Fractional Reserve and Property Rights

[Angurse]

@Maxliberty

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.

Anyone interested in money, thier own money, banking, government, etc… should care at least a wee bit.

[Maxliberty]

@Angurse

@Maxliberty

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.

Anyone interested in money, thier own money, banking, government, etc… should care at least a wee bit.

If no one is being harmed or having their rights violated then what is the issue? Also, please note there is at least 3-4 posts now claiming it is fraud.

[Maxliberty]

@nirgrahamUK

no, those arent the terms. try again.

Yes, they are. Read the contract that you signed. I posted a very important part of it for you.

Its very amusing, you scream the contract doesn’t say the bank is using the money, I post the part of the contract where it says different, now you claim it doesn’t say that even though it’s clearly written in the contract that you signed voluntarily.

Yes, I can see your a victim of fraud. How dare that bank put everything in writing, it undermines the whole Austrian FRB fantasy world.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Maxliberty

Its very amusing, you scream the contract doesn’t say the bank is using the money, I post the part of the contract where it says different, now you claim it doesn’t say that even though it’s clearly written in the contract that you signed voluntarily.

what?

@contract

If you make a valid claim against us in respect of the investments we arrange, buy or sell for you and we are unable to meet our liabilities in full, you may be entitled to redress from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme

so you think that if i have a valid claim against a thief, and there is a government compensation scheme that will might pay me some money, this would legitimise the theft? (of couse in this ‘real life’ instance, the compensation scheme is funded by theft from yet others)

[nirgrahamUK]

regardless; the current account in which i can and do store my money is not classed as an investment. (and get this, it earns no credit interest!)

[Juan]

@Max

Since every country has their banks backed by a printing press (the government) even the claim that you are fully insured is accurate.

Are you saying banks are fully insured by a criminal gang that counterfeits paper money ? Do you realize that the funds used to insure the banks are STOLEN funds ?

@Max

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?

You do realize that the insurer will steal resources from all holders of pounds in this case ? Do you think that a contract which involves crime is legitimate ?

@scineram

So the problem is government deposit insurance? I think we all agree.

What you call ‘insurance’ is just robbery and is what makes the scam known as FRB possible. No state involvement in banking, no thieves, no FRB is possible - competition in a real free market would wipe it out.

Also, it’s nice to see that the advocates of FRB fully support statist socialism, aka deposit insurance managed by the gov’t and funded by theft.

[Maxliberty]

@nirgrahamUK

@Maxliberty

Its very amusing, you scream the contract doesn’t say the bank is using the money, I post the part of the contract where it says different, now you claim it doesn’t say that even though it’s clearly written in the contract that you signed voluntarily.

what?

@contract

If you make a valid claim against us in respect of the investments we arrange, buy or sell for you and we are unable to meet our liabilities in full, you may be entitled to redress from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme

so you think that if i have a valid claim against a thief, and there is a government compensation scheme that will might pay me some money, this would legitimise the theft? (of couse in this ‘real life’ instance, the compensation scheme is funded by theft from yet others)

How is a loan that goes in default theft? That is part of the risk of making loans, you might not get paid back. Why are you making loans if you dont like the terms?

[nirgrahamUK]

my account is not a loan contract. loan contracts are regulated , if I was making loans to my bank, I would be a ‘loan shark’ , as i am unregistered, and therefore it is illegal for me to lend.

[nirgrahamUK]

perhaps you can point to a part of the contract that says a deposit is a loan to the bank. you are the one that uses the word loan in this capacity. the bank does not.

[Angurse]

@Maxliberty

If no one is being harmed or having their rights violated then what is the issue?

There isn’t an issue, the OP just wanted an explanation of fractional-reserve banking.

@Maxliberty

Also, please note there is at least 3-4 posts now claiming it is fraud.

I ctrlf’ed and there isn’t. Please link to such posts.

[Juan]

I don’t mind calling FRB fraud in a loose sense. The assertion that everybody knows exactly how it works is wholly unproven - FRB is deceitful.

