This video gave me an existential crisis (literally). Everything I learned in Macroeconomics is complete gibberish. My economics degree is almost worthless.
I like Selgin's focus on the monetary. Even where some of his monetary premium, or how much the monetary, as a factor, attributed to mid to late 1800s crisis', could be rightly considered undue ["and this tightening caused this and that downturn" (not verbatim)]. The fact of national bank notes declining after the civil war is interesting, very much overlooked (34:00)~
***** I like the end. There's an easier way to put it morally. Fractional reserves is commercial banking, you lend money and receive an interest rate from the banker. We know what the banker does: lends it out at premium for a profit, and we know how good and crucial and unsullied that is. 100% reserves is safe deposit box stuff. You want that? Have a contract written up. Safekeeping right here for this fee. No lending by you involved. Boring.
+feddundas I think he was a bit unfair on that final point. As far as I understand it one key Austrian criticism is that fractional reserve banking creates money out of thin air. If the people who do business with such a bank are aware of the reserve ratio and these things aren't imposed by regulators then fractional reserve could be okay. People could get higher interest rates on their savings in return for being exposed to higher risk. Austrians also emphasize that full reserves constrains lending (on purpose) to only the level of wealth generated (not a multiple), which minimizes speculation and increases stability...which is surely true. The speakers criticism seemed to be that because it's possible to have fractional reserve banking that's seemingly stable, we therefore should choose to accept the higher risk of bubbles that fraction banking entails because that higher risk also enables more (higher-risk) investment at a given time.
+BobWidlefish We should allow FRB because it allows for far more investment, and therefore more growth. Bubbles happen in a market when people act irrationally, and if their is more to invest then they can invest more the wrong way. FRB does not create more bubbles, but those that exist might be a little bigger. Since bubble are not actually common, and not a big problem. FRB is much better.
Nick Zbinden *We should allow FRB* Note that I said as much: _"If the people who do business with such a bank are aware of the reserve ratio and these things aren't imposed by regulators then fractional reserve could be okay."_ I think the issue of contention is whether people should be forced to be involved in whatever central banking wants to do, or whether it should be possible to be able to choose to use alternate systems exclusively. At present the whole country is on the hook to pay for whatever decisions the Federal Reserve makes. Not only is the Federal Reserve the lender of last resort, it also sets policies regarding reserve requirements for banks. I think that would be fine if I weren't on the hook for paying for it: I personally would like the option of a parallel banking system that is entirely private. No taxpayer bailouts. No central banks. etc. Then people could choose whichever system they preferred.
Yea even talking free banking feels a bit underground resistance. Sad its very unusual in today's world to oppose central planning, as in, truly, oppose it, from simple real estate zoning to gov education curriculum & every facet of concentration of state power at coercive, individual expense. Taxpayer on hook for all this shit.
If you want to see incredible talks like this one, join us at OCON 2015!
This video gave me an existential crisis (literally). Everything I learned in Macroeconomics is complete gibberish. My economics degree is almost worthless.
Great presentation! Strange less than 1000 views.
If I were in USA I would went to the next OCON.
More uploads please?
Thank you.
Hello, is there anywhere to download the slides? Thanks for posting this great talk.
You can't question the notion of central banks until you think critically about the very notion of central auhority.
If you enjoyed this you'd probably also enjoy Austrian economics. The Mises Institute has lots of great videos on TH-cam.
Monarchies aren't that bad. Democratic socialism is much worse. Enjoyed this talk very much, and will continue to share talks by George Selgin.
I like Selgin's focus on the monetary. Even where some of his monetary premium, or how much the monetary, as a factor, attributed to mid to late 1800s crisis', could be rightly considered undue ["and this tightening caused this and that downturn" (not verbatim)]. The fact of national bank notes declining after the civil war is interesting, very much overlooked (34:00)~
***** I like the end. There's an easier way to put it morally. Fractional reserves is commercial banking, you lend money and receive an interest rate from the banker. We know what the banker does: lends it out at premium for a profit, and we know how good and crucial and unsullied that is. 100% reserves is safe deposit box stuff. You want that? Have a contract written up. Safekeeping right here for this fee. No lending by you involved. Boring.
+feddundas I think he was a bit unfair on that final point. As far as I understand it one key Austrian criticism is that fractional reserve banking creates money out of thin air. If the people who do business with such a bank are aware of the reserve ratio and these things aren't imposed by regulators then fractional reserve could be okay. People could get higher interest rates on their savings in return for being exposed to higher risk. Austrians also emphasize that full reserves constrains lending (on purpose) to only the level of wealth generated (not a multiple), which minimizes speculation and increases stability...which is surely true. The speakers criticism seemed to be that because it's possible to have fractional reserve banking that's seemingly stable, we therefore should choose to accept the higher risk of bubbles that fraction banking entails because that higher risk also enables more (higher-risk) investment at a given time.
+BobWidlefish We should allow FRB because it allows for far more investment, and therefore more growth. Bubbles happen in a market when people act irrationally, and if their is more to invest then they can invest more the wrong way. FRB does not create more bubbles, but those that exist might be a little bigger.
Since bubble are not actually common, and not a big problem. FRB is much better.
Nick Zbinden *We should allow FRB* Note that I said as much: _"If the people who do business with such a bank are aware of the reserve ratio and these things aren't imposed by regulators then fractional reserve could be okay."_ I think the issue of contention is whether people should be forced to be involved in whatever central banking wants to do, or whether it should be possible to be able to choose to use alternate systems exclusively. At present the whole country is on the hook to pay for whatever decisions the Federal Reserve makes. Not only is the Federal Reserve the lender of last resort, it also sets policies regarding reserve requirements for banks. I think that would be fine if I weren't on the hook for paying for it: I personally would like the option of a parallel banking system that is entirely private. No taxpayer bailouts. No central banks. etc. Then people could choose whichever system they preferred.
Yea even talking free banking feels a bit underground resistance. Sad its very unusual in today's world to oppose central planning, as in, truly, oppose it, from simple real estate zoning to gov education curriculum & every facet of concentration of state power at coercive, individual expense. Taxpayer on hook for all this shit.
What is the name of the speaker?
mon onm
George Selgin
This is fucking terrible. Start over.