http://market-ticker.org/archives/1490-Mish-Hard-Money-Goes-Off-The-Rails.html
What you guys have to swallow is that people do patronize fractional reserve banks, always did. If you keep on ignoring objective reality so will the rest of the world do to you.
Angurse: xahrx:Am I the only one that missed the fact that in his initial posts addressing this matter Aug quite plainly said a contract would be signed stipulating no reserves need be held, but still insists on calling the process fractional reserve banking? Who said that, now?
xahrx:Am I the only one that missed the fact that in his initial posts addressing this matter Aug quite plainly said a contract would be signed stipulating no reserves need be held, but still insists on calling the process fractional reserve banking?
Who said that, now?
Angurse:There is no point where the bank has to be lying to someone, people who agree to the contract and put there money in the bank certainly aren't being defrauded. And people who accept the bank notes as a form of payment aren't being defrauded as they are under no obligation to accept them.
An examle of fractional reserve banking would be if person A signs a contract stipulating that his money will be available on demand (which makes it a demand deposit) and the banks only holds a fraction of his reserves (the rest being loaned out). If he signs a contract saying the bank can loan out his money and he gives up his right to demand it at any time then this is not a demand deposit which means it is not fractional reserve banking. That's what xahrx has been trying to say the whole time.
???
Thats where I plainly said a contract would be signed stipulating no reserves? Did you even read what that was in reply to?
Angurse: xahrx: Not the issue. The issue is fraudulance. And unless the contract has a "We can tell you to go screw yourself" clause for so called 'demand deposits', at some point the bank is lying to someone. But if eveyrone signs that contract then so be it. There is no point where the bank has to be lying to someone, people who agree to the contract and put there money in the bank certainly aren't being defrauded. And people who accept the bank notes as a form of payment aren't being defrauded as they are under no obligation to accept them.
xahrx: Not the issue. The issue is fraudulance. And unless the contract has a "We can tell you to go screw yourself" clause for so called 'demand deposits', at some point the bank is lying to someone. But if eveyrone signs that contract then so be it.
Not the issue. The issue is fraudulance. And unless the contract has a "We can tell you to go screw yourself" clause for so called 'demand deposits', at some point the bank is lying to someone. But if eveyrone signs that contract then so be it.
There is no point where the bank has to be lying to someone, people who agree to the contract and put there money in the bank certainly aren't being defrauded. And people who accept the bank notes as a form of payment aren't being defrauded as they are under no obligation to accept them.
The statement has absolutely nothing at all to do with the reserves held in the bank, it was whether its fraud even if you've agreed to it. If you follow the chain he says it still is.
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap