George Mason vs. Mises Institute

[Amanojack]

@Selgin

For goodness’ sake: bank deposit agreements specify in elaborate detail just what the making of a “deposit” entails. Similarly, conventional banknotes made it perfectly clear that the notes were IOUs (“We promise to pay the bearer…” etc.) The often-repeated claim that deposit “receipts” and banknotes have taken the form of property titles–that is, titles to basic money rather than IOUs specifying repayment in such, is demonstrably false. This is a matter of fact, not definitions. The 100-percenters are the ones who are confusion matters, by pretending that are argyument about what the term used to refer to X “ought to mean” is the same as an argument about what X itself “ought to be.”

But it seems this has already been covered. I think some of the 100-percenters said that, sure, the contract may say that banknotes are IOUs, but most customers don’t read the contract and don’t know this, or are brainwashed into thinking otherwise by the establishment and media. To which some FRBers said that people do know that banknotes are, at least, not property titles, else there wouldn’t be bank runs.

As I said in my first post in this thread, the debate keeps shifting: sometimes it’s about what is (matters of fact), sometimes it’s about what should be, sometimes it’s about what would be, and as it rotates among these it always touches back on definitions. For what it’s worth, the shifting seems to be more from the 100-percenter side. If I were playing for the FRB side, I wouldn’t let them shift. I would nail them down to one specific question at a time, and one set of definitions, and refuse to budge. Like Kaz tried to do here.

In other words, I probably agree with your position, but I don’t see how you’ll ever prevail if you follow the other side into every little diversion they present for you. Almost everyone I’ve seen take on the 100-percenters comments that they are like a religion; if so, the tactics for dealing with dogma are warranted. That is, don’t let them lead you around; focusing and boring straight through on one point is the only thing that works (if you are right). Any other approach can be evaded by continually changing what the argument is about, peppered with definitional legerdemain.

I know I am commenting from the sidelines on this one so it probably sounds kinda ridiculous (like, “Why don’t you make these arguments, AJ, if you are so sure it’d work?”), but this sticks out to me so much that I just had to say something. The reason I am not really jumping into this, is I still have no idea just what the debate is about! I don’t know what the tenets of the 100-percenter side nor the free banking side are - are they descriptive, moral, speculative, or a combination (or nothing; that is, just words)?