• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Monopoly Men

What is that? Argumentum ad wishful thinkingum?

Actually, if it weren't for the government intervention into our markets, the crash in the late 80's (what was it, '87?) probably would've been much worse than it was, with the discount loans from the Fed and all. Oh wait a minute, there I go using actualy examples and stuff.

I was going for Argumentum Fabricatum, but yours works too.

Do you think that the obsession with the gold standard is linked to the CT theories about the trillions in gold that was stolen from the WTC on 9/11? There must be some way that they've linked them up.
 
Why will TruthSeeker not tell me what he thinks fractional reserve banking is and how it works? Doesn't he love me anymore? :(

Fractional Reserve Banking arose on the (relatively) free market. During this time, banks were a warehouse, a place to store valuable items, especially gold and silver. Banks would issue receipts to their customers, redeemable in gold. Eventually, the receipts began to be traded as money, because (and only because) everyone knew they were "as good as gold".

I offer a Rothbardian theoretical reconstruction of FRB's origin.Quoting from my 2004 article on the subject:

The Original Bankers, and The Original Sin
Now imagine we’re in a somewhat more advanced society, perhaps in the Middle Ages. Picture a village with farmers and various other cobblers, coopers, smiths and shopkeepers readily exchanging gold for their goods and services. The existence of a widely accepted, well functioning money is making possible the wider and wider division of labor, allowing society to produce more, increasing the standard of living for all.
What if you wanted to safely store some of your gold until you needed it? In many towns, the local goldsmith was the only one around with a decent safe, so Mr. Goldsmith (sensing a legitimate business opportunity) would allow you to warehouse your valuable money (for a small fee), issuing you a paper receipt, which would entitle you to reclaim your gold on demand. Once there were many such warehouse receipts floating around, people realized they could conveniently exchange the receipts as money, because everyone knew that these pieces of paper were “as good as gold.”
As you may have guessed, the goldsmiths were the original bankers, and these warehouse receipts were the original paper money. Once paper money backed by gold became established, Mr. Goldsmith noticed something very interesting. On any given day, only a small percentage of townspeople actually came to reclaim their gold. And when they did come to redeem it, they didn’t care if they got exactly the same gold back, only that they got the correct amount.
“Hmmmm” thought the less-than-honorable Mr. Goldsmith, “What’s to stop me from just writing up some extra receipts for myself to spend? Sure, more and more people will come in to claim gold, but so what? Even if two or three times as many people start showing up, I’ll have enough gold in reserve to cover it. I’m rich!” He was so proud of himself for his stroke of genius that he went right over and kissed himself in the mirror. And thus was born the fine art of counterfeiting, or “Fractional Reserve Banking” as bankers came to euphemistically call it.
And this counterfeiting scheme worked like a charm. Goldsmith would print money for himself to spend . . . or lend. People were suspicious of Mr. Goldsmith’s newfound extravagant riches, and they were also curious about something else. Prices on things around the village had been going up and up. You see, the creation of new money must have the effect of chasing up prices, because the amount of money that is spent is closely related to the amount of money that exists. If more money exists, then more money is spent, and if more money is spent to buy the same amount of goods, prices must be higher. This, of course, is called inflation. So if they gave everybody a million dollars, prices on everything would go up correspondingly, and no one would be better off.
The Bank Run - A Beautiful Thing
Anyway, the people’s natural suspicions about Mr. Goldsmith were correct. It is simply fraudulent for the owner of a warehouse to issue receipts for goods that don’t exist, or to lend out someone else’s property that is supposed to be in safekeeping. If you print a deed to a house and there’s no house, that’s wrong. If you print a title to a car and there’s no car, that’s wrong. And if you print a claim to gold when you have no gold, that’s wrong also.
Eventually the villagers smelled a rat. They got together, receipts in hand, and all showed up at bank to demand their gold, most of which simply wasn’t there. This became known as a “bank run.” Needless to say, the people were most unhappy with their discovery that the banker they trusted with their savings was a lying crook who had swindled them. Many a dishonest banker met up with vigilante justice, no doubt. The potential for a bank run became an indispensable free-market check on the integrity of bankers. For while any banker can be tempted to enrich themselves by artificially expanding the money supply, they are fearful of going out of business, and they are damn fearful of an angry mob of swindled customers. The problem then, as bankers thought of it, was to figure out how to expand the money supply endlessly, without cost to themselves, and without fear of a bank run.
Meanwhile, Back at the Royal Palace . . .
The king had a different problem. Kings dream of empowering themselves and securing their place in history through conquest and imperialism. Trouble is, military adventures are very expensive and the peasants hate being taxed. Like bankers, kings too fear the wrath of an angry mob.
Well, leave it to Mr. Goldsmith to be struck with yet another bolt of evil brilliance. He goes to the king and says, “Look, make my bank the official bank, and tell the people they must accept my paper money for all debts. Grant me the exclusive right to print money, take anybody else who prints money and put them in jail. If you do that for me, oh royal one, here’s what I’ll do for you. Anytime you need financing for your war, just print up some pieces of paper and call them “government bonds.” I’ll “buy” the bonds from you with my paper money, then you’ll have all the money you ever need!”
The king, being a politician, was good at lying and making up plausible sounding excuses. So he justified this new central banking cartel by claiming it was necessary to keep those greedy bankers in line. Get it? With a nod and a wink, the government pretends to be the ally of the people, while in reality seizing the money supply, creating a banking cartel, and destroying the market mechanism that was the people’s only real recourse against the inherent dishonesty that is Fractional Reserve Banking.

