Rothbard & Fractional Reserve Banking

Number of posts: 2159 Registration date: 2007-09-20

Here's a graphic example of M3, to remind you of what you're failing to comprehend and have no means of explaining within your simplistic analysis:

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Subject: Re: Rothbard & Fractional Reserve Banking Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:37 am

Do I have this straight?...
-The gold standard was abandoned because it was simply unnecessary, since banks and the FRB could always be trusted to deal honestly with peoples money.
-The FRB publishes fraudulent statistics to fool us into thinking that the system is fraudulent, when in fact it is actually 100% honest.
-In 2006, the FRB stopped publishing the most damning part of these statistics (M3) because they didn't want people to know to what extent they were being fooled about this phony fraudulence.
-Price inflation is strictly the result of corporate (not banks of course) greed, or alternatively, it's all in our imagination. But it's definitely not the result of money supply growth.

_________________

http://tails-dx.deviantart.com/gallery/
My daughters art. =3

Guest

Dylboz wrote:

Here's a graphic example of M3, to remind you of what you're failing to comprehend and have no means of explaining within your simplistic analysis:

They are counting debt as "money". It's not that hard to understand you fucking imbecile.

Guest

reddeerrick wrote:

Do I have this straight?...
-The gold standard was abandoned because it was simply unnecessary, since banks and the FRB could always be trusted to deal honestly with peoples money.
-The FRB publishes fraudulent statistics to fool us into thinking that the system is fraudulent, when in fact it is actually 100% honest.
-In 2006, the FRB stopped publishing the most damning part of these statistics (M3) because they didn't want people to know to what extent they were being fooled about this phony fraudulence.
-Price inflation is strictly the result of corporate (not banks of course) greed, or alternatively, it's all in our imagination. But it's definitely not the result of money supply growth.

No. That is not my contention. There IS inflation. The Fed can create money from nothing electronically (or in the old days through printing money). Commercial banks however, can't do this. While, FRB may increases the risk of inflation (as Stewart has pointed out), since it increases the risk of Fed bailouts/bank runs, it is NOT inflationary IN THE WAY that most suggest (i.e. "multiplier effect").

As for WHY the banking system is being purposely misrepresented... well... I couldn't tell you reddeerrick. When I have a theory, maybe I'll make a video about it on YouTube.

Guest

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

It's not that hard to understand you fucking imbecile.

I just love a well reasoned discussion. lol!

- NonE

Guest

Conrad wrote:

can somebody please summarize this debate for me so that I can pick a winner without having to read and think about it?

The mainstream propaganda regarding how the banking system works is erroneous. These folks can't accept that. I'm sure they accept that there is a preponderance of OTHER economic fallacies in circulation. This is true and often suits what they want to believe. However, when a fallacy works AGAINST whatever personal agenda they have, suddenly, they defend the falsehood/fallacy as a religion. In other words, they only want to understand something if it suits their personal agendas/biases. If something contradicts their present world-view, they feel threatened, and rather than exploring the truth of reality, they recoil in fear from it.

All I'm trying to do is understand the facts. I have no agenda to sell (unlike these brain-damaged libertarians/anarchists).

Guest

Dylboz wrote:

Storm off in a huff, I really don't give a shit

I wasn't storming off in a huff. I was mocking you.

Guest

NonEntity wrote:

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

It's not that hard to understand you fucking imbecile.

I just love a well reasoned discussion. lol!

- NonE

Gawd...

So you think I started this whole "insult the other person's mental capacity" bit.

No NonE... I am actually MOCKING dildo-boy... or whatever his name is.

I'm always amused by people who think being an a-hole is something special. It's really not that hard, and frankly, I think I'm better at it than amateurs like Dildo-Boy. He doesn't impress me in the least.

You NonE, would be an alright guy, if you stopped playing games with people. You're not dumb; you just have major phsycological problems. You are Mr. passive-aggressive mind-game player guy.

The very comment I'm responding to is an example. If you actually went back and traced the time-line of this conversation, you would find that Dildo Boy was insulting me long before I started insulting him. And yet, you chose to comment upon me (as if I am the one undermine "serious discussion" by being an asshole). No. I am simply beating Dildo Boy at his own game, which he initiated.