[Individualist]

@Juan

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.

But the depositor has agreed that he won’t get all his money on demand if his bank doesn’t have enough reserves on hand.

[nirgrahamUK]

no, the depositor is supposed to have agreed that simultaneous to being available to be drawn on at any time, the money is owned by someone else who it has been loaned out to.

---

if it was as you simplisticly say: that depositors agree that they wont get all their money back if the bank dont have enough,

then you are saying that the depositors are making gifts to the bank, and are just hopeful that their lottery tickets might pay out and that they can get some money out later, if the bank just happens to have money to give them,. even though its not obliged to have money to give them , because, if they dont have the money to give them thats accepted and the depositor has no claim.

gamblebank, where the bank can’t lose. this is libertarianly acceptable where it is explicit. (which Max has found it impossible to demonstrate is what is the present case) but it does beggar belief that people are quite that stupid as to do it.

---

but its not that, its the first anyhow.

[scineram]

@Juan

I don’t mind calling FRB fraud in a loose sense. The assertion that everybody knows exactly how it works is wholly unproven - FRB is deceitful.

Caveat emptor. I care not one bit for stupid ignorant suckers.

[Juan]

I care not one bit for stupid ignorant suckers.

Exactly sonny.

[Juan]

But the thing is, in a free market, unbacked ‘fiduciary’ media will trade at a discount - it’s dubious that the ‘stupid ignorant suckers’ are as stupid as the banking ‘elite’ thinks they are.

[Maxliberty]

@nirgrahamUK

no, the depositor is supposed to have agreed that simultaneous to being available to be drawn on at any time, the money is owned by someone else who it has been loaned out to.

---

if it was as you simplisticly say: that depositors agree that they wont get all their money back if the bank dont have enough,

then you are saying that the depositors are making gifts to the bank, and are just hopeful that their lottery tickets might pay out and that they can get some money out later, if the bank just happens to have money to give them,. even though its not obliged to have money to give them , because, if they dont have the money to give them thats accepted and the depositor has no claim.

gamblebank, where the bank can’t lose. this is libertarianly acceptable where it is explicit. (which Max has found it impossible to demonstrate is what is the present case) but it does beggar belief that people are quite that stupid as to do it.

---

but its not that, its the first anyhow.

You continue to ignore the reality of the contract that you signed. I posted it for you to read. Obviously, you prefer ignorance.

Still afraid to answer the question is loans are permissable? That is what you made a loan.

[Maxliberty]

@Juan

@Max

Since every country has their banks backed by a printing press (the government) even the claim that you are fully insured is accurate.

Are you saying banks are fully insured by a criminal gang that counterfeits paper money ? Do you realize that the funds used to insure the banks are STOLEN funds ?

@Max

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?

You do realize that the insurer will steal resources from all holders of pounds in this case ? Do you think that a contract which involves crime is legitimate ?

@scineram

So the problem is government deposit insurance? I think we all agree.

What you call ‘insurance’ is just robbery and is what makes the scam known as FRB possible. No state involvement in banking, no thieves, no FRB is possible - competition in a real free market would wipe it out.

Also, it’s nice to see that the advocates of FRB fully support statist socialism, aka deposit insurance managed by the gov’t and funded by theft.

The government can simply print money they don’t have to steal it.

You can not prove there is any fraud. All you are saying is that you don’t understand the nature of the contracts that you are making.

Insurance would exist in the absence of government.

[Juan]

The government can simply print money they don’t have to steal it.

How do I reply to that ?

[nirgrahamUK]

@Maxliberty

You continue to ignore the reality of the contract that you signed. I posted it for you to read. Obviously, you prefer ignorance.

Still afraid to answer the question is loans are permissable? That is what you made a loan.

loans are permissable. but my bank contract is not a loan agreement. i already addressed what you posted but you dont seem to read what i write. you are just talented at writing ‘but its a loan’ after posting block qoutes. i don’t think its a marketable skill.