"You can't have more titles to property than there is property." ^^ this is such a genius remark. It's simple, logical and it explains everything you need to know about fractional reserve banking in one single sentence. Awesome.
I listen to many lectures on these subjects and these are some very strong arguments against redistribution. This strikes at the heart of the ideals between collectivization and individualism. Fantastic work.
I'm not saying money SHOULD be a lottery ticket. I'm just saying that if people want to make it into a lottery system with fractional reserve banking, that no one should break down their door and put a gun to their head. If you're going to say something is wrong, the prohibition against it must be enforcible without violating morality. I wouldn't want my money in fractional reserve banks, that's why I store my wealth in precious metals.
There is no such thing as a voluntary slave contract. A slave is forced to serve or work. Voluntary implies that force is absent. It's contradicting, therefore you can't use that term. And the rest of your comment tells me you don't know the basics of economics and philosophy. Please educate yourself before posting such an irrational comment full of insults.
nobody is disputing that afaict. the austrian argument i'm aware of is that the increase of wages and lags behind the increase money supply for most people, so that it continuously redistributes wealth from the avarge wage earner to the people close to the FED money recipients.
Austrian Economist Steve Horwitz wrote an article called To the Opponents of Fractional Reserve Banking. Everyone who watched this video should read it to get both sides of the debate.
Fractional reserve banking works like this: Suppose you have a DVD rental business, and suppose that the law allows one duplication but you have to keep the original DVD. And it is true for every other DVD rental business, they can duplicate one DVD but must keep the DVD they originally acquired, Each succeeding copy of the DVD devalues labor put forth to produce the DVD. The effects of the credit currency has an effect particularly when it is introduced rapidly and disrupt the equilibrium of the economy.
Block's position is that it's not sound economics or libertarian to back a contract by force if the contract is essentially not enforcible. My argument is is fractional reserve banking would exist in a totally libertarian society and would be enforcible but the depositors have to be made aware of the risk that they may only get back X% in such and such situation.
For that to happen, they would need to be made explicitly aware that when the money is "deposited", they are no longer legally entitled to it; and they would never agree to that - not enough of them to make it viable, anyway. And therein lies the key distinction: If you might not get your money back for reasons other than theft or destruction, you're not a depositor, you're an (unsecured) investor. That's the dirty little secret that nobody wants to say out loud. FRB is built on a foundation of ignorance, confusion, and greed.
Awareness: Individual consciousness, global consciousness, universal consciousness. People please start using your brains, educate yourself and others by spreading 'true information'.
I think we're in agreement. If depositors could not get their money out the bank would be bankrupt and the assets would be divided up among the depositors that haven't gotten their money out yet, much like bond holders get the assets of a company that can't pay. I don't see any violation of property rights in CERTAIN forms of fractional banking. But as it is now, it's a total cluster fuck of assault on everyone.
Libetarians really should not support banning fractional reserve banks. However the governemnt should not bail out banks under any circumstances. Let people do what they want with their money.
Dr. Block, would you find it morally acceptable to take a gun and threaten people with it to prevent people from knowingly and willingly engaging in fractional reserve banking? Also, why could people engage in fractional reserve parking lots, but not with money? What's the moral or economic difference?
Use the Gaussian curve: Employability is equal, Production rising quick(technology will do more and more, Purchasing power drops quick => end of the cycle = default => Technology increases more. Don't see it as negative, but how do we get our purchasing power in balance with that in current monetairy system => interrest free, money as pure medium of change, everything in abundance so no war, hatred, jealousy because there is no need to. One coin? Or no coin at all? Next step in evolution.
It's all based on trust. In the future it will still be on trust. Our lifes will look like ebay rating. If you do it properly you get 5* for your 'job'. If not you get less stars. So you must be better to get a better rating or you change to something you are really good at. All people who don't add value to the system(our civilization) will on a natural way 'fade away'. F.e. all the people who earn their money on the stock market now, must change to something value adding. They now 'suck' money
It kills me that videos like this don't have a million views ...but cat videos do. If people don't pay attention to the Walter Blocks of the world, they may soon be eating those cats instead of watching cute videos of them.