Fractional Reserve Banking, then, can be defined as the practice of creating outstanding claims upon real wealth beyond the quantity of that wealth. You could call it "legalized counterfeiting". Modern banks are required to keep only a small fraction of the value of demand deposits "in reserve", the rest they are free to lend out, at a higher rate of interest than is paid to the demand depositors.

The free market check against this fraud is the "bank run" in which customers, or another bank, come to claim their wealth. This serves as a limit on how large the fraction may be expanded. If two banks A and B, each have outstanding claims against each other's reserves, they may simply tear up these claims, in equal amounts. If A has more claims against B than B has against A, A could bankrupt B.

Thus, they key to self-enrichment on the part of the banking system as a whole, is to figure out a way that all banks can inflate in the same amount. That way, the outstanding claims against one another can simply be torn up. Enter Central Banking. From the standpoint of the banks, the purpose of central banking is to create money for themselves, and do so in a way that inflates all banks equally.

From the standpoint of government, the purpose of central banking is a method of extracting real wealth away from productive citizens, above and beyond taxation.

I still love you Johnny Five.
 
You can't say what would have happened in the 80s, because the events we'r talking about so drastically changed everything. But the history of bank runs and market crashes in all likelihood would have continued without the creation of the Fed. And that makes people poorer overall.

This is true. The market, for the most part, does a remarkable job of sustaining itself. However, it does a poor job in outlying cases because situations occur that develop beyond the ability of the market to adjust. The Fed can help to even out those outliers, or prevent them from happening in the first place.
 
Fractional Reserve Banking, then, can be defined as the practice of creating outstanding claims upon real wealth beyond the quantity of that wealth. You could call it "legalized counterfeiting". Modern banks are required to keep only a small fraction of the value of demand deposits "in reserve", the rest they are free to lend out, at a higher rate of interest than is paid to the demand depositors.

A better definition might be "lending other people's money to generate a profit." The interest on the loan is paid through the profits made by the businesses that the money is loaned out to in the first place. The banks aren't creating capital, except by releasing it from their reserves, so much as stimulating the transfer of capital from customers, to businesses, to the banks, to the bank customers.

Keep in the mind that without bank lending, bank depositors would receive no interest.

Studying the amount of money that can be released from reserves at an acceptable level of risk is complicated, and banks employ highly skilled people to figure it out. If too much money is lent out and you have depositors wanting it, then you have to call in loans and liquidate assets to meet demand. That is not an ideal situation.

The free market check against this fraud is the "bank run" in which customers, or another bank, come to claim their wealth. This serves as a limit on how large the fraction may be expanded. If two banks A and B, each have outstanding claims against each other's reserves, they may simply tear up these claims, in equal amounts. If A has more claims against B than B has against A, A could bankrupt B.

The "bank run" isn't so much a free market check as it is a highly undesireable result of a panic.

There is, naturally, a certain level of demand on the banks at all times. They study the normal level of demand to determine what fraction of their reserve can be safely lent under normal circumstances. The Fed also sets a required reserve ratio, effectively limiting what banks can lend. The other measures the Fed can take have very indirect effects on the economy, mostly as indicating factors. Banks tend not to use the available Fed loans, so those elements have only really come into play in crisis situations.

I would avoid using loaded words like "fraud" when describing banking. Although you may believe fractional reserve banking is "fraud," it is that practice which allows you to earn interest on money you save and obtain loans from the bank for major purchases like houses and cars, or to start a business.

Thus, they key to self-enrichment on the part of the banking system as a whole, is to figure out a way that all banks can inflate in the same amount. That way, the outstanding claims against one another can simply be torn up. Enter Central Banking. From the standpoint of the banks, the purpose of central banking is to create money for themselves, and do so in a way that inflates all banks equally.

Central banks don't do anything to create money for private banks - unless you count allowing them to lend money. But without central banks, nothing would stop private banks from lending money anyway, so what's the point?

What you're saying is confused. Are you saying we should have a totally free market without government control? Then banks should be allowed to do as they please? Are you saying we should eliminate the current banking system? Then we'd need sweeping government control?

