I think this is the perfect place and time to compliment Daniel on his superb article from yesterday: From Mises on Mind and Method:
Modus, do please have a look at the Yeager article I referred to earlier concerning the matter of definitions. Apart from the points made there, it’s important to stress that despite its original latin meaning, the term “deposits” eveolved long ago to take on a distinct meaning when preceeded by the word “bank.” Words do that, and it would be anachronistic at best to force banks to make “bank deposits” they handle conform to a meaning that the phrase has long since ceased to convey to anyone in the banking business, including the vast majority of deposit holders.
A very good thing to read on this, besides Yeager, is those sections of Henry Dunning Macleod’s Theory and Practice of Banking dealing with these matters, esp. pp. 143ff. (Though he wrote long ago, Dunning might have been responding to Huerta de Soto!)
No hard copy reprint plans, aals, Othyem; but you can read Theory of Free Banking for nothing, on the Online Library of Liberty.
DD5,
Your comment is so uncomprehending of the meaning of what I wrote that I hardly even know how to begin responding. The problem is not logic. Incidently, I am more of a deductivist than Mises or Rothbard. I don’t even believe in induction – a statement which requires more qualification than I care to give here. I have actually spent quite some time studying logic; what passes for “logical reasoning” among some ametuer Austrians betrays an utter naivety on the matter. For many, like yourself, the word “logical” is as meaningless as the word “freedom” from the lips of a politician on campaign day – it is nothing but a rhetorical tactic used puff up oneself and belittle opponents.
George Selgin,
My comment about the meaning and origin of “deposit” was intended as a parody. You may know me as Lee Kelly on the Coordination Problem blog. I am also a big fan of Yeagar: I just received his Essays on Monetary Disequilibrium as a gift this last Christmas – good stuff. Unfortunately, I cannot access his recent article, but I’ll check out Macleod’s work (I have been meaning to for sometime anyway).
The Fluttering Veil is an excellent book Modus.
And to your earlier point about the emergence of fractional reserves, I completely agree. 100 percent reservists by arguing against free banking, whether they realize it or not, are making a case against a completely unhampered market.
Lee, every once in a while someone like you tricks me with such a “parody” of 100-percent reservist reasoning. of 100-percent reof The trouble is, the parody’s aren’t obviosuly different from the real McCoy! What’s more, they’re just as capable of contributing to the impression that the FRB view is a moinority one. So please refrain, on this site anyway: I want to hear more sound argument here, not more bad stuff, whether for real or 'just kidding"! So
I don’t have much time right now to frequently go back and fourth, but I will eventually respond if the debate is worthwhile.
You have about 160 posts on this forum. Most of them are either on this issue or on monetary equilibrium. Can you please point me to a single post of yours that you think represets an argument that you think you can defend on the basis of solid deductive reasoning.
Just another quick response.
Selgin, You are arguing against insulting by further insulting. And you have been appealing to ridicule through out this thread. It doen’t prove you are wrong, but it doesn’t help your argument very much in my opinion.
DD5,
All of them?
I strongly suspect that you do not understand what it means for an argument to be deductive.
In any case, why do you always use meaningless adjectives, like in the phrase “solid deductive reasoning”? Can deductive reasoning be unsolid? Wouldn’t that just be invalid and, therefore, non-deductive. Do you mean “sound deductive reasoning”? That would at least make sense, though it would remain pointless.
Calumny, DD5: Where did I claim to be opposed to insulting or ridiculing people?
But what, I wonder, provoked your mistaken characterization? Surely it wasn’t my saying that Modus’ parody seemed to me the real thing itself? That, I assure you, was said in all sincerity!
So can you please explain it to me by making an argument for whatever topic you wish and you know we disagree on. You can just continue whatever you left off the last time, or make a few opening statements expecting to later defend them.
So you would oppose also the use of invalid in “invalid deductive reasoning”? since that would just be non-deductive accoridng to you.
