Saturday, June 18, 2016

Walter Block Errs on Fractional Reserve Banking


It is an error common to many in the Austrian school.

It has been some time since I have written on this topic (here are over 60 posts on this topic), but here Block has offered a simple example for examination:

In fractional reserve banking, A lends $100 to B, the bank. B gives A a demand deposit for that $100. B keeps a reserve of 10%. B lends out $90 to C. B gives C a demand deposit for that $90. Thus, both A and C are the “proper” owners of that $90. This is incompatible with libertarian law, since only one person may own one thing at a particular time.

There are two words in the above that, when properly examined and understood, demonstrate in very simple terms the flaw of the fractional-reserve-banking-is-fraud concept.  These are “lends” and “own.”  Person A “owns” something.  In Walter’s case, he owns $100.  He “lends” this $100 to bank B.  In this, the flaws of the FRB-as-fraud claims are fully exposed.

What happens when someone “lends” something he “owns” to another?  He gives up the use of the item during the time it is lent.  He still owns the item – that is, he has certain rights in property of the item – but he has also given up certain rights in the property.

A simple example is a home rental contract.  I understand the differences of this and FRB, and don’t intend to debate why the example isn’t perfect.  It is merely sufficient for my purpose.

Does the homeowner give up ownership of the home when he rents it to a tenant?  No, the home is still his.  However, the homeowner has given up the right to live in the home for the duration of the lease.  The homeowner still has rights in the property (the home) while giving up certain rights (occupancy).

Depositor A has given up $100 cash from his pocket.  He lends this to the bank; this term, lends, should not be overlooked – and unlike many critics of FRB, Block does not overlook it.  Depositor A has lent the bank $100 – he did not ask the bank to store $100 as a bailment; he lent the bank $100.

By doing so, he gave up certain aspects of the property – he no longer has the $100 in his pocket.  Instead, he has a document from the bank stating that the bank will return $100 on demand. 

(As an aside, this demand is conditional, as stated in the contract; I have written about this too many times to count, and so won’t get into it here.  Yes, yes, yes…if everyone with a demand deposit demanded their deposits at the same time, the bank would be unable to fulfill the requests.  Business failure isn’t always fraud – sometimes it is just poor entrepreneurship.  Suffice it to say, since the founding of the FDIC, banks have made good on this contract virtually 100% of the time – a level of performance unmatched by virtually every other industry.)

Back to Block’s example: Depositor A gave up certain uses of his property.  The bank has acquired these uses in exchange for something valued by A.  While A “owns” the $100, he lent it to the bank for the bank to use.  The bank uses the $100 to lend to a third party – borrower C.  Something like a sub-lease on the aforementioned home.

A and C do not own the same property at the same time – Walter is just plain wrong about this.  A owns the property but gave up certain rights to the use of his property when he lent it to the bank.  The bank gave those rights to C.  C does not “own” the $90 any more than a tenant “owns” the house he is renting.  The tenant merely has use of the house, as C merely has use of the $90.  Both the tenant and C are obliged to return the property under the conditions of the respective contracts.

A doesn’t have use of the $100 cash no longer in his pocket – he has a contract from the bank instead.  A gave up $100 cash in exchange for the terms in the contract with the bank.  One of these terms (but not the only one, else A would likely not enter into the agreement) is that the bank would return $100 to A on demand (with certain exceptions, again I won’t get into these here).  A still owns the property; C does not.

Conclusion

The control, use, and disposition of property is divisible – and can be separated from ownership via agreement of the owner.  As Walter states, property can be legally owned by only one individual (or an entity established for property ownership).  However, that individual can give up control and use of the property in exchange for something valued by the property owner – the ownership is now conditioned as is the use of the property.

I thank Walter for offering a simple example to demonstrate this point.

29 comments:

  1. I recently re-read "What has Government done to our Money", and I'm in the middle of re-reading "The Mystery of Banking".

    As I've commented here before, understanding a lot of these principles is where I fall short. After another read of these, it certainly helped but raises more questions (maybe they'll be answered as I continue reading):

    1) If a bank operated this way in Libertopian Fantasy, what would we call this business practice - fraud or legitimate risky enterprise? We wouldn't have the FDIC and the Federal Reserve facilitating these practices to make sure everyone can get what they've been promised. This is an expense shouldered by all of us in the real world.

    2) Could this business practice survive without a 3rd party guarantee? In Libertopia, this would be an insurance company of some sort. Does the depositor get the insurance, or the bank? I'm struggling to consider how someone would shoulder the risk of what appears to be a very fragile business model. I can only say it wouldn't be me signing off on this contract.

