Prove that demand deposits are bailments, go ahead!
Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. But if you insist:
What is it you do when you give your money to a bank for demand deposit? You are giving it to a warehouse for safekeeping. The bank, while a central location and thus easily-known to anyone who would want to steal money, is usually a secure place to hold your money. Someone else has done the security planning for you. You pay the bank a maintenance fee and you get to keep your money in a secure location. Much like putting your belongings in storage. The bank cannot loan out your funds unless you place it in a time-deposit situation. Loaning out your money otherwise is no different from the storage facility loaning out your items in your storage locker or garage. None whatsoever. And courts have actually ruled that demand deposits are bailments. Of course, they did so before banking was essentially nationalized in most countries.
Now then: prove that when you pay for a storage garage you are allowing the loaning of your items. Prove it.
Under current law, it isn’t, as the banks record chequing account deposits on their asset sheets. However, such practices only exist because of government.
And there are laws against loaning out deposits for any other fungible good (grain warehouse, corn, oil, etc). The fact that money is the only good with this legal privilege should tell you something.
The law is clear for other fungible goods, when you are depositing a fungible good you are not entitled to the exact same good upon withdrawal, but the warehouse is strictly forbidden from lending out your deposit at any time. For any other good but money, this constitutes fraud.
Nothing logically fallacious.
Now this a fallacy called question begging. This is what you have to prove. Why the hell on earth would I want to give them cash and pay for it?
There is no need for them to hold it, only a fraction. They loan out the rest so I get paid interest.
I do not. I would not. I rather earn interest on the deposit.
When and where?
I cannot. I don’t do that.
Yeah, it is.
Nope. It is what you are doing.
Why would you pay someone to store your stuff? People do it all the time. You’ve never heard of a self-storage place? Really? Seriously?
Then there is no need for the storage facility to hold all your stuff–only a fraction.
Then use the time deposit.
When and where which part? If the former, you need merely check Rothbard’s Mystery of Banking. If the latter, please tell me that you are aware of the various central banks.
Then you’re a hypocrite.
For the record, I agree with you, Jacob, about the argument for ethics. I am not afraid to say that the only real law that exists is the law of the gun and that in a life or death situation, arguing with your attacker about why he’s in the ethical wrong for pointing his loaded gun at you will probably not save your life. That said, however, I think point number one is a weak one.
That one isn’t being watched isn’t necessarily a determining factor in the actions of one person or another. After all, we never know when we’re being watched if the watcher is a skilled ninja equipt with unparalleled recon skills. However, the real determining factor is a personal feeling of probability that your actions will come and affect you later. Arguing about whether if a tree falls in the woods and is not heard does it matter doesn’t really matter in the modern world. What matters is probability of being heard and the probability therein that the hearer will come back to get you.
don’t ever expect to be invited as a guest to my house.
Another case of the individuals are to be soldiers and let’s not have foresight and prepare ahead of time kind of person, Wilmot seems. Very dangerous indeed, wouldn’t want him near me at all either. And thus a bank taking property is fine unless his posse brings more guns, yet the bank can loan out for more guns, so his posse can get another bank to loan him more money to get more guns, and then another bank can help the first bank get even more guns and then he can get more banks to ratio their reserves to get more guns and on and on the ‘might makes right’ mentality goes - perpetual.
Hasty generalization. But even if it were true, it could never be proven.
You’re addressing an issue seperate from that which I brought up.
Subjective.
Yet, you bothered to join the debate. Albeit, you addressed a seperate issue.
I would invite him, and subesquently state the rules that there are no outside firearms allowed in my home, if he does not want to abide by the rules, he is free to not enter my home…
The bank is legallly required to give you your money in sixty days?
Is the bank legallly required to give you your money in sixty days even during bank runs?
In the United States the federal government does… up to $250k…
FDIC…
Another failure of socialism, they will print it to get it to you…
lol to nirgraham’s post.
Wilderness,
You might not want me around you and that’s fine, though honestly in conversation you’re the one that appears to be most hostile and short tempered.
Moreover, it’s not about violence and blood lust, that isn’t where my position comes from. Emotions do prevent people from doing certain things that they personally think is wrong, but that doesn’t make it an objective fact of ethics. My issue is that emotion is not ethics and these appeals to the idea that you must be dangerous if you are a moral subjectivist isn’t one grounded in ethical theory - it’s just a cheap shot on the internets.
Daniel,
Calm down. I wasn’t addressing the issue, you’re right, because I was referring to something Jacob said - hence quoting him. My goodness how shortly people lose their tempers online.
… and Jacob was quoting me.
Yes, this is why it matters to read the contract you are signing. All I am for is letting people decide for themselves what relationship they want with their bank. The Austrians if they had their way would prevent this. It’s very simple.
Still advocating banking communism eh ?
No just freedom. Things like a mixed commodity bank that offers gold and silver or any other basket of commodities would basically be outlawed by the Austrians. I see no reason for such things. Let people decide the level of risk they want. Let the market determine what notes will be traded at a discount or at face value. I see no reason that should be imposed on anyone, by the Austrians or anyone else.