Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

nimble

Regulars
  • Posts

    621
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nimble

  1. Okay, I think we hit a wall, and neither of you understand the other. Fractional reserve banking can be moral and not fraudulent. If and only if, the terms are agree upon by the currency holders, and the currency is clearly labeled as only a FRACTION of gold. So that when you put an ounce of gold in the fractional reserve bank, they give you a slip of paper that says worth 1/10 of an ounce of gold, payable upon demand. And maybe they could continually give out more of these 1/10th oz. slips so that eventually the entire 1 oz of gold can be redeemed by the original owner with interest. Also, if the fractional reserve bank does use a currency that says worth 1 oz of gold, and someone trades that slip to someone else, who doesnt know that that slip is only technically worth 1/10th an ounce of gold, then yes, that is fraudulent, and it does cause inflation.
  2. How would you go about giving subpoenas to those who know about a crime but don't want to talk, or give testimony? How would the government prove that they do know information? Look into their brains? And are you suggesting imprisoning those who wish to withhold testimony? That sounds very statist if you ask me.
  3. How is it moral for the government (or any person) to issue subpeonas? If you are not guilty, then wouldn't the force used to get you to go to court have been an initiation of force? I think that it would be moral for the person wrongly accused to be able to sue the government or any agency that initiates force. Do you argee?
  4. The only moral way for a bank to use fractional reserves is for them to tell the person putting the gold in their vaults that they may never ever come get more than 10% of their money. And they can only give them bank notes worth 1/10th of the gold they deposits (assuming the fraction of reserves is 1/10th). That way the bank does not inflate the money supply and the person is made to understand what they are getting into. As for the historical aspect of this. Private banks did cause inflation. And as a result of inflation, and fractional reserve banking is the business cycle. A cyclic occurence in the economy of busts and booms. The money supply goes up, businesses grow and invest. Fractions of reserves get smaller as banks loan out too much, and when they risk a bank crisis, they raise interest rates to get money back in their vaults and stop loaning. This causes expansion and investment to dry up. Money supply contracts and a recession hits. Without fractional reserves the economy would be on a steady growth. There wouldn't be booms or busts, just growth.
  5. It really can't be worse than it is now...no government is better than a tyrannical government.
  6. No you do not get it. Even if the person consents to the possibility to losing the money. The bank has no right to print more currency than it has reserves to back it, because as we all know values do not arise out of thin air. It devalues everyones dollars.
  7. That is exactly how I have always felt, but I do not argue with people here about it.
  8. Yes I would like every bank to be a depository, or at least upfront about their policy of inflating the money supply.
  9. That is exactly what I mean. You have a man with a "bank deposit note" that says he has a claim to X amount of gold, or whatever the reserve is, and then you have a bank that gives a loan for a fraction of X amount of gold to someone else who thinks they now have some of X gold. So now two people own the exact same gold, and the bank prays that everyone doesnt come back to get their money at the same time. Now if their were some disclaimer saying you were forbidden to come back for X amount of time to get your money, then it would be okay, but then the bank wouldn't be a bank, it would be a investment broker.
  10. Apparently, no one likes to talk about economics. I think it's one of the coolest sciences. It is the study of human action/rationality.
  11. Yes, Bryan is right a libertarian is not the same as a Libertarian. Moose asked if you were a libertarian, and not with the capital L that implies party affiliation.
  12. Who is a libertarian?
  13. I think his motive was to get votes for the Libertarian Party. I don't think he cares that socialist have different ideologies, just in the same way that Republicans and Democrats don't care where their votes come from, so long as they win. And truthfully, I think organized political parties are stupid for the reasons displayed above; voting just doesn't work.
  14. I really don't see the point of your post. I don't see the correlation between Peter Schwartz and that thread you posted. Also, people having different moral grounds for being libertarians has nothing to do with the validity of anyone of those particular libertarian arguments.
  15. Good Point. Do you have an Aol Instant Messenger account? I cannot continue this debate here, but I wouldn't mind just chatting about this.
  16. Not true. One of the largest growing industries is the private contract industry. Businesses are hiring private arbitraters to enforce contracts, because government judicial systems are slow, inefficient and costly. So I think resolution of disputes is not something the government is best suited to handle. But I will not argue anarchy here. I enjoy staying on this forum, and I know this is a banable offense to advocate something other than Objectivism.
  17. I don't even care if it is done by a private bank. It is still fraudulent. Loaning out more gold than is in your reserves devalues money and breaks the promise to pay that a banker gaurantees those who he gives his bank notes to. I'm for making sure that no bank loans out more than it has in gold reserves.
  18. Even Greenspan supported a fractional reserve banking system, but fraction reserve banking is responsible for the creation of inflation, and it is a fraudulent practice. Does anyone else here have an opinion on this economic issue?
  19. There is no answer to this. It is an out of context moral example where no good can come of it. Rand speaks of the problem deserted island conundrums often.
  20. Thank you... I find that very helpful.
  21. I appreciate all the replies. I have a few questions though. I thought it would be immoral to get drunk because living in and interpreting reality is a man's primary obligation and I don't think you can do that drunk. So how is it not immoral? Secondly, if I approach her with my concern how should I put it, I don't know how I would say something like that without souding crazy (she's not an Objectivist, but has several qualities I admire). Thanks Nimble
  22. Yes. She doesn't drink frequently. It is usually party and casual situations. And when she does drink its just enough to get drunk. I don't think she tries to reach the alcohol poisoning point.
  23. For some reason I have this odd problem with my girlfriend drinking. I do not think it is moral to get drunk, and I do not like her to get drunk. I do not drink, and I expect her not to. My problem comes, because I think that I am being unfair. I would like some insight to this situation if anyone can help. Thanks Nimble
  24. They would be wrong. I do not see how the Verification Theory Method is a statement of analytic truth. But I am not going to argue with you over this, because I really don't care about logical positivism enough to waste my time.
  25. I don't think you have to worry. I haven't seen or heard of a logical-positivist in about 50 years. It is a self defeating theory. They claim that the only statements that have meaning are statements that are analytical truths or things that are empirically testible. However their that statement is neither an analytical truth nor an empirically testible statement.
×
×
  • Create New...