tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post983354677499547132..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: If Fractional Reserve Banking is Fraudulent, Why isn’t the Insurance Industry Fraud?Lord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger110125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-10898275163090134892013-08-16T04:16:47.019-07:002013-08-16T04:16:47.019-07:00(1) There can be no fraud in FR banking in the per...(1) There can be no fraud in FR banking in the period after the 1930s/1940s in the Western world because either deposit insurance has explicitly protected depositors' money or the central banks give that promise implicitly.<br /><br />(2) As to the period before 1930s, perhaps some banks did mislead customers but you need evidence of this, not just declarations without evidence.<br /><br />(3) abolition of FR banking would simply cripple the credit markets and investment levels of any modern capitalist economy. You'd make us all poorer by reducing investment and employment levels.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-50675190677740881912013-08-16T03:48:28.859-07:002013-08-16T03:48:28.859-07:00Fractional reserve is fraudulent because banks giv...Fractional reserve is fraudulent because banks give the impression that depositors’ money is entirely safe, when the reality is that it’s a mathematical certainty that at some point in the history of a bank, it will make a series of silly loans or investments and go bust. And the historical fact is that banks go bust regular as clockwork, credit crunch or no credit crunch.<br /><br />And 95% of depositors fall for the “entirely safe” promise. <br /><br />In contrast, if banks said something like, “deposit your money with us if you like, but you might lose it” that would not be fraud.<br /><br />For a mutual fund / unit trust or corporation to make the promise that banks make is illegal, and quite right. E.g. if the investments made by a mutual fund or unit trust fall Y% in value, then the stake held by those investing in the trust / fund falls by Y%.<br /><br />That’s why advocates of full reserve, especially Laurence Kotlikoff, argue that if a depositor wants their bank to lend on or invest their money, then the depositor’s stake in the bank must float in value along with the value of the underlying loans or investments.<br /><br />An additional merit of the latter system is that it is impossible for banks to fail, just as it is impossible for mutual funds / unit trusts to fail.<br /><br />Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-91949397566989975762011-10-17T10:47:13.633-07:002011-10-17T10:47:13.633-07:00With 100% reserves requirement the Fed would still...<i>With 100% reserves requirement the Fed would still have to supply reserves whenever the system is short thru the overdraft window</i><br /><br />I think you mean a system with no FRB, and only time deposits. Such a system would not need reserves in the FRB sense. Presumbly the anti-FRB libertarians would be happy to see any time deposit bank that could not meet its obligations fail (say, through poor loans). They would not want a central bank.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-54788682245919882662011-10-17T07:43:13.554-07:002011-10-17T07:43:13.554-07:00OK, I might be missing something, but it seems to ...OK, I might be missing something, but it seems to me that one of the main reasons Pete claims that FRB is fraudulent is that people are misled into thinking that bank will lend out their deposits (he says <i>"If only he was aware that in a recent poll, over 70% of UK residents actually believe that their banks had the money on hand safe and available at all times"</i>) Maybe it is the casein the UK, but here in the US banks are required to display "FDIC Member" decals and peole are generally aware that their deposits are insured only up to $250K limit (used to be $100K.) If people were unaware of the risk of not getting their deposits back, they should have been asking would you even need an FDIC insurance. Seems to me that people definitely <i>are</i> aware of the risk involved.<br />Additionally, in a fiat system imposing 100% reserves requirement does not solve the problem of credit expansion. That's why you need some MMT knowledge. Since reserves are required for the healthy functioning of the system - they are like blood in our bodies - the Fed has no choice but to accommodate the system's demand for reserves at all times. Banks therefore always extend credit to customers deemed creditworthy and acquire reserves after the fact. With 100% reserves requirement the Fed would still have to supply reserves whenever the system is short thru the overdraft window. If the banking system as a whole wants to extend credit beyond the deposits it has on hand, it would go the discount window and loan those from the Fed. So, we'd be back to the question of what FFR is targeted, and whether the general level of IR is such that prevents credit expansion or not. Reserve requirements are immaterial. Am I missing something?Peter Drubetskoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10463750011872829081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-80971955340917919002011-10-03T13:32:50.144-07:002011-10-03T13:32:50.144-07:00You're fallaciously presuming that having know...