please quote my ad hominems and rudeness ? i am doubtful
haha, i was vicious!
Why would anyone choose a checking account over a safety deposit box? Lets think…how about, checking?
The whole point of a checking account, that a safety deposit box doesn’t allow for, is to give the bank access to your money so they can transfer it to whom you tell them.
Don’t be rude Jon
[:P]
Except there are perfect alternatives to checking accounts. Credit cards, money orders, Western Union, etc. Even further, if there was such a great demand for it, why isn’t there a type of checking account where you have to pay to stash your cash in the bank without it being lent out later?
My guess is there isn’t one and the Mises forum users are the monetary equivalents of the luddites.
because of men with guns !!!
SO it’s a conspiracy now?
its not proper to call publicly commited crimes, where the criminals are well known and their activities well documented. ‘conspiracies’
Oh… Ok.
[^o)]
is that supposed to mean something, or is it a pause to acknowledge you have read something that you will respond to later?
It’s an expression of being done with a topic debate with people who are so out of whack with macroeconomic theory circa 1970. This really isn’t worth carrying on.
either that (whatever it might mean), or you have had enough of looking foolish…
Seems as if Lord Rochester never heard the terms “government” “monopoly” and “legal tender”…among others probably.
Looking like a fool here isn’t exactly a big concern. Especially on monetary policy, where it’s effectively like being reassured that you’re getting something right with the principles of economics - such as supply and demand.
Seems, but I have heard the term amateurs. Have you?
What is your point for all of this? Is it that you like inflation? Yay! You’re a Keynsian. Your ilk has caused almost every economic calamity.
I’m literally LOLing.
Sorry for being late to the party but it seems to have died down a bit anyway. To address the original question…
Well I just asked someone who most of us would consider “general public not versed in economics” and the answer was a definite “NO”-- it’s not “implicit” that this money is going to be lent out, and it’s not something people even think about at all. When people put money in the bank they expect it to be safe and available for them when they need it. The only reason it is safe (at least in nominal terms) is because the government promises to loot everyone to “insure” the deposit.
Safety deposit doesn’t really come into play here as it’s a totally different service, you can’t pay your credit card bill or mortgage with money in your SD box, or even if you had cash sitting at home which is basically the same thing.
I think you’re asking the wrong question. Why not ask, is fractional reserve banking honest? And if it is, why do banks need to rely on government (to guarantee deposits) taking money from taxpayers, who as a whole have nothing to do with the agreement between an individual and a bank? Is it moral to force the general public to accept this risk? How could this be anything but banks using the government to pass on the risk of their dishonest banking onto the innocent public?
Is everyone a Keynesian if they aren’t a gold bug circling around a shadow of Rothbard’s statue?