A judge tells a child that if he/she chooses to rob a candy store and is caught, the judge will immediately throw out the case and allow the child to keep the candy. The child responds by going to the nearest 7/11 and taking all the chocolate bars. Who is the enemy here? The judge or the child?
Are you going to admit that you keep on contradicting yourself ?
Since you didn’t answer me, I’ll just assume you would pick the logical answer.
Now, do I need to reveal to you who the judge and the child are meant to repesent? Hint: One represents the government, and the other represents the banks.
I just read the Shostak daily now. The video doesn’t apply to it.
Shostak speaks of something different. He speaks about the role of the Central bank as a ‘lender of last resort’. Since banks under the central bank have expanded credit beyond the real deposits that they have, they are always under the threat of going bankrupt if depositors start redeeming their banknotes in a frenzy. So, to prevent this the Central bank must create money “out of thin air” which devalues money more and more.
Sorry if I confused you with the video I posted which isn’t quite what Shostak deals with in the daily.
Thanks!
Your example fails unless you think Bankers are all children.
They still have the choice of whether or not to fleece the public, whether or not they are aware they are doing it (and of its consequences). And even in your example, the child would also be wrong to steal the candy, even though the judge would also be wrong to give legal shelter against the consequences of the crime.
Of course, I was not literally suggesting all bankers are children; its called hyperbole.
If we eliminate government, we eliminate the problem. Banks not only have to talk of proper lending practices, they also have to observe them.
If we eliminate private banks, do we strike any harm at the problem whatsoever? No.
I am not stating that all bankers are innocent, merely that focusing on the excesses of banks to any degree is foolish, as the same energy could, and should, be focussed on those who make those excesses possible at all.
No, it’s called false analogy.
I said nothing about ‘eliminating’ private banks. But a free market in banking would indeed eliminate the banking mafia as it exists today.
Again. Focusing on the crimes of criminals is foolish - exactly - why ?
Right. And how do we achieve this total free market? By eliminating government. Thanks for proving my point.
Actually, engaging in risky lending practices is foolish, but far from ‘illegal’, no matter what definition of ‘illegal’ you should choose to use.
Stealing money from taxpayers in order to prop up these banks? Now that is illegal!
But even if I grant you that being foolish, because you know your tail is covered by a criminal institution, is illegal…
Murray Rothbard once told me a story of him as a young man, walking down the streets of New York. A homeless man approached him with a knife, and demanded all his money. Fortunately, Rothbard only had $20 on him, and after giving this to the bum, he was allowed to flee, free of injury.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, Rothbard refused to mention this illegal act in any of his books, instead choosing to focus on the crimes of the state!! How foolish he was; if he had only chosen to attack this illegal act, perhaps in Man, Economy and State, instead of ignoring it, surely his greatness would not be tarnished by his unwillingness to focus on the crimes of criminals!!