    3) This entire model seems based on hope of what could be (Most of my customers won't withdraw or spend all of their money), instead of forecasting based on what is - which I'm not sure how you can do. I can't predict tomorrow, I can only speculate. The more I understand, this practice only survives because of things like the FDIC.

    If we made this conversation about anything but banking and kept the same elements, we'd call it fraud. A customer being sold a bag of one hundred pretzels is legitimate. A customer opening this bag to find one hundred pretzel crumbs, or nothing at all would be considered fraud. Someone else claimed the one hundred Pretzels first.

    This doesn't mean I think a Bank shouldn't be free to attempt to operate this way in Libertopia, maybe a sharper mind than mine understands how to keep this running- furthermore, if two parties agree to this exchange then that's their burden. I just question it's viability.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The market would sufficiently regulate the practice, as Rothbard and Mises both suggest.

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.ca/2013/04/why-not-free-market-in-money.html

      The contract determines if there is fraud or not; individual participants in the market determine the level of risk the counterparties are willing to take.

      Businesses go bankrupt all the time; it doesn't necessarily mean the business practices were fraudulent.

      If bankruptcy was impossible, Austrian economics would make no sense - of what use is the skill of entrepreneurship if there is no risk of failure?

      Delete
    2. This makes more sense to me, as it gets to the core of libertarian application - contract and consent. I think I was confusing myself basing FRB on what we're seeing today, and much of recent history. I should probably keep reading.

      Delete
    3. More correctly, the market will impose consequences for the practice, but probably won't regulate its excesses at all if the history of free banking is any indication.

      Whether this practice is desirable is another issue altogether.

      Delete
    4. Matt, I do not understand the distinction. Consequences do regulate - and especially regulate the excesses, do they not?

      Delete
    5. BM, I believe that the collapse of banks under a free banking regime sans a central bank is literally baked in to the structure. So structured it can hardly regulate itself to avoid any excesses. All that can happen is that they reap the consequences.

      By the way, the credit money created by these banks will affect other holders of the same currency in the form of effectively lessening the value of their cash holdings. How is that person A that contracts with bank B for credit can affect the real wealth of individual C?

      Regardless of whether this is acceptable under libertarianism, I do not believe it to be desirable.

      Delete
    6. To your three points:

      1) You suggest bankers (and the owners of banks) do not care at all if they go bankrupt. Somehow they are different than owners and managers of every other business. I do not accept this.

      You suggest that depositors would not care about the soundness of the institution in which they place their trust. I do not accept this either.

      In this I do not suggest that there will not be any losses. I merely suggest that there is no better scheme for regulation. (More on this shortly.)

      2) You are entitled to your property; you are not entitled to the value of your property. You still hold the same notes (or same digits).

      Ferrari decides to increase production 100-fold. And you just bought a brand new 488 Spider the day before this announcement. Ferrari's decision just cost you $150,000. Maybe you could petition congress?

      Your neighbor sells his house at 30% below what you think it is worth. His sale affects the value of your house, which you are planning to put on the market next month. What should be done about this?

      Value is subjective. You own your house, you own your Ferrari, you own your currency units. What they are worth tomorrow you do not own.

      3) There is no reasonable alternative to markets - when it comes to regulating economic activity, nothing is more "desirable." Anything other than markets providing the regulation results in what we have today - favoritism for the politically connected.

      Delete
    7. 1) The bankers no doubt care, as do the depositors. However the incentives under a fractional reserve regime are to lend to the maximum extent possible. Under this fractional reserve regime you still get the boom and bust cycle independent of any central bank, and the bust will occur not because of the actions of any bank in particular, but because of their actions in aggregate. When the bust happens most of the fractional reserve banks will go broke.

      You seem to be suggesting a performative contradiction in this instance, that the banks will be responsible while doing irresponsible things.

      2) I haven't lost anything in either of your examples. Prices are going up and down all the time for various reasons. When there is monetary inflation (and specifically in this case, inflation of credit money), the spending power of money will eventually go down in all categories. That is what makes it different to your example. They say that money is a unit of exchange, and sure, it is. But is it at its core but a measure of something. What does it measure? It measures whatever it is measured against, whether a Ferrari, a loaf of bread, or a house.

      3) I can think of many markets that wouldn't even exist without regulation. Patent, copyright, and IP are the most immediate ones that come to mind. Radio frequencies, cellular phone frequencies, etc, would be chaotic without regulation.

      Anyway, as to "desirable", I speak of the Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT). No central bank is required for the boom/bust cycle according to the ABCT. It is this cycle that is not desirable from the standpoint of any ordinary person, and there is no reason in my mind to allow fractional reserve banking.