<i>You're fallaciously presuming that having knowledge in legal philosophy ipso facto means one must reject Rothbard.</i><br /><br />. . . you realize that I was mocking you rather than attempting to present any serious point in that paragraph, don't you?<br /><br />Now I'm asking this without any bit of sarcasm whatsoever, but are you anywhere in the autistic spectrum? because jesus christ man<br /><br />And Jesus Christ, I'm not wasting my time with the rest of this discussion, what with the guy arguing that norms are material reality, that someone who claims to be knowledgeable in Kelsen says he never provided a definition of validity (that is, someone who claims to be knowledgeable in Kelsen and who has never read <i>The Pure Theory of Law</i>), that the Kelsenian value-free approach to the <i>study</i> of law means that he thought the content of law or the actions of a state were value-free, I just don't care anymore, the amount of stupid is burning my eyes and I love my eyes, I have got only two of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-52093588494707008372011-10-03T09:41:45.319-07:002011-10-03T09:41:45.319-07:003/3
Anonymous:
Rothbard would wipe the floor wi...3/3<br /><br />Anonymous:<br /><br /><br /><i>Rothbard would wipe the floor with Ross and Kelsen.</i><br /><br /><i>Rothbard couldn't even understand Kelsen.</i><br /><br />Rothbard did understand Kelsen. You just don't understand Rothbard.<br /><br /><i>For the morbidly curious, here is his ~*ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT*~ criticism of Kelsen in For a New Liberty:</i><br /><br /><i>Kelsen’s answer [to the problem of what morally distinguishes the state from a gang] was simply to say that the decrees of the State are “valid,” and to proceed happily from there, without bothering to define or explain this concept of “validity.”</i><br /><br /><i>That is, Rothbard is arguing that Kelsen is somehow trying to make a moral distinction between the state's commands and that of an armed gang, he is thinking that when Kelsen talks of validity (and he has to be stupid or intellectually dishonest to seriously argue that there is no kelsenian definition of validity, and when it comes to Rothbard I'm never sure of which one it is), Kelsen is speaking of moral validity in the sense that natural law is "valid", a requirement (regarding its content) that law has to meet.</i><br /><br />You obviously don't even understand Kelsen, nor Rothbard. Rothbard was correct that Kelsen just ad hoc claimed that the state's laws are "valid" and that the armed gang's laws are not.<br /><br />Your lame attempt above doesn't even cut to the heart of Rothbard's criticisms of Kelsen.<br /><br /><i>In fact, one of Kelsen's greatest contributions was pretty much the opposite: a completely amoral, value-free and formal examination of law and the state.</i><br /><br />There is no such thing as an amoral law or state.<br /><br /><i>When Kelsen distinguishes between the state and an armed gang, his distinction is a purely formal one, not a moral one. Kelsen never said that we "should obey the state" in the sense that we "should be good."</i><br /><br />He never provided an explanation of what he means by "valid". You claim he was referring to natural law, but Rothbard was using natural law to refute Kelsen.<br /><br /><i>No, I'm not going to take this man seriously. But you are, which is why I'm not taking you seriously either!</i><br /><br />No, I am not going to take Kelsen seriously. I will take Rothbard seriously.<br /><br /><i>"I know, by the way. I said YOU argued it. Wow."</i><br /><br /><i>You don't, bro.</i><br /><br />Yes, I do. I said you argued argued it, not that LK argued it. You said "What LK argued is..." when I was referring to what you argued.<br /><br /><i>Because you accused LK of using it.</i><br /><br />No, I accused (correctly) you of using it. <br /><br /><i>And I never made any statements about the world or FRB or whatever. But nice try.</i><br /><br />Then it must have been another "Anonymous." Pick a name and avoid confusion.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-32796050160080601602011-10-03T09:41:25.042-07:002011-10-03T09:41:25.042-07:00Anonymous:
2/3
What I am discussing is norms in ...Anonymous:<br /><br />2/3<br /><br /><i>What I am discussing is norms in general and how the libertarian "non-aggression principle" is a tautology in a high horse.</i><br /><br />You haven't shown how it is a tautology.<br /><br /><i>"It doesn't even say that. It says that INITIATING violence is wrong."</i><br /><br /><i>"Defending oneself from violence, with violence, is not "coercion." Coercion is an initiation. It is justified to "complain" of coercion."</i><br /><br /><i>can you even understand what i'm trying to say</i><br /><br />Yes. What you are saying is nonsense.<br /><br /><i>i'm trying to say that this is meaningless</i><br /><br />It is not meaningless. If it were, you could not even respond to it or say it is wrong.<br /><br /><i>because it depends on previously established norms to define which violence is initiatory and which violence is not</i><br /><br />Of course. You yourself could not even use the term "violence" or "initiations of violence", if you did not presume a previous ethic.<br /><br /><i>"No, peaceful cooperation requires rules. It is not the result of rules. Rules that are themselves initiations of violence cannot cause peace. You have it backwards."</i><br /><br /><i>ALL RULES are violence.</i><br /><br /><i>To speak of "initiation of violence" before speaking of rules is stupid because it is the rule that defines which violence is initiatory and which is not.</i><br /><br />You could not even conceive of the concept of "rules" and argue your case unless you already presupposed an ethic, which is an ethic that makes argumentation and communication possible.<br /><br />Yes, rules can precede an ethic, but that doesn't mean that making a case for it enables you to deny all ethics first, and then find out which ethic follows from which rules. The arguing over rules itself presupposes an ethic.<br /><br /><i>part 2</i><br /><br /><i>"Huh?"</i><br /><br /><i>Yeah, I thought you wouldn't understand.</i><br /><br />You, you didn't think that, or else you would not have said it the way you did. What you said made no sense to me.<br /><br /><i>But here, here is why stuff like "to each his own" is nonsense: because you have to define what is one's own, and in the concept of what is one's own it is already implicit that it is to be given to one. That is, it is useless as a principle.</i><br /><br />False. In the concept of what is one's own, it is not implicit that it is to be "given" to one. To be given something already implies ownership from he who gave to he who receives. What you think is implicit to something else, is actually already presupposing something implicit, namely, what you think is the thing that carries an implicit presumption!<br /><br />No wonder you're hopelessly confused.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-83802515068770115712011-10-03T09:40:57.847-07:002011-10-03T09:40:57.847-07:001/3
Anonymous:
part 1.
Ah, little Pete, I would...1/3<br /><br />Anonymous:<br /><br /><i>part 1.</i><br /><br /><i>Ah, little Pete, I would really like to think you have initiated yourself in many legal philosophies. I really would, it would make me warm in the inside, because it would mean that there are more knowledgeable people in the world, who would post more interesting things in blogs than libertarian nonsense. But I think it is not the case, because you think Rothbard is a brilliant philosopher.</i><br /><br />Non sequitur. You're fallaciously presuming that having knowledge in legal philosophy ipso facto means one must reject Rothbard. You can't expect people to take that claim on faith. You have to show people via argumentation.<br /><br /><i>"Right away you ignore how the ownership came to be."</i><br /><br /><i>How "ownership" came to be is irrelevant in this case because I was looking at the material reality.</i><br /><br />You are thus ignoring the entire foundation of distinguishing between just ownership and unjust ownership. And even if you wanted to only look at the "material reality", then you still could not ignore how ownership came to be, because material reality includes how ownership came to be.<br /><br /><i>"How ownership came to be" is a legal relation, it depends on norms, which were explicitly abstracted away because we were examining only the material reality of this case.</i><br /><br />You cannot ignore the norms, because the very claim to own a property is a norm. It is a claim that includes an implicit "ought" about what non-owners and owners should do in relation to that property.<br /><br /><i>"Bob trespassed, Smith did not. John violated Smith."</i><br /><br /><i>. . . you realize that this depends on previously established norms and that we were abstracting all norms away when looking at the case, don't you?</i><br /><br />You realize that any argument on just action versus unjust actions, concerning property, necessarily depends on how ownership came to be, and thus previously established norms implicit in your own example, don't you?<br /><br /><i>Can you even grasp the discussion being held?</i><br /><br />Can you even grasp your own presumptions?<br /><br /><i>"No, they are not."</i><br /><br /><i>A brilliant counterargument.</i><br /><br />"A brilliant counter-argument."<br /><br />A brilliant counter-counter-argument.<br /><br /><i>No, the libertarian would be fine with the second case because lol property. Communists are private property advocates as well, they just arbitrarily want no less than two individuals owning land, because that's the only way a "commune" can exist. They too will argue that they are justified in protecting their land against trespassers.</i><br /><br /><i>And what the hell do I have with whatever norms communists like?</i><br /><br />Don't feign ignorance on that one.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-42315726895023817642011-10-02T22:39:49.843-07:002011-10-02T22:39:49.843-07:00Lord Keynes: Thanks for the info and link.Lord Keynes: Thanks for the info and link.Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-7153387386723904482011-10-02T09:14:44.995-07:002011-10-02T09:14:44.995-07:001. Interest rate ceilings
