Again non-sequitur with all the intervention in the free market crap. you are unintentionally defining a free market as a socialist would.
You know perfectly well that most people don’t know diddly-squat. And the ignorance argument is the obfuscation in your defense.
Most people are too ignorant (including myself) to spot a counterfeit gold coin. Does this mean that counterfeiting is a problem of ignorance and not fraud?
Not quite.
“Demand deposit as understood by the public and defined in the contract means redeemable on demand.”
I disagree that the public understand demand deposit as bailement, and I disagree that the contract reads bailment.
i disagree that the contract reads ‘callable loan to bank’. the Terms and Conditions for my current account have a ‘borrowing from us’ section but there is no ‘borrowing from you’ section. My bank charge a 10£ a month banking fee to bank with them. They participate as do all UK banks in FRB madness.
Here check it out http://www.firstdirect.com/cgi-bin/psp.pl?psp=general/pdf_download&pdf=/assets/pdf/nov_terms.pdf
Guys, this is so simple. Those who want to own gold coins will have them. Those who want to have banknotes will have them. All this BS about what people really really want is just obfuscation.
And no one was talking about counterfeit gold coins.
I question whether a free paper money exchange can survive for the simple reason that it can and will be hyperinflated to oblivion.
Well, I say FRB is not fraud, it is bad economics. 10% reserve is bad economics, 100% reserve is very bad economics.
If banks were required to instantly pay back all deposits, they will be keeping all the money in vaults. Then why bother taking deposits? If banks could only loan 50% of what they got, (same as 100% reserve), they would not be able to give everything back. Only half back. If you insist on 100% reserve, why not 200% reserve? (66% of what they got in vaults)
I say don’t regulate reserve requirements at all. Let the banks do whatever they want with the money. I don’t really mind keeping some monies in a bank that says “you are in a queue… please hold (for weeks)…” when I go for a withdrawal as long as I get highly competitive rates.
Instead regulate bank design so that a bank going bankrupt would be a very smooth affair with a govt agency holding the banking assets for the depositors of the dead bank while they are sold off to banks that are healthy.
As for real estate assets, banks should be banned from having any. They are banks, they should not be in the business of real estate. Optimizing real estate efficiency and risk of idle real estate is the job of real estate barons, not depositors.
Furthermore, all bank branches should be franchises so that a bank going down is just a matter of changing the board in the front to a new bank. In fact this may lead to more efficiency as more branches will try to serve more than one bank. Then it is simply a matter of removing one of many sign boards in front of the building. SMOOTH!!! This will also encourage efficiency in branches due to competition between branches on service costs.
What do you think?
It did not, therefore it can.
Do you consider it fraud? Or just ignorance on the part of the public for not being able to tell them apart (the real from the counterfeit)?
Meh… Tennis is boring anyways. Checkmate.