What choice? If a counterfeiter prints exact replicas, since it is my choice to hold the originals, I suffer the consequences?? So it was your choice to hold on to your car before it was stolen! Suffer the consequences, caveat emptor.
Market value is a consequence of individual subjective demand schedules. There is no right to the subjective valuation of other individuals. In fact, it is a nonsensical statement. But this debate is about deception. If there is deception, then you cannot justify the practice on the basis of value theory.
Newly printed Federal Reserve Notes are the original. There is no deception.
Let me try and explain this again.
Counterfeiting is a form of fraud, whereby the counterfeiter passed off something (a piece of paper he printed) as something else (a piece of paper the bank printed), if the receiver is aware that it isn’t actually a bank note, the no its not fraud.
And yes, there is something special about a bank. People will accept/not accept notes based on their trust of the bank. The Friedman Regional Bank giving out Friedmans based on its own standards isn’t a form of counterfeiting as they are the are the issuing-bank.
umm?
Again you’ve conflating value with a physical entity.
Printing replicas isn’t stealing, as you said, you still hold the originals. Only the value of the originals will change. Your car being stolen means you no longer physically posses said car. The apt equivalent would be a “counterfeiter” producing exact replicas of your car and the value of your car falling.
There are some nasty legal tender laws though.
There are, but their effects are a bit overrated.
Straw man argument! I’m not against bank notes! I’m against multiple claim notes to commodity money sitting in a safe. Big big difference!! If you cannot make the distinction, we cannot argue.
If you are just against FRB then this (quote above) is just plain false, as all parties are obviously given the choice to use the bank. And your later talk about innocent third parties would be even more nonsensical as if your money is in the bank you are not a third party.
Do you see any competitive currencies being used domestically?
Seems to me, their monopoly power is near absolute.
I choose a money commodity, say Gold. I hold it under my mattress, or in a bank safe deposit (I pay a storage fee!), or I just do my business in Gold money. I did not agree to any dubious contractual agreement with any banker! Maybe you did, but I didn’t! As far as you’re concerned, I don’t use your bank or any bank. There is no choice! There is only deception. You are unable to make the distinction between the banker and counterfeiter, which is rather embarrassing.
Well, the empirical evidence is against you here, just look at Somalia, they are still using their currency (for smaller transactions at least) despite the lack of legal tender laws.
The problem is that as long as people have expectations that their currency is likely to be accepted and that it won’t be too rapidly depreciated then they’ll continue using it. Of course, the way in which central banks are removed will play a large part in deciding what sort of institutions arise in a free banking environment, so there’s probably good reasoon to believe that a frozen stock of fiat money would be base money instead of gold, silver or whatever currency you imagine.
Once again, check out Selgin’s paper “On Ensuring the Acceptibility of a New Fiat Money” (or something along those lines).
Gresham’s law already does a good job in explaining why we use Fiat money. Expectations of accepting old currency are only expectations. Are you basing your theory on “expectations”? Expectations don’t last forever. That’s why they’re called expectations, as oppose to knowledge.
I must say, that has to be one of the least intelligible posts I’ve ever read, if you wouldn’t mind making your post more coherent I might try to answer.
And you aren’t at risk of losing your gold! Banks don’t hand out claims to gold under your mattress. No theft, no deception, no fraud. (The value of said gold could fall or rise, but you agree you have no right to the value)
I don’t think a dysfunctional economy is the exception that proves the rule. And I don’t see how it undermines my point.
The fact that there is NO competition on issuance anywhere there is legal tender, means that legal tender laws seem to be working quite well.
We know that free market monopolies can emerge, but we don’t treat free market monopoly as proof that competition is not possible.
Of course not, but the point was as Scineram said that legal tender laws, or more correctly, the effects they’re alleged to have on the demand for fiat money are overrated. Once again, I strongly suggest you read the Selgin paper I mentioned on this because he does an excellent job of showing what is necessary.
Well, this isn’t strictly true. There is actually quite heavy competition in the production of travelers checks and demand deposits.
Then you don’t know what fractional reserve banking is and we have nothing to debate. The multiple claims for the gold are part of the money supply. The are not claims for your “friedman” original currency, but for real gold. They circulate as if they were acutal gold coins because the guy at the grocery doesn’t see the difference. Do you even recognize that there is such a thing as counterfeiting? according to your logic, there is no such thing. I told you, I have no problem with original issued-bank notes backed up by nothing. That is not FRB. No 100% reserve Austrian I know does either.
The value of Gold could fall because APMEX or Kitko decided to sell multiple electronic claim tickets for the same amount of gold. Instead of shipping the actual Gold and stroing it in a safe or whatever, they could offer you to sore it in their vaults, and instead get and E-claim. you can sell it back when ever you want to. They realize that hardly anybody claims the actual gold so they issue multiple claims. According to you this is not fraud. The price of Gold will go down and that is just tough luck. As long as the guy buying the E-ticket is in on the scam and gets a piece of the action, it’s not fraud.
It’s not accessible. That I looked is amazing, because I think about as much of free banking, as you do of Rothbard. The difference being, I don’t really care to comment on free banking.
What does this prove? Those are different instruments, are they not?
Goodness.
FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING
The practice of holding (only) a portion of overall assets in cash or cash equivalents (required reserves) in order to meet short-term obligations immediately upon demand. Money which is not held in reserve is invested, usually loaned out so as to generate interest income.
Personally held gold (I.E. gold tucked under your mattress) is not an asset of the bank (unless its stolen, etc…). There aren’t multiple claims for that gold.
If its all contractually agreed, then its not fraud. And the the E-Tickets don’t have to bought by any third party. No fraud, no deception, no theft.