2. Liquidity ratio requi...1. Interest rate ceilings<br />2. Liquidity ratio requirements<br />3. Higher bank reserve requirements<br />4. Capital Controls (that is, restrictions on capital account transactions)<br />5. Restrictions on market entry into the financial sector<br />6. Careful inspection of, and controls on, banks' lending standards<br />7. Credit ceilings or restrictions on the directions of credit allocation<br />8. Separation of commercial from investment (“speculative”) banks<br />9. Stopping investment banks from engaging in the activities of commercial banks and vice versa<br />10. Government ownership or domination of the banks.<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2009/11/financial-deregulation-and-origin-of.htmlLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-51868010723612306652011-10-02T09:01:46.079-07:002011-10-02T09:01:46.079-07:00Lord Keynes, Your paragraph which refers to “endog...Lord Keynes, Your paragraph which refers to “endogenously creating money” glosses over the basic point at issue here, namely should new money be created by commercial banks or the central bank. I say the latter. Moreover, this would not “cripple” the economy. Reason is that a central bank would be able to expand the money supply at the maximum rate that is consistent with acceptable inflation: not a hundred miles from what central banks do now.<br /><br />The only difference would be that borrowers, and their banks, instead of satisfying their borrowing needs wholly or partially by cranking up their own printing press, would have to find lenders willing to meet 100% their needs. The system I favour is the one set out here:<br /><br />http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/NEF-Southampton-Positive-Money-ICB-Submission.pdf<br /><br />Re the regulations which you claim had fractional reserve well under control in 1945-73, what regulations were these? Banks were not so highly leveraged then, which I agree was a help. But lowering leverage is a move towards full reserve.Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-17084264205681905842011-10-01T17:49:15.369-07:002011-10-01T17:49:15.369-07:00Some types of insurance are stable and some are no...Some types of insurance are stable and some are not. The stable type involves common losses of limited magnitude, e.g. auto insurance. The unstable type involves rare, unlimited losses, e.g. earthquakes - or more on point, deposit insurance.<br /><br />I don't think there's any inconsistency here. The odd thing is that Rothbard is implicitly accepting a regulatory role for the state. It's an un-libertarian position which is obscured by the "fraud" rhetoric.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-23567753962022142382011-10-01T09:07:06.116-07:002011-10-01T09:07:06.116-07:00Ralph Musgrave,
A solution, or partial solution i...Ralph Musgrave,<br /><br /><i>A solution, or partial solution is offered by full reserve banking. Under the latter, commercial banks just cannot create new money in a boom: at least the money supply expansions would be more or less constant year on year. </i><br /><br />That would severely cripple the ability of a modern capitalist economy to endogenously create the money it needs for sufficent growth, including investment in capital goods.<br /><br />As long as regulation controls the flow of new money and what banks do, the pro-cyclical tendencies of the FRB system would be minimised, as would asset price inflation, as in fact what we saw from 1945-1973 in many countries.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-75915932564313921582011-10-01T09:00:11.518-07:002011-10-01T09:00:11.518-07:00Lord Keynes, I’m delighted you’ve been reincarnate...Lord Keynes, I’m delighted you’ve been reincarnated :)<br /><br />Re your claim that the solution to the instability of FRB is “financial regulation” and “preventing either type of bank from causing destabilising asset bubbles”, I think that is too vague: it raises the question as to exactly WHAT changes or regulations should be implemented. You suggest separating commercial from investment banking.<br /><br />I don’t see that having much effect. The problem is that rising asset prices makes those assets better collateral, which encourages more lending, which boosts asset prices still further etc etc. That problem plagues every form of banking – commercial, investment, etc.<br /><br />A solution, or partial solution is offered by full reserve banking. Under the latter, commercial banks just cannot create new money in a boom: at least the money supply expansions would be more or less constant year on year. That blocks or hinders the “asset price – money creation” spiral. An apparent drawback is that in a boom, short term interest rates would rise faster than we have been used to up to now. But that would be beneficial in that it would discourage speculative borrowing. <br /><br />Those with variable rate mortgages would be hit, but then given that the latter are making a long term investment, they are taking a risk choosing variable rate mortgages. They are borrowing short and investing long – sort of: more or less what brought Northern Rock and hundreds of other banks down over the last century. Be it on their own heads.Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-25892352725755802742011-10-01T03:01:51.766-07:002011-10-01T03:01:51.766-07:00part 2
Huh?
