Well, I’m glad we agree on something Lao.
And I’m pleased to see a rev leftist take such a prolonged interest in Austrian economics, if only to see the error in our ways.
More power to you.
Well, I’m glad we agree on something Lao.
And I’m pleased to see a rev leftist take such a prolonged interest in Austrian economics, if only to see the error in our ways.
More power to you.
We probably agree on more than you think; like gun control. And I tend to agree with the austrians that expansion of the money supply is the major cause of the business cycle. Where I disagree is that this is the fault of central banks, rather than just private banks in general. And that this would, in fact happen more often in a laissez faire economy, and be more damaging for the common person.
What exactly would happen in a laissez faire economy with clear titles to property (no fractional reserves) and voluntary exchanges of same?
Unless you legislate no fractional reserves, banks will do it anyway. Public demand tends towards cheap credit and high wages. Banks want to make money.
No legislation. So you think everything demanded would be provided (“public demands cheap credit”) and everyone would get what they want (“banks want to make money”)?
No legislation. So you think everything demanded would be provided (“public demands cheap credit”) and everyone would get what they want (“banks want to make money”)?
LOL, are you being facetious?
It doesn’t matter if everyone would get what they want. What is important is that they will try. People want credit, and banks want to make money by providing said credit. They did before central banking, they will do it after.
I repeat, what exactly would happen more often and how would it be damaging for the common person?
The business cycle would happen more often. And with no government fiat to prop up the common person’s standard of living, the burden will largely be shifted unto them.
How would disconnected instances of fraud (frac reserve “banks”) produce a coordinated “aggregate business cycle”? How would a non-participant in a frac reserve Ponzi scheme get hurt exactly?
Btw, you actually believe that government fiat (central banking) is actually propping the common person’s standard of living – to a level higher than it would be without it?
How would disconnected instances of fraud (frac reserve “banks”) produce a coordinated “aggregate business cycle”?
Could you rephrase that, I’m not sure I understand the question? If this means what I think it means, my answer would be; the same way it happened before the implementation of the FED.
How would a non-participant in a frac reserve Ponzi scheme get hurt exactly
Because he works for the guy who was involved, and when the business fails, he loses his job.
Btw, you actually believe that government fiat (central banking) is actually propping the common person’s standard of living – to a level higher than it would be without it?
I don’t believe it, I observe it. Not central banking tho, but the many entitlement programs and worker protection laws do.
Any instance of frac reserve banking has quickly lead to only two outcomes: (1) collapse or (2) cartelization with government backing. Central banks were created exactly because of the inherent instability of frac reserve banking. Here we’re discussing laissez faire without central banks and support by governments through bailouts or legal tender laws.
Also, without legal tender laws your worker’s boss would not be forced to participate in any Ponzi scheme, hence the poor worker would still have a job unless his boss was a complete moron.
As for government actually helping your poor “worker”, I have a bridge to Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.
Anywho, what exactly is it that you are arguing against/for?
This thread is not really the place to delve into the depths of Lao’s mind. The OP could have gone to revleft for that.
To OP, what would happened is nothing qualitatively different than what happens when any business fails. The false dichotomy is the trick.
Any instance of frac reserve banking has quickly lead to only two outcomes: (1) collapse or (2) cartelization with government backing. Central banks were created exactly because of the inherent instability of frac reserve banking. Here we’re discussing laissez faire without central banks and support by governments through bailouts or legal tender laws.
And you think frac reserve will just go away without it having to be legislated away? You can keep that bridge, should’ve never bought it in the first place.
Anywho, what exactly is it that you are arguing against/for?
I guess i’d put it like this. The bailouters, tho you are against them as well as I, are more on your side than mine. Without them, it is likely we would have seen the ushering in of the glorious worker’s revolution
Do you understand yourself?
Do you really think I’m going to say no? And neither you, nor anyone on this site has given me any reason, other than a priori linguistic gymnastics to think my conclusions are false.
With the bailouts, growth is (probably) slowed. But capitalism remains intact, and business goes on as usual. WIthout the bailouts it’s a whole different ball game.