Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

On Private Banks

Rate this topic


ReasonAlone
 Share

Recommended Posts

In trying to ascertain what she might have said about our current use of FRB, we need ask ourselves only one question: Does the manner in which we use FRB today, i.e. allowing people to loan their money while simultaneously using it to obtain material values, result in inflation; does it increase the money supply?

As I explained, and provided the relevant quote to prove it, the question to be asked when deciding on whether individual rights were violated has nothing to do with the money supply. You can ignore it, or you can consider it. I can't decide that for you, so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Two things:

1:

Gold is usable as money because its production has a cost, relative to all other goods. If it takes an unskilled laborer 100 hours to dig up and refine an ounce of gold, then he has established the price of labor, in terms of gold, and thus anchored all of an economy's goods to that amount of labor and that amount of gold. If a more skilled person is able to produce it more cheaply, by virtue of the value of his time in other activities, then that person will establish the price of gold in the market, and anchor all other goods to an hour of his time. In a steady-state economy, the production of gold is just one of innumerable possible jobs a person might have. It will gain or lose participants based on the relative value received for time spent. If the price of gold (in terms of other goods) falls, fewer people will produce gold, supply will fall (assuming consumption of gold for other purposes) and the price of gold will return to its equilibrium value.

A new find of gold has only temporary inflationary effects on the money supply, because the increase in supply will immediately reduce the price of gold, depressing the production of gold by other producers, until the new find has been mined to the point of marginal profitability. At that point, the cost of producing gold returns to its pre-find level, as does its price. Thus the value of gold self-regulates to the price of production of all other goods.

A new gold producing technology, on the other hand, like the cyanide process of the late 1800's results in a less-expensive method of producing gold from lower grade ores, and results in an expansion of gold production and a decrease in the price of gold to a level commensurate with the time cost of production. In a gold-backed economy, that results in a transient spike of inflation, a step-up in price levels.

2:

Paper money that is backed by gold, is ultimately backed by the cost of production of gold. Gold does not have intrinsic value, except in the recognition of its cost of production, in congress with the other attributes that make it useful as money. In accordance with Gresham's law, other goods can be used to back the value of gold-backed money, as long as their market value (in gold) is greater than the amount of money they back. Therefore, a $100,000 home can back $80,000 in money at a bank, without devaluing gold-backed currency. Because the $80,000 in deposits represents $100,000 in unconsumed goods, and since consequently, the wealth value of that home is held exclusively as backing for paper money from the lending bank (until the mortgage is paid off), there is no inflation of currency based on that loan.

If the value of the home falls below the nominal value of the loan, then the bank is no longer backing the deposited money with assets of an equal or greater value, as is implied by their contract, and they have at that point breached their contract with depositors. Whether this is "fraud" is the subject of this discussion, if I understand correctly. If the bank conveys to its depositor the impression that their deposits are backed by money, rather than money & loans, then they have committed "fraud in which the deception causes the other party to misunderstand the nature of the transaction in which he or she is engaging esp. with regard to the contents of an instrument (as a contract or promissory note)."

(fraud in the factum, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.) This definition of fraud does not require the bank to knowingly or intentionally cause or risk a loan default, only that it misrepresents the actual (v. the promised) terms of the deposit.

I believe you have to separate the way in which FRB is practiced today (which clearly involves some elements of fraud), from the way in which FRB could be practiced morally, that is, in which there is a full understanding of the terms of deposit, including the risk of loss of value in the case of loan defaults, and a breaking of the link between deposited money and actual backing money (such as the "shares" mechanism).

Edited by agrippa1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things:

1:

Gold is usable as money because its production has a cost, relative to all other goods. If it takes an unskilled laborer 100 hours to dig up and refine an ounce of gold, then he has established the price of labor, in terms of gold, and thus anchored all of an economy's goods to that amount of labor and that amount of gold.

The value of anything has nothing to do with how much it labor it took to produce. This is the labor theory of value you are spouting here.

If I spend 100 hours making a mudpie, it's still a mudpie, value zero.

If it takes too much labor to produce something for what people will value it for, it won't get produced.

If a more skilled person is able to produce it more cheaply, by virtue of the value of his time in other activities, then that person will establish the price of gold in the market, and anchor all other goods to an hour of his time.