Yeah, I thought you wouldn't und...part 2<br /><br /><i>Huh?</i><br /><br />Yeah, I thought you wouldn't understand.<br /><br />But here, here is why stuff like "to each his own" is nonsense: because you have to define what is one's own, and in the concept of what is one's own it is already implicit that it is to be given to one. That is, it is useless as a principle.<br /><br /><i>Rothbard would wipe the floor with Ross and Kelsen.</i><br /><br />Rothbard couldn't even <i>understand</i> Kelsen. For the morbidly curious, here is his ~*ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT*~ criticism of Kelsen in <i>For a New Liberty</i>:<br /><br /><i>Kelsen’s answer [to the problem of what morally distinguishes the state from a gang] was simply to say that the decrees of the State are “valid,” and to proceed happily from there, without bothering to define or explain this concept of “validity.”</i><br /><br />That is, Rothbard is arguing that Kelsen is somehow trying to make a <i>moral</i> distinction between the state's commands and that of an armed gang, he is thinking that when Kelsen talks of validity (and he has to be stupid or intellectually dishonest to seriously argue that there is no kelsenian definition of validity, and when it comes to Rothbard I'm never sure of which one it is), Kelsen is speaking of moral validity in the sense that natural law is "valid", a requirement (regarding its content) that law has to meet. <br /><br />In fact, one of Kelsen's greatest contributions was pretty much the opposite: a completely <i>amoral</i>, value-free and formal examination of law and the state. When Kelsen distinguishes between the state and an armed gang, his distinction is a purely formal one, not a moral one. Kelsen never said that we "should obey the state" in the sense that we "should be good."<br /><br />No, I'm not going to take this man seriously. But you are, which is why I'm not taking you seriously either!<br /><br /><i>I know, by the way. I said YOU argued it. Wow.</i><br /><br />You don't, bro. Because you accused LK of using it. And I never made any statements about the world or FRB or whatever. But nice try.<br /><br />(I'm pretty sure I'm being trolled. No one can be as ignorant as this fellow. Oh, wait, Rothbard can.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-15607245397717481122011-10-01T02:59:53.228-07:002011-10-01T02:59:53.228-07:00part 1.
Ah, little Pete, I would really like to t...part 1.<br /><br />Ah, little Pete, I would really like to think you have initiated yourself in many legal philosophies. I really would, it would make me warm in the inside, because it would mean that there are more knowledgeable people in the world, who would post more interesting things in blogs than libertarian nonsense. But I think it is not the case, because you think Rothbard is a brilliant philosopher.<br /><br /><i>Right away you ignore how the ownership came to be.</i><br /><br />How "ownership" came to be is irrelevant in this case because I was looking at the <i>material reality</i>. "How ownership came to be" is a <i>legal relation</i>, it depends on <i>norms</i>, which were explicitly abstracted away because we were examining only the material reality of this case.<br /><br /><i>Bob trespassed, Smith did not. John violated Smith.</i><br /><br />. . . you realize that this depends on previously established norms and that we were abstracting all norms away when looking at the case, don't you?<br /><br /><i>Can you even grasp</i> the discussion being held?<br /><br /><i>No, they are not.</i><br /><br />A brilliant counterargument.<br /><br /><i>No, the libertarian would be fine with the second case because lol property. Communists are private property advocates as well, they just arbitrarily want no less than two individuals owning land, because that's the only way a "commune" can exist. They too will argue that they are justified in protecting their land against trespassers.</i><br /><br />And what the hell do I have with whatever norms communists like? What I am discussing is norms in general and how the libertarian "non-aggression principle" is a tautology in a high horse. Hell, I am not even arguing whether libertarian norms are "good" or "bad" or if I would like to live in a libertarian world or whatever.<br /><br /><i>It doesn't even say that. It says that INITIATING violence is wrong.</i><br /><br /><i>Defending oneself from violence, with violence, is not "coercion." Coercion is an initiation. It is justified to "complain" of coercion.</i><br /><br /><i>Straw man. Initiations of violence is morally wrong, and there are no exceptions.</i><br /><br />can you even understand what i'm trying to say<br /><br />i'm trying to say that this is meaningless<br /><br />because it depends on previously established norms to define which violence is initiatory and which violence is not<br /><br />oh god this is like trying to argue with a fundamentalis--oh right, libertarians.