And what do you propose we do to prevent destructive market events from wrecking our economy?

From the standpoint of government, the purpose of central banking is a method of extracting real wealth away from productive citizens, above and beyond taxation.

Not really. The central bank provides a means to control the stability of the currency in order to properly balance the economy against harmful market fluctuations. The central bank makes no money by changing its reserve ratios, and Fed loans are seldom used (and short-term, in any case) by banks.

True, the rise of inflation can erode the purchasing power of the citizens, but this is a product of more than just the central bank. In fact, it is something the central bank works very hard to keep to a tolerable level.

The other problem with the whole inflation thing is that it's a natural product of rising wages, due to the wage/price inflation cycle that tends to develop. You're never going to eliminate inflation unless you institute massive price, wage, and market controls. Interestingly enough, that will introduce a whole host of other nasty problems. I'd prefer the 2 - 3% average yearly inflation, thanks.

I still love you Johnny Five.

I feel warm and fuzzy now.

Now, if you don't mind, what would be an acceptable alternative to fractional reserve banking?

Also, if you don't mind touching back on the gold-backed currency thing. You said a couple things about that which simply aren't true (gold backed currency resists deflation).
 
Last edited:
The free market check against this fraud is the "bank run" in which customers, or another bank, come to claim their wealth.
Unfortunately, this "check" not only screws the banker but also screws the customer, which means that it also restricts investment, since people will tend to hoard rather than risk such an event--banks become inherently risky places to invest. Hoarding, as noted above, carries the risk of triggering depressions.

Also, banks never simply printed extra receipts. They printed receipts for an IOU from a debtor promising to deposit the amount shown on the receipt at a future date. You forgot that part.
 
Also, banks never simply printed extra receipts. They printed receipts for an IOU from a debtor promising to deposit the amount shown on the receipt at a future date. You forgot that part.

From what TS wrote, it appears he thinks that banks simply create the interest they pay people (either in fact or in practice). However, the interest on loans is really being paid for by developing businesses, and making profits in other areas. Some of those profits are paid to the banks, and in turn some are paid to the customers of those banks.
 
Not surprising, that when JonnyFive asked Ace to post his understanding of fractional reserve, he instead posted someone else's misunderstanding of it. Ace, did you not notice the glaring point that the article skips completely? Anyone who's ever seen It's a Wonderful Life would be able to spot its omission immediately.

It's the fact that banks make loans. If you can come up with a system that would allow banks to always have their depositors' money on hand, and still make loans, I and the Nobel Committee would like to hear it.

JonnyFive said:
Keep in the mind that without bank lending, bank depositors would receive no interest.
No interest hell, they'd have to charge a fee for storing it!

ETA: Sorry, I just clicked on that article and see that it was written by you. Well, I had been surprised that there could be two people on the planet with that depth of misunderstanding, so I feel a little better about that.
 
Last edited:
No interest hell, they'd have to charge a fee for storing it!

:D No kidding. The bank makes its money through investments (lending), so no lending means... well... no bank, really. Not like we know it now, anyway.

Hell, I have investments in the stock market through my 401(k) that earns me interest periodically... does that mean that I'm creating money via fiat?
 
Never accept a CT video as fact. Be responsible and research for yourself. If a video implied that the government had some sort of massive illegal conspiracy going on, would you really just take the word of a youtube video? CT videos are designed to deceive. Don't be like TS1234 and just soak up every single conspiracy that you come across regardless of facts.
That's why I come to the JREF forum- for fast, reliable information.

P.S. I don't regard the video as a whole to be reliable, but there is something to it. See what presidential candidate Ron Paul has to say about the Federal Reserve: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8
 
Not surprising, that when JonnyFive asked Ace to post his understanding of fractional reserve, he instead posted someone else's misunderstanding of it. Ace, did you not notice the glaring point that the article skips completely? Anyone who's ever seen It's a Wonderful Life would be able to spot its omission immediately.

It's the fact that banks make loans. If you can come up with a system that would allow banks to always have their depositors' money on hand, and still make loans, I and the Nobel Committee would like to hear it.

No interest hell, they'd have to charge a fee for storing it!

ETA: Sorry, I just clicked on that article and see that it was written by you. Well, I had been surprised that there could be two people on the planet with that depth of misunderstanding, so I feel a little better about that.


First, the article I linked was my own. I am Ace Baker. It is based on so-called "Austrian" economic theory, ala Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Hans Hoppe, et al. Rothbard's treatises are online, you should check them out, and see if you can refute them.

Second, banks are not necessarily the same as a savings and loan. Both would exist on a free market. Banks would charge a fee to store money, S&L's would pay interest to depositors who agree to leave money for a certain time, then loaning out the money at a profit. Customers could choose.
 