NOt necessarily. He could just decide to sell at the market and take a bigger profit. I doubt that he alone would be able to halve the price even if he could produce for half the cost, unless he could expand his works to meet *all* world demand.

2:

Paper money that is backed by gold, is ultimately backed by the cost of production of gold. Gold does not have intrinsic value, except in the recognition of its cost of production, in congress with the other attributes that make it useful as money.

Neither gold, nor anything else has "intrinsic" value, it is of value to someone who values it,hopefully for objective reasons. In any case you come close to contradicting yourself here saying the value depends on the labor and then claiming it has an intrinsic value.

*** Mod's note: For further discussion on labor and value, see this topic. - sN ***

Edited by softwareNerd
Topic split notice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. [Rand] Did not KNOW to say it.
It's quite a reach to suggest that Rand was not aware of the basic way banks work, given the books she read and referenced. Fractional reserve is probably Econ-101 stuff. It is you who are reading something into her writing that is not just missing, but is actually contrary to her meaning.

Since you quoted that article extensively, I went back and read it a few decades later. I find not a shred of support for your interpretation.

If one wants to make arguments that Rand was wrong, and that lending credit that is backed by future goods (e.g., promises to pay future goods), that's fine. But let's not confuse that with Objectivism.
Please, don't pass off your own confused notions as being something that Rand was saying. There are enough crackpot theories trying to wear the mantle of Objectivism; no need for one more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if Moe, Larry and I decided, out of the blue, to simply print 300 unique notes called stooges

this example is getting further and further from reality.

While Jake's example may not be a likely scenario, it is perfectly valid as a hypothesis. But here is something that does occur in reality and has the same effect: barter. For example, my friend provides me a service (say, he takes a parcel with him on a flight for me) and in exchange I give him a bottle of his favorite wine. Or, my neighbor helps pull my car out of the snow and I recompense him by giving him a ride to the mall. ... etc. You are aware, aren't you, that all these barter trades have the effect of reducing the demand for money, and thus put an upward pressure on the price level? Does this mean my friend is stealing from you when he accepts wine in payment for the parcel delivery in preference to gold?

Airmiles and similar customer loyalty schemes have the same effect as well, through the same mechanism. Are they a form of theft? If they aren't, in what way do they really differ from Jake's stooges?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Jake's example may not be a likely scenario, it is perfectly valid as a hypothesis. But here is something that does occur in reality and has the same effect: barter. For example, my friend provides me a service (say, he takes a parcel with him on a flight for me) and in exchange I give him a bottle of his favorite wine. Or, my neighbor helps pull my car out of the snow and I recompense him by giving him a ride to the mall. ... etc. You are aware, aren't you, that all these barter trades have the effect of reducing the demand for money, and thus put an upward pressure on the price level? Does this mean my friend is stealing from you when he accepts wine in payment for the parcel delivery in preference to gold?

Airmiles and similar customer loyalty schemes have the same effect as well, through the same mechanism. Are they a form of theft? If they aren't, in what way do they really differ from Jake's stooges?

Barter is not money, and therefore doesn't increase the supply of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barter is not money, and therefore doesn't increase the supply of money.

You have got to be joking. Now you're flipping coins deciding what's money and what's not? If a bottle of old wine isn't money, then gold isn't money either.

Wine, or old paintings, or ancient artifacts can be used as money (and are, all the time) just as well as any other commodity, including precious metals. In fact in old communist countries in Eastern Europe, certain brands of whiskey were used as currency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note again that inflation is only a problem in a fiat money system, whether that is fractional-reserve commodity money or full-out fiat money. Inflation is not an issue under a free market system, because people will tend to gravitate to that commodity which has the best properties to be used as money.

Something that is generally accepted in trade is money. That's what it means to be money. Barter is not money, but gold and whiskey are, when they are traded not for their own sake, but because they are generally accepted in trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake -

y Feldblum answered what I would've answered, but I'd like to clarify. I don't decide what money is, those who use money decide what money is. Money is anything which can easily and reliably be exchanged for most other goods and services. I doubt Capitalism_Forever would be able to exchange bottles of wine for much of anything else, much less most other goods and services. Wine, since it is not accepted reliably for most other goods and services, is not money in our society. Does that mean wine cannot be money? No, it doesn't. If most everyone starts desiring wine, for whatever reason, then wine might become money and easily and reliably exchanged for other goods and services. As I stated some time ago, cows and sheep have even been money. At one time in our relatively recent history, tobacco was money.

