tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post1820200300404665342..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: What British Law Says about the Mutuum ContractLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-55191325881120372312011-10-03T12:12:42.485-07:002011-10-03T12:12:42.485-07:00""All parties" is false, because yo...<i>""All parties" is false, because you're ignoring the third party merchants who are required by the government's law to accept these bills as legal tender,"</i><br /><br />Red herring. I am referring to my situation in the <i>next</i> post.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-67825674290991937182011-10-03T12:08:28.428-07:002011-10-03T12:08:28.428-07:00"Well, anti-FRB advocates claim that lending ...<i>"Well, anti-FRB advocates claim that lending out money from demand deposits and calling demand deposits a loan is a "legal anomaly" that has persisted etc. etc."</i><br /><br /><i>LOL... Then all that needs to be done is to refer to it a "callable loan."</i><br /><br />In which case you'd be evading the requirements of a tantundem demand deposit.<br /><br /><i>If the clients of the bank and the bank - all parties</i><br /><br />"All parties" is false, because you're ignoring the third party merchants who are required by the government's law to accept these bills as legal tender, which means even if merchants knew of the fact they are credits, not money, they still would not be able to avoid it.<br /><br /><i>contract to have a callable loan in precisely the way I have described in the next post, where is the fraud?</i><br /><br />A "callable loan" is not a demand deposit.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-33376560554027825982011-10-03T10:55:04.711-07:002011-10-03T10:55:04.711-07:00"Well, anti-FRB advocates claim that lending ...<i>"Well, anti-FRB advocates claim that lending out money from demand deposits and calling demand deposits a loan is a "legal anomaly" that has persisted etc. etc."</i><br /><br />LOL... Then all that needs to be done is to refer to it a "callable loan." <br /><br />If the clients of the bank and the bank - all parties - contract to have a callable loan in precisely the way I have described in the next post, where is the fraud?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-53391004850487276392011-10-03T10:39:18.567-07:002011-10-03T10:39:18.567-07:00LK claims that grain bailment on fungible goods be...LK claims that grain bailment on fungible goods becoming a debt is "a legal anomaly." <br /><br />Well, anti-FRB advocates claim that lending out money from demand deposits and calling demand deposits a loan is a "legal anomaly" that has persisted in statist systems because of the state's power to externalize the costs of it onto everyone, thus making it seem like the business cycle is inherent in the free market economy.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-45928655576717559152011-10-03T08:28:39.519-07:002011-10-03T08:28:39.519-07:00"And I have answered your grain example many ..."And I have answered your grain example many times: it is clear legal anomaly. "<br /><br />Well from this, its clear that technically neither side is "right" then, because neither side will agree. Anything that goes against their viewpoint is just a "legal anomaly". No use for either party to continue the discussion. Both have their legal institutions to back them up.AnonymouSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-84664101531683593552011-10-03T08:08:23.226-07:002011-10-03T08:08:23.226-07:00"Again, the fact that Carr v. Carr in 1811, D...<i>"Again, the fact that Carr v. Carr in 1811, Devaynes v. Noble (1816) and Foley v Hill and Others (1848) occurred in English courts shows that there was some ambiguity and controversy over the laws."</i><br /><br />And in these cases the law was clear what a mutuum contract was and its consequences. <br /><br />And I have answered your grain example many times: it is clear legal anomaly.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-11132095333120338072011-10-03T08:05:10.927-07:002011-10-03T08:05:10.927-07:00"You are taking the side, contrary to the way...<i>"You are taking the side, contrary to the way grain warehouses operate, that any bailment on a fungible (i.e not earmarked) good automatically becomes a debt. "</i><br /><br />No, I am not.<br />The decision whether it is a mutuum loan is made freely by contract by the parties in question.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-67604297541596372052011-10-03T07:45:41.904-07:002011-10-03T07:45:41.904-07:00Once again, what about the grain warehouses? You c...Once again, what about the grain warehouses? <strong>You completely ignored my last post in the prior section.</strong> Nor did you ever post my reply, and I take that as a low blow. <br /><br />I'm fine with FRB, but the paper receipts that circulate the economy have to be contractually recognized as such. You are taking the side, contrary to the way grain warehouses operate, that any bailment on a fungible (i.e not earmarked) good automatically becomes a debt. You can cite all the legal evidence you want, but the fact that it does not operate this way in grain storage and instead with money (banking) only shows how ambiguous the legal system is. <br /><br /><br />Again, the fact that Carr v. Carr in 1811, Devaynes v. Noble (1816) and Foley v Hill and Others (1848) occurred in English courts shows that there was some ambiguity and controversy over the laws. Not to mention there was Peels Bank Act in 1844. There was clear controversy over FRB.AnonymouSnoreply@blogger.com