The fact that you align yourself with the ORIGINAL (provocateur) asshole in this equation tells me everything I need to know about you.

You're a slave to those around you. You are insecure and desperate for approval. You have no identity of your own.

At least you're honest about it Mr. "NonE".
[remark deleted by admin]

Subject: Re: Rothbard & Fractional Reserve Banking Sat Jul 18, 2009 6:13 am

okay, so Stewart c.s. say that there is a multiplies effect because what the bank owes you is in fact used as money in the economy and money is defined by its use. RoR says that FRB does not change the amount of money in the economy (unless in case of bailouts and what not) and that the change that FRB entails is not principally different from the element of speed of circulation.

If the general speed of circulation stays the same and there is FRB, then there would be more money being circulated/used than without FRB even if in that case the speed of circulation matters too, no?
How do you define money, RoR?

y'all may have talked about this stuff earlier in this thread, but I can't be bothered to hurt my eyes by making them glance over all your excrements, obviously.

_________________
My Blog

Subject: Re: Rothbard & Fractional Reserve Banking Sat Jul 18, 2009 6:14 am

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

While, FRB may increases the risk of inflation (as Stewart has pointed out), since it increases the risk of Fed bailouts/bank runs, it is NOT inflationary IN THE WAY that most suggest (i.e. "multiplier effect").

But then we should expect to see only spikes of price inflation during and after financial crises, rather than the steady year-over-year inflation that we actually see, shouldn't we?

_________________

http://tails-dx.deviantart.com/gallery/
My daughters art. =3

Guest

Dylboz wrote:

Right back at you. Rolling Eyes

Because violence would totally resolve the question.

Violence would in fact solve the problem of you thinking you're 2 k3wl 4 sk3wl. [remark deleted by Admin]

Subject: Re: Rothbard & Fractional Reserve Banking Sat Jul 18, 2009 6:16 am

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

Dylboz wrote:

Right back at you. Rolling Eyes

Because violence would totally resolve the question.

[remark deleted by Admin].

for the record, I doubt that. Dylboz has been taking classes in some weird-ass Russian or Israeli fight-to-kill martial art.

_________________
My Blog

Subject: Re: Rothbard & Fractional Reserve Banking Sat Jul 18, 2009 6:17 am

reddeerrick wrote:

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

While, FRB may increases the risk of inflation (as Stewart has pointed out), since it increases the risk of Fed bailouts/bank runs, it is NOT inflationary IN THE WAY that most suggest (i.e. "multiplier effect").

But then we should expect to see only spikes of inflation during and after financial crises, rather than the steady year-over-year inflation that we actually see, shouldn't we?

but RoR doesn't deny that there is steady inflation through money printing, no?

what causes credit contraction in times of crisis, RoR?

_________________
My Blog

Guest

reddeerrick wrote:

But then we should expect to see only spikes of inflation during and after financial crises, rather than the steady year-over-year inflation that we actually see, shouldn't we?

No. I never said that bailing out banks for FRB-gone-bad was the ONLY reason/time the Fed creates money.

I have never argued that Federal Reserve banks can create money. I fully acknowledge that. I am talking about commercial banks and fractional reserve banking.

Guest

Conrad wrote:

reddeerrick wrote:

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

While, FRB may increases the risk of inflation (as Stewart has pointed out), since it increases the risk of Fed bailouts/bank runs, it is NOT inflationary IN THE WAY that most suggest (i.e. "multiplier effect").

But then we should expect to see only spikes of inflation during and after financial crises, rather than the steady year-over-year inflation that we actually see, shouldn't we?

but RoR doesn't deny that there is steady inflation through money printing, no?

what causes credit contraction in times of crisis, RoR?

Conrad, I am not now, nor have I ever denied that Federal Reserve banks create money.

I am talking about commercial banks, and fractional reserve banking. Totally different subject...

» The differences between simple distillation and fractional
» RBI Discussion Paper on Holding Companies in Banking Groups
» "Resveratrol Reserve" - good?
» NON BANKING FINANCIAL COMPANY
» Mobile Banking transactions in India - Operative Guidelines for Banks

Rothbard & Fractional Reserve Banking

Rothbard & Fractional Reserve Banking

Similar topics

Similar topics