There is no libertarian problem with fractional reserves if the person putting in their money agrees to possible loss. This creates a bit of a moral hazard yes but I don't think most people would be dumb enough to put their money in a 10% bank. Many people would be willing to put money in a fractional reserve bank with 100% back with possibility of emergency 85%. The reason to do this is in the first place is the possibility of higher interest returns. It's basically gambling, yes.
And he basically gave an answer to FRB problem just a minute later by saying they are ultimately lottery tickets. Yes, they are, and why would you prohibit people to use lottery tickets as money? As long as those are not legal tender, I see no problem.
Can’t we average udles based on personal preference? To come up with products that would meet the most utility? sorry i'm just being silly. I like the word udles.
We followed the ideas of 4 death men. Marx, Keynes, Friedman, Ricardo. Let's learn from the failures in our current system and make the next step in evolution. The technological people. Just look back at mankind, status now, where are we going. Everything goes 20³ quicker than before. It's up to us.
regelemihai "So what if the the Fed devalued the dollar over the years? Wages have increased big time since the creation of the Fed as well. It's just a matter of proportion." Because your wages are always getting devalued after the fact. You are not getting the full worth of your labor. Suppose that your employer tells you that there is a new tax imposed on your profession, and instead of making 1000 dollars a week you are now getting 950 week. Because if your money buys less you are essentially getting paid less.
i have to add that Walter Block is wrong. Banks are not practicing fractional reserve lending at all. They are just flat loaning out of thin air regardless of savings and regarding of reserve requirements. Empirical economic models prove this.
Casey Winder The difference is that in fractional reserve lending banks wait for new deposits. But no bank official will take an oath claiming a mechanism which investigates the banks reserve before a loan is made. Such a thing does not exist because that is not what the banks in the real world are contending. In Fractional reserve lending the banks WAITS for new deposits to appear. This means that the base money supply leads the credit cycle. But the empirical data shows that the base money supply lags the credit cycle. Another words banks do not wait for deposits to appear before they lend. The multiplicity effect is erroneous in light of real world data. People have it backwards. In fractional reserve lending there is a deposit which is then re-lend. What really happens is that credit create deposits and not that deposits create credit. “In the real world banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for the reserves later” ((Moore 1979, p. 539) citing (Holmes 1969, p. www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/kumhof-bank-of-england-why-banks-are-not-intermediaries-wp529.pdf
-You had a good point, so what i did? I did think long and hard to find any two things that seamed to have a correlation, (but really they don't). I so told them this and laugh them in the face. Now i don't have to worry about the fact that i have shitloads of money and you don't. Because i have 'sciences' on my side. -To dig gold from the ground and dig it back (vault) again seams like an excellent idea. I do think that is what to do with the rest of the oil, that is left on the planet.
If we privatize all business and allow free immigration based on internal systems why wouldn't large business import workers and cause a massive rush to the bottom bringing in all the poorest people of the world to labor? What will protect the standard of living? Seems there needs to be some restrictions in place to avoid this conflict.
For the future of mankind: In everything new thing we create we must ask ourselfes first the questions? Is it sustainable, envirement friendly, does is add REAL value to our lives. ONE example of WASTE. Think of all the plastic toy garbage we create and give away in supermarkets. Let's put all that energy in global education, housing, start agriculture/housing/basics of life in third world countries. Ask every individual what he/she really wants: he/she will say, healthy and lucky and no war.
government don't let such things happen because their are lobbying powers, the government subsedies fossil fuels, if they don't then price will rise which will make people look for alternative, but subsidies ruin this mechanism. The plastic and other garbage is mostly made from cruide oil's by products.
I have to ask--- I have always disliked the law that Rothbard put forth, being that "people specialize in what they are worst at"... How can that make sense? Rothbard specialized in economics, praxeology and economic history--- does that mean he is the worst at it? Why would I want to listen to any expert on any subject if Rothbards law states that any expert is the worst at the subject he is discussing? Kind of an odd thing...
So what if the the Fed devalued the dollar over the years? Wages have increased big time since the creation of the Fed as well. It's just a matter of proportion.
