Also, i missed the last part of your post. “on demand, pending supply” is not contradictory.
Like i said before, if the bank says, “you can redeem pending supply” it begs the question from the customer “so i can still try to redeem whenever i would like, correct?”
By saying both “on demand” and “pending supply” it is just being more clear, not contradictory. It makes it clear that the customer is allowed to try and redeem on demand, but it may not be fulfilled because of supply issues.
If you seriously diagree with this then you are only concerned with arguing semantics and trying to put people in the wrong.
What is the logical relation that determines redemption Y.
Y= A ? B
go ahead. You determine ‘?’. Fill it in. There is no “but”. I am being “hard” on you here with this formality precisely because you and others here are hiding behind semantic games to assert anything you want. I told you before. You can define terms any way you like, and I would be willing to go with it. But don’t complain later that you are not happy with the results when one begins to [logically] apply them consistently (“not on demand”=“not pending supply”)
I seriously don’t care what you do with this. I’ll ask you again so I don’t waste my time any longer: Do you reject logic?
Yes, it makes perfect grammatical sense. Unfortunately for you, this isn’t a debate on grammar.
Y= A ? B
Fill in the ‘?’ with whatever you want. You won’t do this because you refuse to confront logic. Logic is always a party pooper, isn’t it. It’s OK, most people have long decided to simply do away with it.
I won’t address this until the logical contradictions above are resolved. There is no possible way for us to resolve anything further on the basis of reason if one refuses to accept logic.
note to Kaz: if i may, you had the right idea in the OP, limiting the discussion to a situation where the banks make the situation explicit on the notes. your attempts to add in the “lender of last resort” thing to bolster the case for free banking directly undermines your attempt to fell the opposition argument once and for all. stick with the ONE SINGLE thing you were trying to prove in the OP and you can make progress, as anyone can surely understand what you are laying down there, whether they want to call it FRB, a lottery, or whatever. any supplementary arguments (what is fraud? what is historical? etc.) only complicate things and leave the Rothbardians an out. your main argument is clear-cut; ride it to victory (not victory as in “winning” the argument, but as in getting everyone to agree, as they started to do on the first page of this thread but later got distracted by differing definitions!).
This will likely be my last post. I admit my phrasing has not been entirely clear, hence my offering up 2-3 other ways of saying it. But it is not contradictory. This issue is clarity rather than logic.
I also agree that “on demand” BY ITSELF, and “pending supply” BY ITSELF are two conflicting ideas.
BUT, when they are combined together, it is painfully obvious that the real meaning of the sentence is: “you may try to redeem at any point in time (hence, on demand), and we will fulfill pending supply”
If you really feel that simply saying “you may redeem on demand, and we will fulfill pending supply” is not clear enough, then OK, you have a point. That doesn’t mean it goes against all logic. That’s why i’ve tried to offer up 2 or 3 other ways of phrasing it, to make it painfully obvious what the point of the statement is.
At this point, we ultimately agree what needs to be said and done by the bank for free market fractional reserve banking to take place. I did enjoy this thread.
@DD5: I try to answer your question “What is the logical relation that determines redemption Y?”.
Define: Y = redemption by bank, A = demand by client, B = sufficient supply
Let me first try to derive the contradiction you claim exists:
I suppose your starting point is: A ↔ Y
Then you see others are adding: notB → notY, A , notB
This would indeed lead to both Y and notY, a contradiction. However, this contradiction depends on your initial assumption of A ↔ Y.
JH2011 and others are using a different initial assumption: (A & B) ↔ Y
From this you can derive: notB → notY. Adding A, notB does not lead to a contradiction, only to: notY.
So your question is answered by: (A & B) ↔ Y.
In your “on demand, pending supply = pending supply” -analysis you jump too quickly from natural language to logical expression. The reason why they are considered to boil down to the same thing, is that “on demand” is seen as a given, because the bank won’t redeem without being demanded so. The only change going from “pending supply” to “on demand, pending supply” is to make explicit the formerly implicit “on demand”. Logically, there is no distinction between implicit and explicit assumptions, so logically there is no difference between the two clauses.
I believe this is what JH2011 referred to with: “My point is that the on demand part is pretty obvious.”
People, there is no such thing as a fractional reserve bank absent the obligation to redeem “on demand”, just like there is no such thing as a bakery absent the baker.
