I was pondering on the question of whether FRB could be lawful per a libertarian law code, when I had an epiphany: what is currently called a “demand deposit” is actually a demand loan with an indefinite duration.
That is, when I “deposit” money in a bank, I am actually making a loan to the bank. The bank receives title to the money, and I receive title to interest payments on some regular schedule until/unless I exercise my contracted-for right to call back the loan, which I can do any time during regular business hours. This is essentially the same thing as a margin/call loan, nothing exotic.
A “demand deposit” is mislabeled, it is not a bailment. However, defined as a demand loan, it is perfectly legitimate. I have no more reasonable expectation for the bank to keep the money I lent them via the demand loan on hand in their reserves than I do for the bank to keep money I lent them via a CD or any other standard time deposit on hand in their reserves. As such, it is perfectly legitimate for the bank to keep fractional reserves against my demand loan - in fact it’s vital, as the whole point is for the bank to loan out the money I loaned them, otherwise they couldn’t pay me interest.
If we understand that a “demand deposit” is actually a demand loan, this eliminates the objection to FRB based on the notion that it involves duplicate ownership titles to a single piece of property: i.e. such that the bank and the depositor simultaneously have title to the same money. On the contrary, the bank has sole title to the money I lent them, which they can loan out at their pleasure, and I have sole title to the bank’s obligation to pay me interest and to repay the principal at my request.
Am I missing something here or is this a very simple solution to the FRB problem? Strictly speaking, FRB is not compatible with libertarian law: i.e. insofar as it involves the pretense that a demand loan is a “demand deposit” (i.e. bailment) it’s fraudulent. But I think it’s questionable whether FRB now does in fact involve that pretense, or ever has. And in any case, if we eliminate that pretense, and suppose that libertarian law would simply require that FRB call demand loans what they are, then FRB as it operates currently (sans State intervention of course) can continue to exist under a regime of libertarian law.
No?