I certainly hope so. why you wouldn’t? Can I contract with you to kill your neighbor?
Don’t think too much about what somebody else believes. Or even worse, learn about what he knows from his critics.
What have you read yet about this issue? Specifically, what writings of Rothbard have you read?
Good and nice ownage.
It is debatable if “Certificates of deposit for interest-bearing accounts” would constitute for what we call today fractional reserve banking , and whether such a system would evolve in the free market.
False dichotomy. The preference is between holding a certain amount of cash reserves and lending out the money for investment.
If a man is increasing his cash holding, he’s obviously forgoing investment with that amount and the interest he can earn on it. The uncertainly of investment is what drives the individual to hold a certain amount of cash. Since your “FRB” system (where all parties are informed of the terms) still bears the uncertainty of investment, it is not clear as to why you are so certain that interest would be preferred. In fact, the assertion is rather nonsensical.
It basically is, and it obviously evolved.
They always did. There is no evidence to the contrary at all.
Don’t care. The point was that such a thing would be impossible in a full-reserve bank.
Umm, no. It was presented within the context of warehouse vs. (free) banking, it doesn’t have to take into account people who use neither.
All forms of investment bear uncertainty, anything with a contract bears uncertainty. Hardly nonsensical to think people would prefer extra money.
Do you ever respond to the actual context of what people say? I have yet to encounter such an event.
You said “Obviously, people prefer fees over interest.” (sarcasm implying the opposite), but you completely ignored the motives behind each preference; namely, investing vs holding. So your assertion is indeed nonsensical.
The vagueness, and lack of consistency on this difference is the hallmark of your theory. And as usual, you the need to conflate the two (holding cash and investing) for your assertions to sound correct.
No evidence to what? That people want to hold a certain cash balance without investing it. Do you also respond without grasping the full context of what you are responding to?
The current system evolved as a result of government intervention.
As for historical examples, the few like “free banking is Scotland” were later discovered to be more myths then reality. At least you can acknowledge the controversy surrounding such few and rare examples instead of just making baseless assertions as if they were factually proven.
Already? Its only been two pages.
No. I understand each preference. I’m saying people (in general) will prefer whichever costs them least (they want as much money as possible). Is that hard to understand? You on the other hand are saying “hey, wait, people have motives behind their preferences” I’m replying “no shit.” I’ve already presented a motive, I have yet to hear why that motive is nonsensical.
Back up your claims. What lack of consistency? What vagueness? What is my theory? (Please provide quotes)
Umm no. If you are referring to a call-loan, it hardly conflates the two.
Cash holders hold cash. WTF does this have to do with deposits?
cash holders, i.e. gold holder, hold their cash/gold in vaults inside things called ‘banks’. the act of storing the gold in the bank is knows as making a deposit with the bank.
you are familiar with the history of banking yes?
That is hardly storing. Deposits are lent out, so there are no storage fees, but interest.
so you arent familiar with the history of banking. ok then.
the act of storing the gold in the bank is knows as making a deposit with the bank…
this is what i always thought.
and from what i have read the lending out of deposits while at the same time claiming they were there - and facilitating the transfers of gold/silver deposits through paper receipts that no longer correspned to deposted gold/silver was originally considered a fraud or breach??
somehow overtime laws were adjusted or manipulated to to say that if a bank can meet demand - (usually only accomplished by a central bank foisted on many to benefit a few.)
i wasnt around hundreds of years ago to confirm the so-called myths or lies about free banking and its effects.
…full reserve banks would exchange warehouse receipts, for a fee. Obviously, people prefer fees over interest…
with a full reserve bank it seems that the time deposit would be like just loaning out your money (with out any corresponding bank credit created) to someone and hoping to get it back plus interest over a specified time. perhaps lower returns for TDs that allowed for pre-maturity withdrawl due to a bank having to dig into its own money assets to redeem. contract specs, iow.
i would think that the bank would get most of its money for safekeeping and from fees from facilitating transfers of receipts, dollars or 1to1 notes.
thats what i gather from the rothbard readings
…wouldn’t Rothbard say fractional reserve banking is not a crime but more a dummy business model that should not attract anybody? …
i dont know if the term dummy would be used or not by the rothbard. he might say the frbers are pathetic liars - unless he could benefit himself.
from what i have read various forms deposit dishhonesty were taking place before central banks - ie, lending specie-deposits out and creating bank notes corresponding to the specie while both circulated at the same time. if those who sought out frb banks were just shooting themselves in the foot because many prices began to outpace the acquisition of credt…that i am not sure.
if frb depositors benefited…i am not sure what the rothbard thought about that or wrote on it.
John Edward McGee, Jr. (born October 19, 1969) is an American television personality, and psychic medium. He is best known for his TV shows Crossing Over
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edward
perhaps the above will get you closer to what the rothbard really thought