiat.
Bull, Max. You know exactly what the Austrians are saying: that the “contract” currently is fraudulent because it creates money without backing and creates property rights to the same money for multiple “owners”.
Either stop creating strawmen or get out. Period. I’ve had enough of your sophistry.
Fixed for accuracy.
Your strawmen will no longer be tolerated, Max. No discussion or debate on this will occur.
That is why the contract matters. The bank is explicitly saying they do no have the money in a vault. The bank contract says your money is at risk just like when you loan money out. Your saying something that is false about the contract.
If you loan money to anyone don’t you understand you have some risk that they may not be able to pay you back? You are loaning money to the bank, they might not pay you back, you might have to rely on the government to bail you out if the bank folds. You have a choice of whether or not to use the bank. Take responsibility for your own actions and the contracts you sign. The government didn’t force you to put money in the bank.
If it is not fraud then who cares? The entire debate is without meaning if FRB is not perceived by you as violating anyones rights.
You have the choice to sign the contract with the bank. The government didn’t force you to put money in the bank.
There are risks loaning money to other people whether individuals or banks. If you don’t want to loan your money to the bank, then don’t.
yes. the government does not force me to drive on roads. anyway, this debate isnt over whether i am a bad person for being involved in fraud against taxpayers who underwrite he scam, but rather whether I and the bank are mutually engaging in a fantasy, whereby money can be doing double duty… where property can be fully owned by two seperate owners…
. the practice of selling square-circles, in so far as it is impossible, is not legitimate. impossible things are hardly legitimate. you might imagine a healthy trade in square-circles. I can only remind you that is a nonsense and it must be something else that is being traded that you are mistaking for square-circles, or you are simply insane.
What I am doing is discussing a real contract that actually exists between a bank and it’s customers. In that contract it doesn’t say that the bank is warehousing his money, it doesn’t say the money will always be available, it does say there are real risks and there is a possibility that the bank can default. In short it says everything the Austrians claim it does not. Please show me one banking contract that makes the claims the Austrians say all banks are making? Just one.
There is no fraud in creating money without backing, there is only fraud if you claim it is being backed by something and its not.
Is making a loan an example of a square circle? Can loans be made? That is what you made to the bank. The bank understands that but you don’t. That is your confusion.
Is the following loan terms a square circle example:
You loan money to the bank under the following terms, that if when you ask for the money back the bank will give it to you if they have it or if they don’t have it then you have to go the third party insurer to get your money. How is that an impossibility?
no, those arent the terms. try again.