First, I used to see things the same way. Second, if you have your money in a fractional reserve bank, the ONLY thing that makes that "titled" YOUR money is the government guarantees to replace it with either tax payer money or printed money (basically the same but I want to differentiate from explicit Fed guarantees from implicit legislative ones). In political philosophy, this is called fascism. To do the opposite and not regulate and not guarantee, would be freedom. This is liberty.
I am happy if government not regulate and not guaranteee title to fiat and people can choose their own medium of exchange and government won't force them to fiat.
Who gives the right of "property". Think of FED as private company. Creating money out of thin air. Lending it to us the people. If everything goes well, no prob, but after inflating the whole system to an mathematical end the 99% gets the bill. The 1% aren't that clever, they are that bad. 1910 Jackal island banksters created fractional banking,Who gave them this right. So we created our world out of AIR. If we can create it out of air, we don't need money. Unless money is not the goal.
I disagree with his argument on fractional reserve banking, as I am one of those libertarians... In a free market, you don't have regulation. But, like the liberals and conservatives, Mr. B is not satisfied with the free market and wants to change it. Clearly, when you give your money to a FR Bank, you are lending them money. No different from buying a stock. You could get your money back or not... If left to market forces, we can let FR banks compete with full reserve banks...
In a free market you always have regulation, the moment there is a need someone tries to create a service or product to meet that need. If regulation is the need of the people then some serivce will come up. Just like it does for anyother need. Even the participants can themselves bring in the regulations, by setting conditions on who, how and when they will trade. Online econmmerce sites did this by putting review section, so people choose only credible sellers and so is done to buyers, the rating acted as a regulation, even UBER the taxi app, still do it, it allows both parties to rate each other.
Block doesn't address the main argument for fractional reserve banking--namely that without fractional reserve banking there would be a lot less capital in society. And with less capital there would be less infrastructure, fewer machines and factories, and ultimately, a lower standard of living.
Of course there would be "market based capital". But there would be no fractional-reserve banking capital. Thus there would be LESS total capital. I don't know how you could argue otherwise. This is just basic logic. If you take away the banks' ability to multiply money--then there will be less total money loaned out. And I concede that booms and busts are caused by fractional-reserve banking. I'm just saying that there is a significant down-side with getting rid of it.
fireasdf1 yes it does create a false capital called fiduciary media. It's a lie on savings. People deposit money for indefinite periods which displays a lie on real savings.
Mr. Block does not understand fractional reserve banking, his explanation is not how it works. Banks do not loan out deposits (their reserves), period. They generate credit as "loans" in the form of "deposits". There are only $1.48-Trillion in U.S. legal tender dollars in circulation around the globe. Of that, $280-Billion is in circulation within the U.S.. Of that, $71-Billion is held in bank vaults. That $71B backs the $11-Trillion in bank deposits (bank debt), it also backs the billions in credit transactions that occurs daily, it also backs Wall Street. That, is the reality of fractional reserve banking. Every bit of the debt-based private credit generated by the Fed and the banks is their debt, a promise, or the assumption, that legal tender dollars will eventually be paid.
Because your money exists in the form of liability on someone else's books. It may not be liquid enough to be immediately redeemable as money, but it still exists. Fractional banking is possible without fiat currency. A gold standard can have fractional reserve banking, basically your bank deposits are considered a bank's debt and your credit rather than a simple money storage. There are many ways one could do this, including that an agreement is reached where x% of your money must be redeemable by you at all times. The rest is allowed to be used as investments with a promise of x% interest returned to you. It is then the banks responsibility to manage the cost of its services and risk of its investments in order to generate an interest rate. This doesn't promise property that does not exist as the speaker states. If it did, all investment would be fraudulent...
you can have more titles than property.... I'm giving you the title to this land, when you come to claim it we will spin this wheel, if it lands on 1-99 we make the sale like normal, if it lands on 100, you forfeit the title. what's wrong with this voluntary exchange? are the Austrians against gambling?
its funny teachers wonder why ppl have a hard time paying attention to them in clas, yet, no one is bored during a high quality lecture like this, geez i wonder why. lol nah i know why, its cause this has quality, the teachers lessons did not, screw public education/state indoctrination
He also, like most of those obsessed with economics and money, the fact that life is not all about commerce. A nation w/o common culture, enforced borders, etc, is not a nation. Citizens may not want to live in an America where they become a minority. Life is more than money. They may prefer the mainstream culture. Most nations on earth understand this.