Capitalism Forever -

I understand you didn't argue barter was money, and I understand your point that it would decrease the demand for money. However, my argument is not that the inflation of the money supply causes an increase in prices and is therefore immoral. My argument is that increasing the money supply without productivity causes an increase in prices, and is therefore immoral. If you exchange wine for courier services you are exchanging productivity for productivity - someone produced the wine, someone produces (performs) the service.

There's no reason to believe prices in terms of wealth will increase simply because there is a lower demand for money. Prices might increase in relation to whatever is being used as money, but there's no reason to believe prices will increase in relation to wealth. For example: suppose you have 100 dollar bills and 6 bottles of wine. Let's further assume the total value of your wine is also 100 dollars. With your 100 dollars, you can buy 2 books. With your wine, you can buy nothing. Now, let's assume everyone starts accepting wine as money, what will happen? Well, demand for dollars goes down, because everyone wants wine. You go to your local bookstore to buy those 2 books, but now the price is 100 dollar bills for each book, or 6 bottles of wine for both. Has your wealth gone down? No. If anything, your wealth has gone up. Where you could only buy 2 books with your 100 dollar bills before, you can now buy 4 books using both your 100 dollar bills and your 6 bottles of wine.

I didn't mean to sound dismissive in my reply to you, but your question doesn't really speak to my argument. I have a problem with increasing the money supply without increasing the productivity, the wealth, of the economy. When the government prints off bills it's not adding anything to the economy's wealth. Yes, there's some productivity because special paper and inks need to be produced, and people are employed to print them, but these increases to productivity are dwarfed by the quantity of money added to the system - there's virtually no difference in added productivity when the government prints $1 bills versus $100 bills, so the larger the bills the more disproportionate the relation between added productivity and increased money supply. The result of printing all this money, without increasing the productivity of the economy, is to destroy the wealth of those who hold dollar bills. That is theft. That is immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake -

answered what I would've answered, but I'd like to clarify. I don't decide what money is, those who use money decide what money is. Money is anything which can easily and reliably be exchanged for most other goods and services. I doubt Capitalism_Forever would be able to exchange bottles of wine for much of anything else, much less most other goods and services. Wine, since it is not accepted reliably for most other goods and services, is not money in our society. Does that mean wine cannot be money? No, it doesn't. If most everyone starts desiring wine, for whatever reason, then wine might become money and easily and reliably exchanged for other goods and services. As I stated some time ago, cows and sheep have even been money. At one time in our relatively recent history, tobacco was money.

Excellent then. My 300 stooges aren't going to be generally accepted in trade (by y Feldblum's definition), in fact most people won't even hear of them or Larry, Moe and I.

Also, most everyone won't start desiring them, so we're free and clear by your definition of what money is too.

So the stooges aren't money, by either of your definitions. The question is, then, why on Earth would you have a problem with them, but not wine or frequent flier miles, which are traded far more often. (but also don't qualify as money, since they aren't generally accepted in trade (and aren't desired by most everyone).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to sound dismissive in my reply to you, but your question doesn't really speak to my argument. I have a problem with increasing the money supply without increasing the productivity, the wealth, of the economy. When the government prints off bills it's not adding anything to the economy's wealth. Yes, there's some productivity because special paper and inks need to be produced, and people are employed to print them, but these increases to productivity are dwarfed by the quantity of money added to the system - there's virtually no difference in added productivity when the government prints $1 bills versus $100 bills, so the larger the bills the more disproportionate the relation between added productivity and increased money supply. The result of printing all this money, without increasing the productivity of the economy, is to destroy the wealth of those who hold dollar bills. That is theft. That is immoral.

Are you sure you're not leaving something out about what the government is doing? And isn't that one thing you forgot to mention, the use of force by the government, what makes Objectivists call what the government is doing theft?

Here's an argument similar to yours: Famous serial killer Ted Bundy buried dead people, and we all agree that he's a murderer, therefor cemetery owners are murderers.