<br /><br /><i>No, peaceful cooperation requires rules. It is not the result of rules. Rules that are themselves initiations of violence cannot cause peace. You have it backwards.</i><br /><br />ALL RULES are violence. To speak of "initiation of violence" before speaking of rules is stupid because it is the rule that defines which violence is initiatory and which is not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-30683337537001485622011-09-30T20:45:06.463-07:002011-09-30T20:45:06.463-07:00Professor Selgin's papers have great merit in ...Professor Selgin's papers have great merit in refuting the ignorant Rothbarian anti-fractional reserve banking theology.<br /><br />One does not have to agree with him on commodity money or free banking (I certainly do not and favour fiat money and central banks) to accept his critique of Hoppe, Rothbard, Block etc.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-81741658353944700462011-09-30T20:37:44.605-07:002011-09-30T20:37:44.605-07:00Re George Selgin, he is clueless. Have a look at t...Re George Selgin, he is clueless. Have a look at this paper of his – “Should we let banks create money?” His mistakes are so basic and so glaring, that it is easy to read straight past them without noticing them. See:<br /><br />http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_05_1_selgin.pdf<br /><br />On his p.99 he argues that because a full reserve gold based money produces an inadequate stock of money, therefor we have to have fractional reserve. The flaw in that argument is that the latter two systems are not the only possible systems: a fiat based full reserve is a possibility. Indeed, the latter is EXACTLY WHAT most people who favour full reserve have in mind. <br /><br />Second, the argument that starts on his p.97 is as clear as mud, but he SEEMS TO ARGUE that fractional reserve is OK because commercial banks do not issue money unless there is a DEMAND for that money. So does that mean that where there is a demand for money to engage in ramping up share prices in the late 1920s or houses prices prior to the recent credit crunch, that’s OK? I think not.Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-73698423535202641982011-09-30T17:25:44.738-07:002011-09-30T17:25:44.738-07:00Anonymous:
2/2
(not something bad in itself, of...Anonymous:<br /><br />2/2<br /><br /><br /><i>(not something bad in itself, of course, this is what all legal systems do: establish a norm and use violence to enforce it, while repressing all other sorts. Which is why complaints about lol coercin iz baed are ridiculous.)</i><br /><br />Defending oneself from violence, with violence, is not "coercion." Coercion is an initiation. It is justified to "complain" of coercion.<br /><br /><i>Which is to say, the sad little joke that passes for the non-aggression principle and libertarian "legal philosophy" (it hurts so much to type that!</i><br /><br />What "sad little joke"? You're conflating your ignorance with an alleged lacking in libertarianism.<br /><br /><i>Imagine, putting the likes of Rothbard in the same group as Ross or Kelsen!) boils down to "violence is illegitimate, except when it isn't." Oh, really?</i><br /><br />Straw man. Initiations of violence is morally wrong, and there are no exceptions.<br /><br />Rothbard would wipe the floor with Ross and Kelsen.<br /><br /><i>Oh, what the hell, this paragraph doesn't make any sense.</i><br /><br />Yes, it does. Read it again slowly.<br /><br /><i>"Peaceful cooperation requires rules"? No, "peaceful cooperation" (if by that we mean people shutting up and following the law) is the result of rules.</i><br /><br />No, peaceful cooperation requires rules. It is not the result of rules. Rules that are themselves initiations of violence cannot cause peace. You have it backwards.<br /><br /><i>In this sense, all laws result in "peaceful cooperation", because even in Stalin's Russia there was room for some autonomy of the will.</i><br /><br />The full rightful autonomy of will was virtually eliminated, by initiations of violence.<br /><br /><i>It is like norms that say we should "give to each his own." Really?</i><br /><br />Huh?<br /><br /><i>No, a just world fallacy is not a moral judgment of the world, it is the tendency for people to believe in the face of evil that the world is fundamentally just, and so the evil has a good reason.</i><br /><br /><i>. . . which is not what LK argued, by the way.</i><br /><br />I know, by the way. I said YOU argued it. Wow.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-72568728927823582762011-09-30T17:25:32.620-07:002011-09-30T17:25:32.620-07:00Anonymous:
1/2
