Inflation as wealth redistribution to first receivers of the new money

[Angurse]

@Juan

Right. One can misuse subjective value theory and render the concept of fraud meaningless.

You’ve already stated on other threads that FRB isn’t actually fraud.

@Juan

The fact that people accept an IOU allegedly proves that the IOU is no different from hard currency. Except that it doesn’t.

“No different from hard currency” now you are just begging the question as to what is hard currency. As far as I know the “hardness” of currency is based on its reliability.

[Juan]

You’ve already stated on other threads that FRB isn’t actually fraud.

Actually I stated the opposite. I said that FRB works thanks to deception and misreprentation, in other words, fraud. Just like, say, astrology and horoscopes.

What I also said is that I don’t care if FRB fits some legalistic definition of fraud or not.

fraud : deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

“No different from hard currency” now you are just begging the question as to what is hard currency.

Sorry, I’m not going to play a definitions game.

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan

in other words, fraud. Just like, say, astrology and horoscopes

Will they be banned too in anarcho-capitalism-land?

[Juan]

Sorry sonny ? What are you talking about ?

[hayekianxyz]

You’ve said before that you wish to ban fractional reserve banking due to its alleged fraudulent nature. Now you’re stating that horoscopes and astrology are fraud, must they be banned also?

[Angurse]

@Juan

Actually I stated the opposite. I said that FRB works thanks to deception and misreprentation, in other words, fraud. Just like, say, astrology and horoscopes.

What I also said is that I don’t care if FRB fits some legalistic definition of fraud or not.

Exactly, its not actually fraud. We can ignore your being wrong about how it works.

@Juan

fraud : deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

Wonderful. With people making voluntary agreements it doesn’t fit said definition.

@Juan

Sorry, I’m not going to play a definitions game.

“Its not hard currency, but I’m not going to explain what hard currency is.”

[Juan]

You’ve said before that you wish to ban fractional reserve banking due to its alleged fraudulent nature.

I see. Writing your long, senseless rants prevents you from reading what other people write. Now sonny, would you be so kind as to quote me saying that I want to ban FRB ? Thanks.

[hayekianxyz]

Do you want to ban FRB or not?

[Juan]

Exactly, its not actually fraud. We can ignore your being wrong about how it works.

Actually, it is fraud and we can ignore your misuse of economic theory.

[Juan]

Do you want to ban FRB or not?

Sonny, I think I made my position clear. I can’t help you further.

[hayekianxyz]

Well, do you want to ban FRB or not?

[Angurse]

@Juan

Actually, it is fraud and we can ignore your misuse of economic theory.

Did you not read the very definition you posted?

[Juan]

@GilesStratton

Well, do you want to ban FRB or not?

You are slightly mentally handicapped no ?

would you be so kind as to quote me saying that I want to ban FRB ? Thanks.

[hayekianxyz]

That doesn’t answer the question, would you be so kind as to tell me whether you want to ban fractional reserves.

[Juan]

No sonny - I see no reason to answer your question. If you don’t know what you are talking about (my position) then don’t talk about it.

[DD5]

@Angurse

@DD5

Why would a claim ticket for ‘1oz of Gold with a clause’ have the same value of a claim ticket for ‘1 oz of Gold, no clause (100% backed by Gold)’ ?

As I’ve repeatedly said, individuals trust that the banks can/will redeem it.

Again I ask, why would a claim for 1oz of Gold (100% backed) have the same value as the physical oz of gold?

(The answer is the same)

Answer the question! I open this question to all in this forum as a test of logical sanity. here it is again:

In a free market, Why would a claim ticket for ‘1oz of Gold with a clause (not backed by 100% Gold)’ have the same value of a claim ticket for ‘1 oz of Gold, no clause (100% backed by Gold)’ ?

[Angurse]

@DD5

Answer the question! I open this question to all in this forum as a test of logical sanity. here it is again:

In a free market, Why would a claim ticket for ‘1oz of Gold with a clause (not backed by 100% Gold)’ have the same value of a claim ticket for ‘1 oz of Gold, no clause (100% backed by Gold)’ ?

I clearly answered it, I’ve answered it multiple times now.

@Angurse

As I’ve repeatedly said, individuals trust that the banks can/will redeem it.

@Angurse

The IOU’s would be able to circulate at par value if the public and other banks recognized that the likelihood of the banks using the clause or having trouble redeeming the IOU’s. Again, I’ve already mentioned the public’s willingness and trust being an important factor.

@Angurse

Again false analogy. The market is accepting squares (IOUs) instead of circles, with the attached option to exchange them for circles with a clause. The square isn’t a circle. The IOUs are not gold. Its obvious that people know that the money held is not gold. For my argument to work, it requires trust, which is ultimately no different than full-reserve bank notes.

@Angurse

The claims are nothing more than IOU’s. Of course, a person holding a redeemable bank IOU is free to spend or cash the IOU at any moment; but until the IOU is spent or cashed, holders are not saving. it is no less engaged in an act of saving than someone holding a bond having the same face value. There is nothing fraudulent or illogical about there being more IOUs in existence at any moment than of what the issuer promises of them in existence at any moment than the total supply of what they promise to deliver.

@Angurse

By the terms of agreement.

@Angurse

What argument are you talking about I never said fiduciary media couldn’t be treated as a substitute. I said using fiduciary media isn’t fraud. If people accept claims to gold with a clause at the value of gold then they are prima facie a substitute. I think I clarified this:

@Angurse

Its obviously a full substitute for people willing to accept it, otherwise they wouldn’t, which means it isn’t fraud.