Smart guy, but could not believe that he supports the idea of private property. Abolish the welfare state is a good idea, but what happens to those who are in actual serious need. Some great idea's come from Mr. Block, but the next set of idea's abolish his original first set of intentions. It almost fits the idea that the first hand destroy's while the second hand fixes. Sorry its the right hand that fixes what the left hand has destroyed! I'm right handed so I can't agree with him...
I didn't say I agree with Walter Block on that point. Someone can't transfer their self-ownership (or free will) to someone else. Since you own yourself (control your body) you cannot become property of someone else. It is my understanding that a voluntary slave contract is invalid, and according to Rothbard all contracts must have a way to opt out of them. You can just continue cursing, it means you have no arguments, no knowledge, no rationality and no moral standards.
Always an issue I've had with some libertarians. Free markets accross boundries are fine if you're an in-demand highly desired intellectual. Not so great if you have to compete with someone willing to work for $15/day. Dumb people here need jobs too.
I love how Krugman's name is consistently used as a punchline with these guys
"You can't have more titles to property than there is property."
^^ this is such a genius remark. It's simple, logical and it explains everything you need to know about fractional reserve banking in one single sentence. Awesome.
I listen to many lectures on these subjects and these are some very strong arguments against redistribution. This strikes at the heart of the ideals between collectivization and individualism.
Fantastic work.
Cornampoo
"You can't have more titles to property than there is property." great explanation!
I'm not saying money SHOULD be a lottery ticket. I'm just saying that if people want to make it into a lottery system with fractional reserve banking, that no one should break down their door and put a gun to their head. If you're going to say something is wrong, the prohibition against it must be enforcible without violating morality. I wouldn't want my money in fractional reserve banks, that's why I store my wealth in precious metals.
There is no such thing as a voluntary slave contract. A slave is forced to serve or work. Voluntary implies that force is absent. It's contradicting, therefore you can't use that term. And the rest of your comment tells me you don't know the basics of economics and philosophy. Please educate yourself before posting such an irrational comment full of insults.
nobody is disputing that afaict. the austrian argument i'm aware of is that the increase of wages and lags behind the increase money supply for most people, so that it continuously redistributes wealth from the avarge wage earner to the people close to the FED money recipients.
I came for analogies, I didn't leave disappointed.
Austrian Economist Steve Horwitz wrote an article called To the Opponents of Fractional Reserve Banking. Everyone who watched this video should read it to get both sides of the debate.
Fractional reserve banking works like this: Suppose you have a DVD rental business, and suppose that the law allows one duplication but you have to keep the original DVD. And it is true for every other DVD rental business, they can duplicate one DVD but must keep the DVD they originally acquired, Each succeeding copy of the DVD devalues labor put forth to produce the DVD. The effects of the credit currency has an effect particularly when it is introduced rapidly and disrupt the equilibrium of the economy.
Block's position is that it's not sound economics or libertarian to back a contract by force if the contract is essentially not enforcible. My argument is is fractional reserve banking would exist in a totally libertarian society and would be enforcible but the depositors have to be made aware of the risk that they may only get back X% in such and such situation.
For that to happen, they would need to be made explicitly aware that when the money is "deposited", they are no longer legally entitled to it; and they would never agree to that - not enough of them to make it viable, anyway. And therein lies the key distinction: If you might not get your money back for reasons other than theft or destruction, you're not a depositor, you're an (unsecured) investor. That's the dirty little secret that nobody wants to say out loud. FRB is built on a foundation of ignorance, confusion, and greed.
WALTER BLOCK ROCKS!
what's that latin term he's using for quantitative easing and minimum wage at the beginning?
Reductio ad absurdum. Used in logic and math. Trying to dress up his thinking by a notch before the club sandwich and champagne is later served.
Awareness: Individual consciousness, global consciousness, universal consciousness. People please start using your brains, educate yourself and others by spreading 'true information'.