Also, employing people to print bills you have to force people to use, no matter how hard it is to do, is about as productive as employing them to dig holes and fill them back up: none productive. Being productive means coming up with something people want, and will use without having a gun in their face: like my stooges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent then. My 300 stooges aren't going to be generally accepted in trade (by y Feldblum's definition), in fact most people won't even hear of them or Larry, Moe and I.

Also, most everyone won't start desiring them, so we're free and clear by your definition of what money is too.

So the stooges aren't money, by either of your definitions. The question is, then, why on Earth would you have a problem with them, but not wine or frequent flier miles, which are traded far more often. (but also don't qualify as money, since they aren't generally accepted in trade (and aren't desired by most everyone).

As long as those Stooges aren't easily and readily accepted for most goods and services, I don't have a problem with them. Now, let me ask you a question: It's just you, Larry, and Moe using these Stooges, would you have a problem with Larry printing off a bunch of them and giving them to you and Moe in exchange for your goods and services?

Are you sure you're not leaving something out about what the government is doing? And isn't that one thing you forgot to mention, the use of force by the government, what makes Objectivists call what the government is doing theft?

I don't thing so. Are you arguing that if the government didn't force us to use dollar bills, then printing more dollar bills wouldn't inflate the money supply?

Here's an argument similar to yours: Famous serial killer Ted Bundy buried dead people, and we all agree that he's a murderer, therefor cemetery owners are murderers.

I'm afraid I don't see the similarity. Can you be more clear?

Also, employing people to print bills you have to force people to use, no matter how hard it is to do, is about as productive as employing them to dig holes and fill them back up: none productive.

I agree. I thought I made that clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is correct. Paper dollars are inherently worthless. No-one would use them if they were not forced to.

I think I see where Jake is coming from then.

Two things come to mind:

1) We're not forced to use dollars, though merchants are forced to accept dollars. As CF's example demonstrates, we could barter for everything. It makes trade a lot more complicated, but it can be done.

I suppose the question then becomes, "If no one is using dollars because they choose not to, is it still money?" The answer would have to be, "No." Therefore, printing off more dollar bills wouldn't inflate the money supply. But would people really stop using dollars? I'm not convinced they would. Having a standard money makes trade easier, and I think people would opt for the most efficient method of trading.

So then I suppose the question is, "Well, if they choose to keep using dollars as money, and they know the government is just printing off dollars, inflating the money supply, and devaluing their dollars, then it can't be fraud, it can't be theft." True, if they know, but how many people actually understand what happens when the government continually prints off money? "Well, they should know. Ignorance is no excuse for a rational life." Well, true again, but.... [blank out]. Seriously, I can't come up with an answer.

I suppose the only thing a rational person could do is stop using dollars. Why don't we? Why do we allow the government to devalue our wealth?

2) I'm still stuck on the fact that the same dollar can be loaned out and simultaneously used to buy goods and services. I'll go back to a previous example: If I deposit $100 in the bank, the bank could loan 90 of those dollars out and I can go write checks representing all of those dollars. If the money is loaned to Jim, and Jim and I both spend our money at Home Depot, what happens when Home Depot goes to collect? It has sales of $190, but can only collect 100 of those dollars. Has Home Depot not been defrauded? Yes, it chose to accept the check from me, but only because I (in effect) attested that that money existed in the bank. For all intents and purposes, I do believe that money is in the bank. Am I defrauding HD if I know my bank loans out 90% of its deposits? Is my bank defrauding me into believing I can write checks on that money? Are none of us defrauded because we should all know how fractional banking works, and that HD might not get the whole $190?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as those Stooges aren't easily and readily accepted for most goods and services, I don't have a problem with them.

Oh, a third definition? Something can be easily and readily accepted for most goods and services in a single establishment, or five of them, and from a small number of people. That does not mean it is generally accepted in society, nor does it mean that it is desired by most everyone.

Give me a bottle of quality wine, and I guarantee I can exchange it for most goods and services of equivalent value, with relative ease. That doesn't mean it will be generally accepted as payment.

There's no point in arguing, if you just keep tweaking the definitions to fit your arguments. Pick a definition, stick to it. You said that you agree with Y Feldblum's post, which defines what money is. So why did your next post define money differently?

It's just you, Larry, and Moe using these Stooges, would you have a problem with Larry printing off a bunch of them and giving them to you and Moe in exchange for your goods and services?