Here, I will make this clear beca...Anonymous:<br /><br />1/2<br /><br /><i>Here, I will make this clear because your only initiation in anything close to legal philosophy seems to have been Rothbard or something. A secret: Rothbard is a bad philosopher.</i><br /><br />You would like to think so. I have "initiated" myself into many other legal philosophies besides just Rothbard. No secret: Rothbard was a brilliant philosopher.<br /><br /><i>Area A and Area B are two identical traces of land, except that Area A is somehow declared to be John's property and area B is declared to be unowned.</i><br /><br />Right away you ignore how the ownership came to be.<br /><br /><i>Without asking John, Bob enters area A and Smith enters area B. John doesn't like either situation, so he has armed people to remove Bob from Area A and Smith from Area B, at gunpoint.</i><br /><br />Bob trespassed, Smith did not. John violated Smith.<br /><br /><i>Materially speaking (that is, ignoring all norms in these relations, looking only at what is happening), both of these situations are the same thing.</i><br /><br />No, they are not.<br /><br /><i>But the libertarian is fine with the first case because lol property.</i><br /><br />No, the libertarian would be fine with the second case because lol property. Communists are private property advocates as well, they just arbitrarily want no less than two individuals owning land, because that's the only way a "commune" can exist. They too will argue that they are justified in protecting their land against trespassers.<br /><br /><i>I'm not even making up an absurd scenario: the libertarian debate over intellectual property is pretty much an example of this situation. Those who support IP say that it is okay to enforce it, those who don't say it is COERSHUN.</i><br /><br />You obviously have not read any libertarian philosophy. "Pretty much" is the give away.<br /><br /><i>To put it this way, you are trying to establish a norm that says "violence is wrong." Yeah, sure. But libertarianism doesn't say just that</i><br /><br />It doesn't even say that. It says that INITIATING violence is wrong.<br /><br /><i>before saying that violence is wrong, libertarianism establishes other norms, property rights, which you can use violence (a.k.a. physical force) to enforce. It legitimizes one sort of violence (the one used to enforce property rights) in detriment of the rest.</i><br /><br />Of course. The individual has a right to protect their bodies and their livelihood.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-47776035103705680732011-09-30T17:14:01.758-07:002011-09-30T17:14:01.758-07:00"Your confusion in conflating demand deposit ...<i>"Your confusion in conflating demand deposit contracts with loan contracts, and your repetitive claim that demand deposits are loans, have all failed."</i><br /><br /><i>LOL.. "my" claim. I guess the centuries of legal practice don't count...</i><br /><br />First, nobody disputed that governments have legalized FRB by allowing banks to pretend that demand deposits are loans. Second, it doesn't matter if history is such, you still claim that demand deposits are loans.<br /><br /><i>Oh, yes, about that:</i><br /><br /><i>http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/09/mutuum-contract-in-american-law.html</i><br /><br />Yes, there are two types of loans, those that consist of the exact money and those that are tantundem. They are not demand deposits.<br /><br /><i>"Your response to the argument of the existence of more than one property title to the same property has failed."</i><br /><br /><i>The non-existence of 2 property titles to money delivered in a demand deposit was already demonstrated above a long time ago.</i><br /><br />No, it wasn't. You failed to disprove it. That more property titles than there exists property in FRB has been established a long time ago.<br /><br />Demand deposits do not transfer ownership rights.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-13394175952620824912011-09-30T10:02:26.040-07:002011-09-30T10:02:26.040-07:00No, you misunderstand. Coercion is an initiation o...<i>No, you misunderstand. Coercion is an initiation of force. Protected by law means no legal enforcement, until someone uses force against it.</i><br /><br />Here, I will make this clear because your only initiation in anything close to legal philosophy seems to have been Rothbard or something. A secret: Rothbard is a bad philosopher.<br /><br />Area A and Area B are two identical traces of land, except that Area A is somehow declared to be John's property and area B is declared to be unowned. Without asking John, Bob enters area A and Smith enters area B. John doesn't like either situation, so he has armed people to remove Bob from Area A and Smith from Area B, at gunpoint.