I think we're in agreement. If depositors could not get their money out the bank would be bankrupt and the assets would be divided up among the depositors that haven't gotten their money out yet, much like bond holders get the assets of a company that can't pay. I don't see any violation of property rights in CERTAIN forms of fractional banking. But as it is now, it's a total cluster fuck of assault on everyone.
Is Walter going to be at liberty fest?
I am still smiling - a must hear!
If only I could have attended this even in Manhattan. =(
Libetarians really should not support banning fractional reserve banks. However the governemnt should not bail out banks under any circumstances. Let people do what they want with their money.
Dr. Block, would you find it morally acceptable to take a gun and threaten people with it to prevent people from knowingly and willingly engaging in fractional reserve banking? Also, why could people engage in fractional reserve parking lots, but not with money? What's the moral or economic difference?
Now: it's like a game of musical chairs.
Use the Gaussian curve: Employability is equal, Production rising quick(technology will do more and more, Purchasing power drops quick => end of the cycle = default => Technology increases more. Don't see it as negative, but how do we get our purchasing power in balance with that in current monetairy system => interrest free, money as pure medium of change, everything in abundance so no war, hatred, jealousy because there is no need to. One coin? Or no coin at all? Next step in evolution.
It's all based on trust. In the future it will still be on trust. Our lifes will look like ebay rating. If you do it properly you get 5* for your 'job'. If not you get less stars. So you must be better to get a better rating or you change to something you are really good at. All people who don't add value to the system(our civilization) will on a natural way 'fade away'. F.e. all the people who earn their money on the stock market now, must change to something value adding. They now 'suck' money
It kills me that videos like this don't have a million views ...but cat videos do.
If people don't pay attention to the Walter Blocks of the world, they may soon be eating those cats instead of watching cute videos of them.
Rudolf Steiner said in 1918: In the "END" of the cycle everybody will be unhappy !!!!!!
There is no libertarian problem with fractional reserves if the person putting in their money agrees to possible loss. This creates a bit of a moral hazard yes but I don't think most people would be dumb enough to put their money in a 10% bank. Many people would be willing to put money in a fractional reserve bank with 100% back with possibility of emergency 85%. The reason to do this is in the first place is the possibility of higher interest returns. It's basically gambling, yes.
And he basically gave an answer to FRB problem just a minute later by saying they are ultimately lottery tickets. Yes, they are, and why would you prohibit people to use lottery tickets as money? As long as those are not legal tender, I see no problem.
16:17 to 16:57 pure END THE FED Austrian comedic GOLD!
Can’t we average udles based on personal preference?
To come up with products that would meet the most utility?
sorry i'm just being silly. I like the word udles.
We followed the ideas of 4 death men. Marx, Keynes, Friedman, Ricardo. Let's learn from the failures in our current system and make the next step in evolution. The technological people. Just look back at mankind, status now, where are we going. Everything goes 20³ quicker than before. It's up to us.
regelemihai
"So what if the the Fed devalued the dollar over the years? Wages have increased big time since the creation of the Fed as well. It's just a matter of proportion." Because your wages are always getting devalued after the fact. You are not getting the full worth of your labor. Suppose that your employer tells you that there is a new tax imposed on your profession, and instead of making 1000 dollars a week you are now getting 950 week. Because if your money buys less you are essentially getting paid less.
i have to add that Walter Block is wrong. Banks are not practicing fractional reserve lending at all. They are just flat loaning out of thin air regardless of savings and regarding of reserve requirements. Empirical economic models prove this.
loaning out of thin air = fractional reserve banking.
Casey Winder
The difference is that in fractional reserve lending banks wait for new deposits. But no bank official will take an oath claiming a mechanism which investigates the banks reserve before a loan is made. Such a thing does not exist because that is not what the banks in the real world are contending. In Fractional reserve lending the banks WAITS for new deposits to appear. This means that the base money supply leads the credit cycle. But the empirical data shows that the base money supply lags the credit cycle. Another words banks do not wait for deposits to appear before they lend. The multiplicity effect is erroneous in light of real world data.
People have it backwards. In fractional reserve lending there is a deposit which is then re-lend. What really happens is that credit create deposits and not that deposits create credit.