      What to do, then, in a libertarian milieu? Well, a simple solution could be that the creator of the dominant currency in a particular area have a terms of use on the currency that bars fractional reserve lending of this currency.

      Now, that doesn't resolve the problem of Maturity Transformation in banking but that is another problem all together that would also affect full reserve banks.

      I am not dogmatic. If in practice a particular way of doing business is causing boom/bust cycles and periodic economic crises then maybe the underlying ideas behind it are flawed.

      Delete
    8. “However the incentives under a fractional reserve regime are to lend to the maximum extent possible.”

      The incentives in any business are to make as much money as possible. These are not the only incentives, which I have tried to convey now more than once. I won’t try again.

      “But [money is] at its core but a measure of something.”

      Four quarters is always equal to one dollar. Money measures perfectly. Try to turn money into some kind of yardstick, and you will fail in not only your Austrian Economics 101 class, but virtually every economics class on the planet. Subjective value is an accepted concept in economics, period. Supply and demand is an accepted concept in all of economics. Why do otherwise rational people ignore subjective value and supply and demand when it comes to money?

      “No central bank is required for the boom/bust cycle according to the ABCT.”

      There is one reason why all banks make the same failure at the same time: because they operate as a monopoly, one big cartel. Without the monopoly, such failures would be limited to individual institutions. Yes, individual banks will go bust; wah, wah, wah. This is business – try to explain entrepreneurship or even the advance of human life without this possibility of bankruptcy.

      But individual banks going bust will not risk national and even international catastrophe – individual banks outside of cartels will not start national and international boom / bust cycles. The issue is the monopoly; the issue is not FRB. Focus on the right problem if you want to develop the right solution.

      “…a simple solution could be that the creator of the dominant currency in a particular area have a terms of use on the currency that bars fractional reserve lending of this currency.”

      And another guy says “I won’t charge you a storage fee and I will pay you interest and offer a bunch of other free services if you allow me to loan a portion of your unused balances to good creditors. So use my currency instead.” No, the simple solution is to eliminate the monopoly and the government guarantees. Let the market sort this out – why are you in favor of central planning and monopoly?

      “I am not dogmatic. If in practice a particular way of doing business is causing boom/bust cycles and periodic economic crises then maybe the underlying ideas behind it are flawed.”

      And you are the seer of all things wise in banking? You *know* the best way for banking to work – better than millions of decision makers in a market devoid of government-enforced monopoly protection and guarantees?

      You are working on the wrong problem. Critics of FRB are doing a disservice to the conversation because they are distracting from the real issue – the issue understood in every other industry on the planet: government enforced monopolies and cartels are bad; markets are good.

      Not one critic to this post (and, to my recollection, any other post on this topic except after I have pointed it out) has mentioned the monopoly. What a shame.

      Delete
    9. "If bankruptcy was impossible, Austrian economics would make no sense - of what use is the skill of entrepreneurship if there is no risk of failure?"

      This comment is a gem!

      There is a prominent libertarian whose writings I enjoy and who's contributions to its intellectual thought are truly profound...but he on occasion speaks ill of the concept of "bankruptcy"- which I don't fully understand.

      Maybe he's referring to it negatively it the context of the current corrupt/mostly immoral US court system...but if he is, I've never seen him clarify it that way.

      Bankruptcy is a difficult thing to experience, both for the debtor and debtee, but I've always been of the opinion that it is an important component of free markets(though would be much better done by free market court/arbitration systems IMO).

      I also want to make one other note:

      "As Walter states, property can be legally owned by only one individual (or an entity established for property ownership). "

      Years ago this topic came up and I had a discussion on this topic on another libertarian forum...I do contest this notion that only one person can "own" a piece of property. You did qualify it by mentioning an "entity", but an "entity" can be comprised of more than one person.

      Under the current legal system we can establish "joint ownership" of planes(I know people who do this to share costs), real estate, etc. under legal entities. It seems reasonably safe to assume that under any free/voluntary market that people can jointly own property.

      How this situation is structured that to me is the real issue to me. (contractually that is- is it fraudulent or not?)

      If people know up front that they are "sharing" property, then feasibly in a free/voluntary society that should be fine. But if people are mislead(fraud), well then, that's always a problem. (assuming it's intentional fraud)

      I could extend this example to banks as well...(this is no argument for the Federal Reserve System/fractional banking, which is involuntary for a variety of reasons)

      Delete
    10. In Mystery of Banking, Rothbard mentions banks printing notes for gold that aren't backed by additional gold. He then says that this would be a crazy business practice, and then expounds on the fractional reserve money multiplier.