Magic,

If I were you I'd look very very carefully at the information being backed by Ron Paul. I'm not going to elaborate all that much since it's a discussion much better suited to the Politics forum, but Mr. Paul has held any number of beliefs designed to cater to fringe elements.

I'll refer you to a recent Orcinus post which, while it doesn't adress this particular topic it does cover his beliefs wrt the NWO and many other far-right conspiracy theories.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html
 
First, the article I linked was my own. I am Ace Baker.
Yes, I'm sorry I missed that at first. I found that out within a few minutes of my post, and instead of changing it, I added the note to the end.

Second, banks are not necessarily the same as a savings and loan. Both would exist on a free market. Banks would charge a fee to store money, S&L's would pay interest to depositors who agree to leave money for a certain time, then loaning out the money at a profit. Customers could choose.
Customers can choose now, and already have. There is no law to keep a bank from operating on your rules - keep all the depositors' money on-hand, and charge a fee for doing so. You can start one up right now!

The free market has already decided this is not a good business plan, therefore those kind of banks don't exist. People who are free to choose would rather put their money in a bank that uses the fractional reserve system than in "Ace's Bank."
 
Again, here is an excellent online treatise on money.

http://www.mises.org/money.asp

Please criticize it, I'd be very curious to see if anyone can point out any errors.

I addressed a few of the issues with their writing:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2670253#post2670253

It's not about errors so much as omissions.

There are a few other general issues I see scanning the article. They demonize inflation when the issue is more complicated than they portray it.

It's funny that the authors of that site blame inflation on the government, when the government could very well radically deflate the economy. All they'd need to do would be to remove currency from circulation, or radically increase the reserve ratio for the banks. Ultimate cost of controlling inflation: Unknown. Learning the inflation isn't the only possible economic problem: Priceless.

Now, TS, that site is interesting, but you're not really answering questions from your own point of view. What say you about fractional reserve banking? Economic deflation?

You stated earlier that you believe gold backing prevents economic deflation (I'm talking abuot the deflation that is the reverse of inflation, not deflation as in the dropping value of money associated with economic inflation). Could you please explain why you believe this to be the case using specific economic reasoning?
 
I had an idea for a Jetsons movie that revolved around real estate being taken off the dirt standard because no one actually lived on the Earth anymore. Not that I agree with Ace's fantasies - I just thought that was funny.
 
Yes, I'm sorry I missed that at first. I found that out within a few minutes of my post, and instead of changing it, I added the note to the end.


Customers can choose now, and already have. There is no law to keep a bank from operating on your rules - keep all the depositors' money on-hand, and charge a fee for doing so. You can start one up right now!

The free market has already decided this is not a good business plan, therefore those kind of banks don't exist. People who are free to choose would rather put their money in a bank that uses the fractional reserve system than in "Ace's Bank."
Many banks are a sort of hybrid, anyway. They'll charge you fees for this or that service or penalty, which makes it like a bank where they charge you to hold your money for you, but they'll also pay you interest and offer loans.
 
Again, here is an excellent online treatise on money.

http://www.mises.org/money.asp

Please criticize it, I'd be very curious to see if anyone can point out any errors.
I am skeptical about the conclusions provided in this website, because these conclusions are theoretical. In economics, most theories will hold true, under the right circumstances. Equally, they can be shown to be not true, under the right circumstances. Case in point: To say that a Federal Reserve is necessary, is speculative. Currently I have not formed an opinion about the Federal Reserve, only because I have not researched the topic enough. Nevertheless, thanks for the link, I'll make good use of it.
 
Customers can choose now, and already have. There is no law to keep a bank from operating on your rules - keep all the depositors' money on-hand, and charge a fee for doing so. You can start one up right now!

The free market has already decided this is not a good business plan, therefore those kind of banks don't exist. People who are free to choose would rather put their money in a bank that uses the fractional reserve system than in "Ace's Bank."

If a free market chose, then why was it needed for government to:

1. Create the Federal Reserve System?
2. Make refusal to accept Fed notes a felony?
3. Confiscate all the monetary gold?
 
If a free market chose, then why was it needed for government to:

1. Create the Federal Reserve System?
2. Make refusal to accept Fed notes a felony?
3. Confiscate all the monetary gold?
CurtC was responding to this:
Second, banks are not necessarily the same as a savings and loan. Both would exist on a free market. Banks would charge a fee to store money, S&L's would pay interest to depositors who agree to leave money for a certain time, then loaning out the money at a profit. Customers could choose.
None of which is limited by items 1-3.
 
If a free market chose, then why was it needed for government to:

1. Create the Federal Reserve System?
2. Make refusal to accept Fed notes a felony?
3. Confiscate all the monetary gold?
Just to give you something to keep you busy. That way, you can't spot the REAL conspiracies!! Do I have to spell everything out for you?
 

Back
Top Bottom