@Angurse

Its obviously a full substitute for people willing to accept it, otherwise they wouldn’t, which means it isn’t fraud.

@Angurse

It depends. The bank may have a negative reputation so their notes will probably trade at a lower value. If there is enough confidence in the bank the fiduciary media will trade at face value.

@Angurse

You’ve confusing fiduciary media with money-certificates (among many things). Its obviously a full substitute for people willing to accept it, otherwise they wouldn’t, which means it isn’t fraud.

Thats why.

Now how about you respond to some of mine.

@Angurse

Again I ask, why would a claim for 1oz of Gold (100% backed) have the same value as the physical oz of gold?

@Angurse

Again, you are confusing the theoretical possibility with your opinion of how people will treat them. It clearly isn’t fraud as defined by Rothbard as a "failure to fulfill a voluntarily-agreed upon transfer of property. The fact that people simply trust the bank to fulfill their obligations seems to allude you. And again, if you really believe what you are saying then you must be against all forms of money-substitutes as why would you necessarily believe your claim will be fulfilled at all?

@Angurse

How does a 10oz claim equal to a 10oz gold bullion, when they are full reserve?

[DD5]

@Angurse

@DD5

Answer the question! I open this question to all in this forum as a test of logical sanity. here it is again:

In a free market, Why would a claim ticket for ‘1oz of Gold with a clause (not backed by 100% Gold)’ have the same value of a claim ticket for ‘1 oz of Gold, no clause (100% backed by Gold)’ ?

I clearly answered it, I’ve answered it multiple times now.

@Angurse

As I’ve repeatedly said, individuals trust that the banks can/will redeem it.

@Angurse

The IOU’s would be able to circulate at par value if the public and other banks recognized that the likelihood of the banks using the clause or having trouble redeeming the IOU’s. Again, I’ve already mentioned the public’s willingness and trust being an important factor.

@Angurse

Again false analogy. The market is accepting squares (IOUs) instead of circles, with the attached option to exchange them for circles with a clause. The square isn’t a circle. The IOUs are not gold. Its obvious that people know that the money held is not gold. For my argument to work, it requires trust, which is ultimately no different than full-reserve bank notes.

@Angurse

The claims are nothing more than IOU’s. Of course, a person holding a redeemable bank IOU is free to spend or cash the IOU at any moment; but until the IOU is spent or cashed, holders are not saving. it is no less engaged in an act of saving than someone holding a bond having the same face value. There is nothing fraudulent or illogical about there being more IOUs in existence at any moment than of what the issuer promises of them in existence at any moment than the total supply of what they promise to deliver.

@Angurse

By the terms of agreement.

@Angurse

What argument are you talking about I never said fiduciary media couldn’t be treated as a substitute. I said using fiduciary media isn’t fraud. If people accept claims to gold with a clause at the value of gold then they are prima facie a substitute. I think I clarified this:

@Angurse

Its obviously a full substitute for people willing to accept it, otherwise they wouldn’t, which means it isn’t fraud.

@Angurse

Its obviously a full substitute for people willing to accept it, otherwise they wouldn’t, which means it isn’t fraud.

@Angurse

It depends. The bank may have a negative reputation so their notes will probably trade at a lower value. If there is enough confidence in the bank the fiduciary media will trade at face value.

@Angurse

You’ve confusing fiduciary media with money-certificates (among many things). Its obviously a full substitute for people willing to accept it, otherwise they wouldn’t, which means it isn’t fraud.

Thats why.

Now how about you respond to some of mine.

@Angurse

Again I ask, why would a claim for 1oz of Gold (100% backed) have the same value as the physical oz of gold?

@Angurse

Again, you are confusing the theoretical possibility with your opinion of how people will treat them. It clearly isn’t fraud as defined by Rothbard as a "failure to fulfill a voluntarily-agreed upon transfer of property. The fact that people simply trust the bank to fulfill their obligations seems to allude you. And again, if you really believe what you are saying then you must be against all forms of money-substitutes as why would you necessarily believe your claim will be fulfilled at all?

@Angurse

How does a 10oz claim equal to a 10oz gold bullion, when they are full reserve?

You still haven’t answer the question!

Either

A: They won’t have the same value

B: They will have the same value

If you chose B, then please explain how this can possibly occur.

[Juan]

Again I ask, why would a claim for 1oz of Gold (100% backed) have the same value as the physical oz of gold?

How does a 10oz claim equal to a 10oz gold bullion, when they are full reserve?

Those claims can be exchanged at any time for physical gold. No magical trust involved.

[Angurse]

@DD5

You still haven’t answer the question!

Either

A: They won’t have the same value

B: They will have the same value

If you chose B, then please explain how this can possibly occur.

I choose neither and/or both. You have just set up a false question. The answer isn’t A or B, the answer is A & B. S*ome (*read: not all!) could (read: possibly won’t but possibly will) have the same value. The value of the claims depends on the reputation of the bank. I’ve explained this multiple times.

@Angurse

It depends. The bank may have a negative reputation so their notes will probably trade at a lower value. If there is enough confidence in the bank the fiduciary media will trade at face value.

@Angurse

The IOU’s would be able to circulate at par value if the public and other banks recognized that the likelihood of the banks using the clause or having trouble redeeming the IOU’s. Again, I’ve already mentioned the public’s willingness and trust being an important factor.