“In the real world banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for the reserves later” ((Moore 1979, p. 539) citing (Holmes 1969, p.
www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/kumhof-bank-of-england-why-banks-are-not-intermediaries-wp529.pdf
Very nice! Thank you!
That is hard for me to grasp... is this discussed in the video you previously posted?
-You had a good point, so what i did? I did think long and hard to find any two things that seamed to have a correlation, (but really they don't). I so told them this and laugh them in the face. Now i don't have to worry about the fact that i have shitloads of money and you don't. Because i have 'sciences' on my side. -To dig gold from the ground and dig it back (vault) again seams like an excellent idea. I do think that is what to do with the rest of the oil, that is left on the planet.
If we privatize all business and allow free immigration based on internal systems why wouldn't large business import workers and cause a massive rush to the bottom bringing in all the poorest people of the world to labor? What will protect the standard of living? Seems there needs to be some restrictions in place to avoid this conflict.
He rocks blocks!
For the future of mankind: In everything new thing we create we must ask ourselfes first the questions? Is it sustainable, envirement friendly, does is add REAL value to our lives. ONE example of WASTE. Think of all the plastic toy garbage we create and give away in supermarkets. Let's put all that energy in global education, housing, start agriculture/housing/basics of life in third world countries. Ask every individual what he/she really wants: he/she will say, healthy and lucky and no war.
government don't let such things happen because their are lobbying powers, the government subsedies fossil fuels, if they don't then price will rise which will make people look for alternative, but subsidies ruin this mechanism. The plastic and other garbage is mostly made from cruide oil's by products.
I have to ask--- I have always disliked the law that Rothbard put forth, being that "people specialize in what they are worst at"... How can that make sense? Rothbard specialized in economics, praxeology and economic history--- does that mean he is the worst at it? Why would I want to listen to any expert on any subject if Rothbards law states that any expert is the worst at the subject he is discussing? Kind of an odd thing...
So what if the the Fed devalued the dollar over the years? Wages have increased big time since the creation of the Fed as well. It's just a matter of proportion.
no problem at all, until they decide to do the reverse, instead of responding to economy they start molding it.
First, I used to see things the same way. Second, if you have your money in a fractional reserve bank, the ONLY thing that makes that "titled" YOUR money is the government guarantees to replace it with either tax payer money or printed money (basically the same but I want to differentiate from explicit Fed guarantees from implicit legislative ones). In political philosophy, this is called fascism. To do the opposite and not regulate and not guarantee, would be freedom. This is liberty.
I am happy if government not regulate and not guaranteee title to fiat and people can choose their own medium of exchange and government won't force them to fiat.
We are getting rid of the penny, we are no longer thinking about it.
Who gives the right of "property". Think of FED as private company. Creating money out of thin air. Lending it to us the people. If everything goes well, no prob, but after inflating the whole system to an mathematical end the 99% gets the bill. The 1% aren't that clever, they are that bad. 1910 Jackal island banksters created fractional banking,Who gave them this right. So we created our world out of AIR. If we can create it out of air, we don't need money. Unless money is not the goal.
Yeah. They got tired of saying Keynes.
In the land of the blind, one eye is ...........
I disagree with his argument on fractional reserve banking, as I am one of those libertarians... In a free market, you don't have regulation. But, like the liberals and conservatives, Mr. B is not satisfied with the free market and wants to change it. Clearly, when you give your money to a FR Bank, you are lending them money. No different from buying a stock. You could get your money back or not... If left to market forces, we can let FR banks compete with full reserve banks...
In a free market you always have regulation, the moment there is a need someone tries to create a service or product to meet that need. If regulation is the need of the people then some serivce will come up. Just like it does for anyother need. Even the participants can themselves bring in the regulations, by setting conditions on who, how and when they will trade.
Online econmmerce sites did this by putting review section, so people choose only credible sellers and so is done to buyers, the rating acted as a regulation, even UBER the taxi app, still do it, it allows both parties to rate each other.
Why are educational vouchers bad?!
I rate this video 4 our of 5 udles.
Thanks?
Yes. But the demand for a 95 IQ American and a 95 IQ Vietnamese is the same, despite the 1,000% pay differential. Something has to give.
