for those who wish to deal mostly in physical cash a safe deposit box as one of many storage places of wads of cash (and other items) is probobly a good place to keep some of it in case of disaster, fire theft, etc.
as far as demand goes a public storage facitly with a safe in side might privde more round the clock access if necessary - but ther emay be 24/7 secure safe deposit boxes that i am unaware of.
But it has everything to do with your topic, especially since you are blaming the victim.
So we just throw morality out the window in the name of…what, exactly.
Don’t force your personal morality on others, man!
Well… Considering I don’t see people using banks as victims… No, it has nothing to do with victims.
You throw your personal morality out the window? No, no. This is the point. You have an option. You don’t have to use banks. You can store your cash in a safe, a safety deposit box, whatever you like. Others will take the relatively low risk involved in putting their money in a bank and enjoy all of its features.
Everyone wins.
It’s the other way 'round. The depositors are the victims.
That’s what you’re advocating. In the name of…supposed efficiency, it looks like.
And a woman doesn’t have to be raped. All she has to do is not wear a miniskirt, right? IOW: why should the depositors have to bend to the wishes of those who would debase their deposits? Stop. Blaming. The. Victim.
They. Are. Not. Victims.
They bend to no wishes, they enter a contract, which I would have assumed you’d respect, and then receive an efficient and effective system of banking in return - for the most part.
How awful it is to be a middle class American with a checking account?
consumers dont have a choice between checking accounts that are bailments and those that are explicit loans to banks. this is by law.
its like asking why people will go to the movies under conditions where there is a national monopoly on cinema theatres and the state has mandated a price of receiving a punch from the ticket office clerk in addition to a standard admission tariff. obviously a disincentive to go watch a film.obviously unjust. and yet people might desire the experience of the thrills of cinema even in the face of suffering some injustice to partake. and you will say, “well they could have done without the cinema experience…”
Yes, they are. They are expecting to have the full amount of their cash in reserve at the bank, rather than the bank inflating the currency and devaluing their money.
Not a valid one.
You really need to work on your thought-processes.
How do you know that for every person or even for one person? How do you know they didn’t sign the contract saying that this was the situation? How do you know that their currency is directy devalued if the banks lending abilities allow for greater production, off-setting your concept of inflation? (Please, answer these head on without resorting to attacks or red herrings).
I suspect most people know of bank runs and are familiar with the FDIC and don’t believe it’s there just in case their bank gets randomly robbed. So whereas you suggest people don’t know their money is lent out efficiently and practically by banks, I suspect most people do have that in mind. Third, if they don’t like it they are not forced to use it. It’s a simple fix. The reality is, however, they do like it. They, unlike a victim, receive significant benefits from their banks. They, unlike a victim, seek out banks. They, unlike a victim, have the opportunity to pull out without any fight from their banks.
Why? Because fractional reserve banking works! I think the gold-bugs need to deal with that.
You’re talking about two different things.
There isn’t a legal monopoly on the storage of money. You can store it yourself, if you like. You could probably get a storage shed and store it in there if you’re also so inclined. There are many different ways you can store your money without having the cops kick down your door.
You cannot, however, legally host a movie for friends and family while charging them a price for viewing said movie.
you have missed the point. its quite subtle though so I will be patient with you whilst you think over
(in present reality) consumers dont have a choice between checking accounts that are bailments, and those that are (somehow if its possible) explicit loans to banks.
vs.
(in the hyopthetical)consumers dont have a choice between movie watching for a money price, and movie watching with mandatory violence.
Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof, and nice attempt to ignore what a bank actually is. Please remember that your questions are from the disease called Keynesianism.
Frac-reserve banking “works” the same way ponzi schemes “work”.
Wilmot of Rochester,
Have you ever opened a bank account? The banks NEVER say as you open an account that your money is going to Tom’s farm or Betty’s new deck. The bank runs are because people want their money. They get upset and very angry when they can’t get their money.
Understand I’m not necessarily arguing against FRB, but maybe I should. I’m arguing against not being able to get “my” (insert any person’s name here) money back that the bank was holding. I think in the free market FRB can go up against 100% backed gold banks and play it out, but without government backing it is clear that most if not all FRB would have gone extinct by now. Not by now only due to current economic crisis, but over time in the 1900’s year after year FRB’s are getting bailed out by the government and devaluing dollar schemes (Federal Reserve actions). The U.S. is experiencing the 48 or 49 bank that is dissolving for the year and it’s only July. Many, many more banks would have gone under without the FDIC and other government interventionist programs that are devaluing the dollar.
So I say let the free market decide, and if I had a choice to put my money anywhere I would put it in a bank that I knew for sure that I’ll get my money back which can only happen at a 100% good backed bank (such as gold, silver, and if there is another commodity out there that has marketable value, then I’m for that too).
As I said before too, a bank doesn’t only offer a place to put your money in safe keeping. I think one huge safe keeping is the use of checks. To mail bills with a check is really the only way to go. Mailing direct money is highly risky. I think it’s a norm of society to mail bills with checks and not to pay bills with money by mail. I think thievery would sky-rocket if the norm was to mail bills with dollars inside the envelope. And this is the most common activity that banks provide. The advent of paying bills on-line still involves a fee usually, so, I try not to do that a lot. To use a credit card to pay bills is another option, but personally I think using credit cards to pay for anything in this economy that inclines to hurt savings is a dangerous activity. Look at California now. Paying it’s creditors with IOU’s. The U.S. is not a savings economy and thus a huge part of the problem in the economy right now. It’s anti-capital. So California is paying off it’s IOU’s with IOU’s starting next Wednesday, at least according to California. Other states are trying to combat this problem in various ways currently. Such as PA not paying it’s state employees for the third straight day. Consumers in the U.S. are in the same boat for the most part.
I also thought this was an excellent post on savings and credit in general. Provides a bit of insight, imo, in this discussion Wilmot. What do you think?
Why worry? Let them live forever in Rothbardian Neverland, reality will take care of itself just fine.
As Wilmot said consumers obviously have a choice in using safety deposit boxes.
Bank never hide they are loaning deposits out. If you ask them they will say just that.
It’s funny how the inflationists are ignorant of history and seem to believe that advocating hard money is a Rothbard-thing. Maybe a trip to the library is in order to at least learn 1) how did the banking mafia arose 2) that there were critics of it before Rothbard was born.
http://mises.org/humanaction/chap17sec12.asp
various interesting bits there…fer instance :
And I had a choice to go to a grocery store at 9pm one night. That doesn’t mean the guy who grabbed me from behind and stuck a knife to my throat should have done that.
I think they do, however. Credit cards are an example. As are money orders. Western Union. Pay pal. etc. If the point is merely that the fractional reserve bank is killing middle Americans because they can’t honestly use checking accounts… I’m sorry, it just doesn’t ring too important an argument to most people. At least not to me and most other people interested in economics I know.