Fair enough. But it’s not fair for you to complain about a lack of “solid arguments” presented here thus far.
I don’t know about that, DD5: I’ve mentioned historical episodes, given figures, and referred to relevant sources concerning a number of substantive points. I consider these to be the trappings of “solid argument.” But I haven’t seen much of that coming from the other side of the debate.
No. We have argued elsewhere; you are well aware of our disagreements. In any case, would you have me defend their validity or soundness? It’s statements like this that lead me to suspect you really don’t understand what a deductive argument is, because I believe you would challenge the soundness, not the validity, of any claim I make.
In other matters, “invalid deductive reasoning” doesn’t make sense.
TY Z.
Economic history. Not theory.
Those episodes can and do have other interpretations.
More historical empirical data that cannot be used for constructing a scientific theory. How can I possibly elaborate on this without sounding like I’m giving your a lesson on epistemology?
There are numerous praxeological objections, which in my opinion, you and others have never been able to respond to in any satisfactory manner. Now, it is possible that all these objections are vain, and that logic is on your side after all. But that’s precisely the point, this issue can only be resolved (or not) in this domain. No hisotrical data can overcome logical fallacies. It’s just that it is usually your side, that at some point during the debate, begins to resort to ad hoc claims usually involving history and emprical observations, e.g., 'the fact is that free banking has flourished here and there, etc…’ and other such assertions.
I hope I may enter this debate only insofar as to clarify something which I suspect is causing the greatest loss of productivity, by causing talking past each other.
Proof has well-defined sense, since Leibniz sent around his letters on this subject:
That is necessarily true which is the contrary of any contradictory statement.
There are things, however, which are not necessary, merely possible. They are called “contingent,” or “empirical.” Like stories that are internally consistent but contradict each other when taken together. Why? Analysis required to prove them true or false by contradiction is analysis where infinite combinatorial terms must be checked for contradication. We cannot do infinite combinatorial analysis if we can’t find some “shortcut” were we can construct series for which something about (n+1)th case can be proved.
Whereupon we rely on experience (experimentum). Which provides no causality or proof in mathematical sense, since we never actually show contrary of contradiction. At least, however, we provide determining equations of motion (set of functions such that full or partial derivative in any one variable is equal to a given function of initial states of all observed variables). There we have unproven assumption that future is like past in structure (also that these deterministic but not causal equations hold only if system is capable of local approximation, which may be proven depending on physical system that is modelled).
Can all parties please supply their one-sentence definition of proof to each other?
Yeager argues that the 100-percenter definitions are chosen to make their side look right (“persuasive definitions”). Hence the fear seems to be that if you use their definitions to make your case, it will sound wrong-ish even if it is right.
That may well be a valid concern. Yet if it is truly impossible to make a convincing case using the 100-percenters’ definitions, and they refuse to accept arguments couched in any other definitions, then it seems the only way to move forward is to address the definitional issues directly and refuse to make any more points until that is taken care of. Yeager did address these issues, but if his efforts are not to be wasted surely the next step is to wait, not to continue, at least until the 100%-ers make some concessions on the definitions front.
It seems you are arguing that FRB only exists because of state enforcement. That might be true, but I am having trouble pinning down just what your main point is. Specifically, I can think of at least three positions you (and/or 100-percenters) might be taking:
-
FRB would not exist in the absence of a state; only fee-based money warehouses would exist.
-
FRB might exist in the absense of a state, but if so it would only be because many people have foolish ideas about banking (due to brainwashing, etc.). In other words, stateless free banking would only survive if people fail to see what is in their best interests.
-
FRB should not exist (moral claim).
Is it one of these, more than one, or something else?
EDIT: Your subsequent post clarifies this somewhat:
From this it seems your position is basically (2) above. So we can distill the debate down to the question of, simply, Is banking with an FRB in a stateless society worth the risk for the average person, or for anyone? And if not, how likely is it that those people would accurately assess that risk?