The name "stooge" is owned by the three of us. I would mind if he stole that name. (it would violate my right to intellectual property) But he is free to print whatever he wants, and call it whatever he wants to call it(except stooge). And then I'm free to accept it or not in exchange for something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I see where Jake is coming from then.

Two things come to mind:

1) We're not forced to use dollars, though merchants are forced to accept dollars. As CF's example demonstrates, we could barter for everything. It makes trade a lot more complicated, but it can be done.

If merchants are forced to accept dollars, then they are forced to use dollars. Unless you thing people with a gun at their heads are free to not do as they're told, since they can always choose to not live.

And no, we couldn't barter for everything, not even in a complicated way. We could barter for very few things. Without money, most trade would be impossible.

I suppose the question then becomes, "If no one is using dollars because they choose not to, is it still money?" The answer would have to be, "No." Therefore, printing off more dollar bills wouldn't inflate the money supply.

Right. If no one is following the orders of a tyrant because they chose not to, does that still make the political system a dictatorship? No, since there are no people, they are all dead.(and a dictatorship can only exist with people in it) Therefor, the cause of tyranny are the people who follow orders in general, not the guns which are pointed at their heads, and tyranny and guns have nothing to do with each other.

I suppose the only thing a rational person could do is stop using dollars. Why don't we? Why do we allow the government to devalue our wealth?

Well, you just proved that it's not the force the government uses (we can always choose to stop trading and just die), so I'm at a loss too. Must be magic. Same magic that makes FRB theft.

Yes, it chose to accept the check from me, but only because I (in effect) attested that that money existed in the bank. For all intents and purposes, I do believe that money is in the bank. Am I defrauding HD if I know my bank loans out 90% of its deposits? Is my bank defrauding me into believing I can write checks on that money? Are none of us defrauded because we should all know how fractional banking works, and that HD might not get the whole $190?

Yep. (on the last question-you can drop the should part though. We do know how FRB works. So does the CEO of Home Depot, who ordered his cashiers to accept your check.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake -

I'm not sure if it's just me, or if you treat everyone like they're retarded infants. Whatever it is, your insolent manner of writing drains any desire I have to reply to you. I've tried to maintain my composure through your repeated implied and explicit insults because I wanted to understand your position, but you can't teach it, so you have nothing to teach, so I have nothing to learn. This will be my final reply to you.

Oh, a third definition?

No, Jake, the same definition I've been using from the beginning. And this definition is not materially different from y Feldblum's definition.

The name "stooge" is owned by the three of us. I would mind if he stole that name. (it would violate my right to intellectual property) But he is free to print whatever he wants, and call it whatever he wants to call it(except stooge). And then I'm free to accept it or not in exchange for something.

Now, who's changing definitions. Have you, at any other time, explained that the name "stooge" is collectively owned? No, you haven't. Regardless, why would you be upset with Larry printing them off? He owns the name too, right? Are you going to deny Larry the right to use his intellectual property?

If merchants are forced to accept dollars, then they are forced to use dollars. Unless you thing people with a gun at their heads are free to not do as they're told, since they can always choose to not live.

And no, we couldn't barter for everything, not even in a complicated way. We could barter for very few things. Without money, most trade would be impossible.

We're not all merchants, are we? In fact, very few of us are merchants.

Yes, we could barter for everything. If trade were impossible without money, then we never would've begun trading in the first place. Trade came before money. It's interesting you consider barter impossible here, yet in post #108 you seem ready to jump on the barter bandwagon with both feet. And in post #117 you explicitly state you can get "most goods and services" for a bottle of wine "with relative ease." I suppose that's not barter, eh?

Right. If no one is following the orders of a tyrant because they chose not to, does that still make the political system a dictatorship? No, since there are no people, they are all dead.(and a dictatorship can only exist with people in it) Therefor, the cause of tyranny are the people who follow orders in general, not the guns which are pointed at their heads, and tyranny and guns have nothing to do with each other.

I have no idea what this rant is about, nor how it applies to what I wrote.

Well, you just proved that it's not the force the government uses (we can always choose to stop trading and just die), so I'm at a loss too. Must be magic. Same magic that makes FRB theft.

Yea, it's magic, Jake.