I don't understand. Vietnam is poor therefore Marxism?
Block doesn't address the main argument for fractional reserve banking--namely that without fractional reserve banking there would be a lot less capital in society. And with less capital there would be less infrastructure, fewer machines and factories, and ultimately, a lower standard of living.
Not true, we would have market based capital, the reason why we have booms and busts is because we have too much credit.
Of course there would be "market based capital". But there would be no fractional-reserve banking capital. Thus there would be LESS total capital. I don't know how you could argue otherwise. This is just basic logic. If you take away the banks' ability to multiply money--then there will be less total money loaned out.
And I concede that booms and busts are caused by fractional-reserve banking. I'm just saying that there is a significant down-side with getting rid of it.
No the downside is that things are the way they are suppose to be, the graph of growth would follow a straight line
fireasdf1 yes it does create a false capital called fiduciary media. It's a lie on savings. People deposit money for indefinite periods which displays a lie on real savings.
fireasdf1: Yes, but with higher prices of capital goods, wouldn't that lead to an increase production of capital goods?
Mr. Block does not understand fractional reserve banking, his explanation is not how it works. Banks do not loan out deposits (their reserves), period. They generate credit as "loans" in the form of "deposits".
There are only $1.48-Trillion in U.S. legal tender dollars in circulation around the globe. Of that, $280-Billion is in circulation within the U.S.. Of that, $71-Billion is held in bank vaults. That $71B backs the $11-Trillion in bank deposits (bank debt), it also backs the billions in credit transactions that occurs daily, it also backs Wall Street. That, is the reality of fractional reserve banking.
Every bit of the debt-based private credit generated by the Fed and the banks is their debt, a promise, or the assumption, that legal tender dollars will eventually be paid.
Because your money exists in the form of liability on someone else's books. It may not be liquid enough to be immediately redeemable as money, but it still exists. Fractional banking is possible without fiat currency. A gold standard can have fractional reserve banking, basically your bank deposits are considered a bank's debt and your credit rather than a simple money storage.
There are many ways one could do this, including that an agreement is reached where x% of your money must be redeemable by you at all times. The rest is allowed to be used as investments with a promise of x% interest returned to you. It is then the banks responsibility to manage the cost of its services and risk of its investments in order to generate an interest rate. This doesn't promise property that does not exist as the speaker states. If it did, all investment would be fraudulent...
you can have more titles than property.... I'm giving you the title to this land, when you come to claim it we will spin this wheel, if it lands on 1-99 we make the sale like normal, if it lands on 100, you forfeit the title. what's wrong with this voluntary exchange? are the Austrians against gambling?
Harsh, but I agree certainly not his best.
And will lead to munchies stimulus!
its funny teachers wonder why ppl have a hard time paying attention to them in clas, yet, no one is bored during a high quality lecture like this, geez i wonder why. lol nah i know why, its cause this has quality, the teachers lessons did not, screw public education/state indoctrination
iEgalitarianism
He also, like most of those obsessed with economics and money, the fact that life is not all about commerce. A nation w/o common culture, enforced borders, etc, is not a nation. Citizens may not want to live in an America where they become a minority. Life is more than money. They may prefer the mainstream culture. Most nations on earth understand this.
Smart guy, but could not believe that he supports the idea of private property. Abolish the welfare state is a good idea, but what happens to those who are in actual serious need. Some great idea's come from Mr. Block, but the next set of idea's abolish his original first set of intentions. It almost fits the idea that the first hand destroy's while the second hand fixes. Sorry its the right hand that fixes what the left hand has destroyed! I'm right handed so I can't agree with him...
You are not a sheeple.
I didn't say I agree with Walter Block on that point. Someone can't transfer their self-ownership (or free will) to someone else. Since you own yourself (control your body) you cannot become property of someone else. It is my understanding that a voluntary slave contract is invalid, and according to Rothbard all contracts must have a way to opt out of them.
You can just continue cursing, it means you have no arguments, no knowledge, no rationality and no moral standards.
Always an issue I've had with some libertarians. Free markets accross boundries are fine if you're an in-demand highly desired intellectual. Not so great if you have to compete with someone willing to work for $15/day. Dumb people here need jobs too.