Your response is rather dishonest and nonsensical. The “on demand” according to you has now been turned into simply showing up and demanding something. You’re also attributing to me claims that have actually been made by people who I have been debating. I’m really getting tired of this level of argumentation here where no logical expressions can ever be applied because terms are redefined and redefined in order to fit your predetermined results.
no true scotsman and strawman. you are simply setting up a definition of FRB different from the one in the OP, then high-handedly browbeating your opponents with “logic” (even symbols!) as if the real issue were anything other than semantics. i would call it intellectual cowardice and evasion of the most disgusting kind, but from the tone of your recent posts it appears you have fooled even yourself.
the issue is simple: if the notes say “redeemable whenever there are enough reserves”, no one is being fooled. perhaps no one would use such a service, but that is beside the point. such a service is entirely free of force or fraud. if you wish to not call that a “bank”, not call the notes “money”, and not call that bank a “fractional reserve bank”, it is plain for all to see that your desired definition of “fractional reserve bank” will require that fraud or deception take place, and you will be smuggling in the fraudulent nature of the your FRB into the very definition—this is the fallacy called begging the question, or assuming what you’ve got to prove.
it is only through this kind of obfuscation that this debate can go on. if it continues, you may look back on this post and discover its prescience.
I’m not sure why you believe my response was dishonest. It may have been nonsense, but it was written in all sincerity, trying to accomodate your wish for a more logical approach.
I have not “turned” the meaning of “on demand”, I have used it in the way many people do, indeed as in: “when requested”. You may ofcourse have a different meaning for it. I suggest you define that meaning so that we can use it in a logical analysis.
It has not been my intention to attribute to you claims made by others. If you point out where I’ve done that and give me your own claims instead then I’ll correct that.
You claim that “no logical expressions can ever be applied”. You may disagree with the outcome, since you disagree with how the terms are defined. But to claim no logic can be applied seems a strange thing to say right after I’ve done exactly that.
The main problem you have with my post seems to be not the logical analysis but rather how terms are defined. With this you seem to prove the point of those who claim that it’s not about logic but rather about semantics. After all, definition of terms is nothing but semantics.
Given your focus on semantics rather than logic, I’m not sure if you want to continue with a logical analysis. In case you do, I suggest you do as I did: define your terms, give your assumptions regarding the logical relations that hold between them, and apply a deduction to them.
“demand” already implies exchange. “demand” is not a want or a simple verbal request. “on demand” means you better be ready to make the exchange at “any time” when such a claim is brought forward.
It is really a dishonest argumentation based on semantic games to interpret “demand” as simply “requesting something among the available stock” as you would physically have to do in every attempt to purchase (demand) something on the market.
Now, if that were the case, then there would be no fraud, but no bank either. No serious free banker has ever claimed “on demand” implies anything else then what I have said. Some people here arguing for FRB are fully aware of this, which is why they don’t dare to redefine the “on demand” as you just did. If they did, then this long thread would have been over after just a few exchanges.
The starting point of “on demand, pending supply”=“pending supply” is not my claim. Go over the exchanges more carefully next time.
I don’t think “you can redeem pending supply” begs the question as to when. That question is already answered by the phrase itself: whenever there is supply. “On demand, pending supply” is thus a rather redundant phrase. I take the “pending supply” part to modify the “on demand” part, of course.
I completely agree that the real issue, as in so many other debates, is semantics. Also note that Kaz and AdrianHealey have argued different positions. I, for one, have thus dealt with them separately.
No one is being fooled there as far as redeemability is concerned. There could be broader issues at work, however. For example, if the going legal definition for “money substitute” includes the requirement for perfect liquidity vis-a-vis actual money, then fractional-reserve bank notes could be considered fraudulent if they’re being passed off as money substitutes. But again, that doesn’t negate the inherently semantic nature of the overall issue – there’s no guarantee that the going legal definition for “money substitute”, or any other phrase, would be as we hypothesize it.
If you reduce “On demand, pending supply” to just “pending supply” then what is redundant is the “on demand” part only. Perhaps that’s what you meant. That is of course, what I have shown with “on demand”=“pending supply”. The point is that “on demand” has been deemed, by the implication of the counter argument, useless and meaningless (or redundant as you say). However, the redundancy leads to the absurdity of “not on demand”=“not pending supply”. Now, to make this all about semantics and not a logical inconsistency , he (JH) should have accepted this conclusion.