Yep. (on the last question-you can drop the should part though. We do know how FRB works. So does the CEO of Home Depot, who ordered his cashiers to accept your check.)

We can drop the "should" part? Really? Tell ya' what, do a little experiment, go out and ask 10 random people on the street how fractional reserve banking works. Let me know how many reply with more than a blank stare.

Guess HD is SOL, eh? The idiots should've known that there was no way they were going to get paid. Oh, wait, I've got that wrong. They know, but they do it anyway. Got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can drop the "should" part? Really? Tell ya' what, do a little experiment, go out and ask 10 random people on the street how fractional reserve banking works. Let me know how many reply with more than a blank stare.

Excellent argument. People don't know how it works, so it must be theft. Let's ban it. While we're at it, let's conduct similar polls on nuclear power-plants, the theory of relativity, jet engines, etc. After all, if someone is unable to tell you how he got to fly from NY to LA, he must've been defrauded.

As for the silliness above, I'm the only one still carrying on the conversation with you, because everyone else got frustrated with your stubbornness in the face of clear cut arguments. If you're done replying to me, who are you going to continue the conversation with?

I wasn't being insolent, I was trying to make it impossible for you to evade the obvious fact that you're mistaken. Hence the simplicity, and the constant insistence on focusing on being precise and unambiguos.

And I don't have a point of view that is unusual or exotic on the subject. You are the only one here (and possibly in the civilized world) who would consider what I described with my stooges example wrong in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

If you know almost nothing about economics, then I suggest that you start to study it on your own, for the sake of your own benefit. Where to begin? What to read?

I recommend you to read the following books, in the following order:

Economics in one lesson by Henry Hazlitt: https://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=DH01B

Economics for real people by Gene Callahan: http://mises.org/resources/2031

Markets don't fail! by Brian P Simpson: https://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=DS81B

Economic Policy by Ludwig von Mises: http://mises.org/etexts/ecopol.pdf

Capitalism: A Treatise on Econmics by George Reisman: http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism/CAPITALISM_Internet.pdf

Human Action by Ludwig von Mises: http://mises.org/resources/3250

Now to your question: Yes, when the banks lend out money they don't have, they are creating money out of thin air. And banks do lend out money that they don't have all the time. This practice is called fractional reserve banking.

How does this work? Let me quote economist Murray Rothbard:

Let's see how the fractional-reserve process works, in the absence of a central bank. I set up a Rothbard Bank, and invest $1,000 of cash (whether gold or government paper does not matter here). Then I "lend out" $10,000 to someone, either for consumer spending or to invest in his business. How can I "lend out" far more than I have? Ahh, that's the magic of the "fraction" in the fractional reserve. I simply open up a checking account of $10,000 which I am happy to lend to Mr. Jones. Why does Jones borrow from me? Well, for one thing, I can charge a lower rate of interest than savers would. I don't have to save up the money myself, but can simply counterfeit it out of thin air. (In the 19th century, I would have been able to issue bank notes, but the Federal Reserve now monopolizes note issues.) Since demand deposits at the Rothbard Bank function as equivalent to cash, the nation's money supply has just, by magic, increased by $10,000. The inflationary, counterfeiting process is under way.

Now, I submit that whether or not one should regard this as counterfeiting or not, it is nevertheless bad for the economy and bad for capitalism. The practice of fractional reserve banking leads to inflation induced booms and busts. It leads to the destruction of wealth, because inflation essentially serves as a tax on savings. It also leads to such evils as the redistribution of wealth from the producers of wealth to the consumers of wealth. Etc. Given all the destructive effects on the economy it has, it should be obviuos why it's bad for capitalism. One reason people don't trust capitalism is because of all the booms and busts created by fractional reserve banking.

Now, I must emphasize that fractional reserve banking is not the product of the free market. Throughout history it's been sanctioned, supported and backed by the government. Throughout history the government have, one way or another, bailed-out fractional reserve banks, whenever the bubbles they helped create inevitably bursted. This created a moral hazard in the banking business. The government protected them against bankruptcy, thus gave them a privilege that no other business have, and thus encouraged them to continue inflate the money supply via credit expansion. If the fractional reserve banks were left on their own and were not backed by the government, then the free market would probably end this irrational and destructive business model. People would realize that they could not afford it any longer.

Edited by knast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...