Yes, those are the terms that were agreed upon, and you believe the bank will definitely uphold their obligations why exactly?
(Trust)
This has nothing to do with trust, terms, and agreement and It has all to do with the fact that the claims are actually backed. If you can’t tell the difference between objective facts and personal beliefs, too bad. But that’s your ‘epistemological’ problem. Bottom line, as I said before, you misapply the so called theory of subjective value.
This is getting ridiculous, it still has everything to do with trust. When you take your gold bullion to the bank and agree for them to hold it 100%, you are trusting that they will honour your terms and agreements. You obviously don’t and cannot know for sure that the bank isn’t going to loan out your gold while your away, as its simply an impossibility. The objective fact is that you cannot know for sure how people will act.
Yes, this is getting ridiculous. It is obvious that the claim ticket with clause and claim ticket with no clause are different products! With different supply and demand curves. It is obvious that they cannot have the same market value.
And If they don’t have the same value, the claim ticket with the clause cannot be exchanged for face value. The whole system is illogical UNLESS the market is not aware of the clause, that is, the guy at the grocery store accepts the bank note because he believes it is backed up by 100% gold. This is how FRB has always operated; by deception (fraud).
And different products can’t have the same market value why? Go to any department store, you will find many different products selling for the same price, a dollar store will make this very obvious.
How about you actually reply to some of my responses and questions, before just jumping around and your pasting your refuted assertions. I’ve been very patient with you.
It’s not getting ridiculous, it was ridiculous from the start - your position, that is.
Ah yes, because auditing a warehouse is a metaphysical impossibility. What you say is oh so sensible - it’s not ridiculous at all…
Relevance ?
You auditing a warehouse at all times, yes.
Thats the entire point! You don’t know that the warehouse manager isn’t lying. You don’t know that auditor isn’t lying. The only reason you believe them is some sense of…
Your childish skepticism shows you’ve no real argument.
Yep. I think the universe is just a creation of my mind too. So, poof, you don’t exist anymore.
All you need to do is prove that trust isn’t a factor to rebuke my argument. If its so “childish” it shouldn’t be that difficult, yet you still haven’t done so.
I’m talking about ascertaining objective facts, which is something that can certainly be done, and can even be done easily given the proper infrastructure. Issuers of hard currency would make sure that the quality of their currency is easy to asses.
Your subjectivist skeptical nonsense re: not being able to ‘really’ know what’s going on is dismissed as subjectivist skeptical nonsense.
If we granted your skeptical position we should conclude that it’s also impossible to tell the difference between, say, a car and bicycle. Both ‘products’ can be used to travel - well, maybe even that is subjective and people buy cars and bicycles as food and eat them.
You are just jumping through hoops not to say a particular word. The very fact that you assume future banks will make it easy to asses their reserve quantity shows the extreme importance of trust in the free market.
My position is that people trade actual good for paper based on trust, nothing more. Rebuke it, or move on.
And that’s a complete farsification of my position.
You (and DD5) have already used my position on trust to argue against FRB. People won’t accepts the notes from the bank. Why won’t they accept them? Because they aren’t 100%… and they will ultimately be worthless. Which is nothing more than saying they don’t trust the purchasing power/value/etc… of the notes. If you’d just apply this position about trust consistently you’ll be a “skeptic” like myself.
And your position is just an unfounded assertion - which I showed to be nonsense multiple times. Of course you are free to believe whatever you want, even if it doesn’t match reality.
No, it shows the importance of OBJECTIVE FACTS. It’s pretty important to KNOW what things really are , instead of TRUSTING a bunch of scammers who fancy themselves financial geniuses or something.
You haven’t done any such thing. You’ve just lableled it as some combination as “childish,” “nonsense,” and “skeptical.” But you just keep making my point, you are free to believe that your bank is holding 100% reserves, even if it doesn’t match reality.
Why won’t people accept fractional reserve notes issued by a bank?
And you know they are objective facts how exactly?
Well, I don’t need to. The universe is a creation of my mind. Poof you go again.
Too bad I don’t trust you. Your science books are doomed.
Now, go ahead and put your bullion in my 100% reserve bank and I’ll give you their equivalent in angurse-bucks.
I know this is from way back in the thread, but I don’t understand what you meant by this. From what you’ve said in this thread, it sounds like you’re a supporter of free banking. Is this correct? What do you mean by “I think about as much of free banking, as you do of Rothbard”?
Alex M, free banking in this context doesn’t mean advocacy of abolishing the central bank. It refers to a specfic views (namely complete competition in the provision of currency) as explicated by Hayek, Mises, Horwitz, Selgin, Garrison, White, Sechrest, Dowd and others.
Rothbard, for example, wouldn’t be considered a free banker due to his opposition of fractional reserve banking.
If you subscribe to the idea that fraud is unjust and you can make a case that astrology is fraud, yes.