<br /><br />Materially speaking (that is, ignoring all norms in these relations, looking only at what is happening), both of these situations are the same thing. But the libertarian is fine with the first case because lol property. I'm not even making up an absurd scenario: the libertarian debate over intellectual property is pretty much an example of this situation. Those who support IP say that it is okay to enforce it, those who don't say it is COERSHUN.<br /><br />To put it this way, you are trying to establish a norm that says "violence is wrong." Yeah, sure. But libertarianism doesn't say just that, before saying that violence is wrong, libertarianism establishes other norms, property rights, which you can use violence (a.k.a. physical force) to enforce. It <i>legitimizes</i> one sort of violence (the one used to enforce property rights) in detriment of the rest.<br /><br />(not something bad in itself, of course, this is what all legal systems do: establish a norm and use violence to enforce it, while repressing all other sorts. Which is why complaints about lol coercin iz baed are ridiculous.)<br /><br />Which is to say, the sad little joke that passes for the non-aggression principle and libertarian "legal philosophy" (it hurts so much to type that! Imagine, putting the likes of Rothbard in the same group as Ross or Kelsen!) boils down to "violence is illegitimate, except when it isn't." Oh, <i>really?</i><br /><br /><i>Property rights is inherent in peaceful human life. Resources are scarce. Peaceful cooperation requires rules on resources, i.e. formation of property.</i><br /><br />Oh, what the hell, this paragraph doesn't make any sense.<br /><br />"Peaceful cooperation requires rules"? No, "peaceful cooperation" (if by that we mean people shutting up and following the law) is the <i>result</i> of rules. In this sense, <i>all laws</i> result in "peaceful cooperation", because even in Stalin's Russia there was room for some autonomy of the will. It is like norms that say we should "give to each his own." Really?<br /><br /><i>No, a just world fallacy is not a moral judgment of the world, it is the tendency for people to believe in the face of evil that the world is fundamentally just, and so the evil has a good reason.</i><br /><br />. . . which is not what LK argued, by the way. His point didn't have anything to do with the justice of FRB, but that it had arisen for some <i>economic</i> reason.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-51141076239084249562011-09-30T04:46:11.665-07:002011-09-30T04:46:11.665-07:00"Your response to the argument of the existen...<i>"Your response to the argument of the existence of more than one property title to the same property has failed."</i><br /><br />The non-existence of 2 property titles to money delivered in a demand deposit was already demonstrated above a long time ago.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-88828339711346243072011-09-30T04:41:02.615-07:002011-09-30T04:41:02.615-07:00"Your confusion in conflating demand deposit ...<i>"Your confusion in conflating demand deposit contracts with loan contracts, and your repetitive claim that demand deposits are loans, have all failed."</i><br /><br />LOL.. "my" claim. I guess the centuries of legal practice don't count...<br /><br />Oh, yes, about that:<br /><br /><a href="http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/09/mutuum-contract-in-american-law.html" rel="nofollow">http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/09/mutuum-contract-in-american-law.html</a>Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-29460450623109578002011-09-30T04:27:52.038-07:002011-09-30T04:27:52.038-07:00Anyway, this discussion has now moved far from the...<i>Anyway, this discussion has now moved far from the point of the original post.</i><br /><br />Ah, I sense that you will soon begin a process of comment purging once again because you can't justify how the introduction of multiple natural interest rates invalidates ABCT.<br /><br />Censor the truth, hope it goes away.<br /><br /><i>Your attempts above to deny that in FRB the clients hand ownership of the money to the bank have all failed.</i><br /><br />No, they have all succeeded. ALL your attempts to justify FRB have failed. Your confusion in conflating demand deposit contracts with loan contracts, and your repetitive claim that demand deposits are loans, have all failed.<br /><br />Your response to the argument of the existence of more than one property title to the same property has failed.<br /><br />Your half-way response to the moral argument that it is immoral to enforce/protect a FRB system that is "pro-cyclical", by falling back on "the government will know how much FRB is enough and how much is not enough" has utterly failed.<br /><br />ALL your pro-FRB arguments have failed.Petenoreply@blogger.com