      Modern banking is actually much much closer to the short-cut of printing notes that aren't backed by additional gold. Rather than get lost in the fog of A lending to B lending to C, consider whether it be unethical for Smith Bank to print up $100 IOU's and lend them out (payable in Smith IOUs or cash, presumably)? Of course it's ethical; the bigger question is "Would you borrow them?", "Would you accept them as a salary?", and "Would you exchange real assets for bank IOUs?" The answer to that largely depends on how widely those IOUs are accepted as tender for goods / services.

      The big difference between that situation and the modern economy is that instead of each bank issuing their own debt instruments, they all create digital demand deposit accounts valued in USD. Those demand deposits are not subject to price fluctuations like other debt instruments, and all banks demand deposits are treated as equal and uniform. This requires a ton of collusion between banks and the government. I cannot envision how, or why, banks would continue to try to keep up this appearance without government involvement. Just like all cartels, the propensity to cheat (print notes liberally) would be immense, and the conservative members would break with the cartel and stop accepting wire transfers from liberal banks at face value (i.e. Smith Bank only accepts payments from Jones Bank at 90% of face value). The end result, IMO, would be demand deposits would be given a proper name (what kind of debt instrument are they) and a face (who is the lending institution).

      1) In Libertopia, I don't see how banks could operate for long without putting a name and a face on the demand deposit debt instruments they create. "$100 in a checking account", would have to become "A Chase Money Market account valued at $100".

      2) If I'm right, and the market would no longer accept all bank demand deposits as equal (forcing them to be named as above), then they would operate in roughly the same way that debt instruments do today: banks would buy insurance for some things but not others, and you would probably sign off on the risk of having your checking account denominated in debt instruments. Why wouldn't you? You sign off on having your retirement account in various risky ventures and debt instruments, and that's a much bigger dollar amount than your checking account (I'm assuming).

      3) Again, if I'm right, and demand deposits from all banks would no longer be treated equally, then you're not worried about everyone showing up and demanding cash, you are now worried about everyone attempting to sell their funds at the same time. Smith Bank might try to maintain the face value of the demand deposits, but they would have to delay converting deposits into cash until they had cash on hand to do so. You might try to take your holdings to a competing bank, but they would likely price in a big discount (i.e. they'll buy them for less than what they think Smith can pay when the crisis ends). Again, this is the same risk you carry with all your investments, and if that doesn't keep you up at night, why would losing your checking account keep you up at night?

      Delete
    11. We are talking past each other.

      "Four quarters is always equal to one dollar. Money measures perfectly. Try to turn money into some kind of yardstick, and you will fail in not only your Austrian Economics 101 class, but virtually every economics class on the planet. Subjective value is an accepted concept in economics, period. Supply and demand is an accepted concept in all of economics. Why do otherwise rational people ignore subjective value and supply and demand when it comes to money?"

      I am not saying that a loaf of bread or whatever should retain the same price day to day. The value of money is measured against whatever it can buy at that particular moment, and yes, it is subjective. Fractional reserve banking distorts that measure by alternatively creating monetary inflation and deflation through the creation of credit money.

      If four quarters always equal one dollar then there is no reason for people to complain if their money is eaten away by inflation.

      Rothbard backs me up on this. You have forgotten about the "money multiplier" aspect of FRB, what Rothbard calls "pyramiding". The money multiplier guarantees that things will get out of hand even if individual FRB banks behave in a way that they believe to be responsible. Why? Because there will be multiple claims on the same money, and the newly created credit money becomes the basis for more credit money.

      "And you are the seer of all things wise in banking? You *know* the best way for banking to work – better than millions of decision makers in a market devoid of government-enforced monopoly protection and guarantees?"

      You know, there were libertarians saying that the banks should be able to create whatever shady financial instruments that they want in the lead up to the 2008 financial crisis. Freedom, and all that jazz. Other people were warning that no one knows what these financial instruments are, and shouldn't be allowed. And then the bust came and the bank bailouts happened. Well guess what citizen, you just got played!

      Just because something could be done on the basis on contracts, like FRB or Professor Block's slavery advocacy doesn't mean that it should be done or that it will work out well.

      Under libertarianism why not accept Ponzi schemes? Are there libertarians that accept Ponzi schemes are legitimate? In normal circumstances Ponzi schemes are not permitted because they are inherently unsound. Likewise the FRB dynamics are inherently unsound.

      "You are working on the wrong problem. Critics of FRB are doing a disservice to the conversation because they are distracting from the real issue – the issue understood in every other industry on the planet: government enforced monopolies and cartels are bad; markets are good.

      Not one critic to this post (and, to my recollection, any other post on this topic except after I have pointed it out) has mentioned the monopoly. What a shame."

      If you want to abolish the FED, then I am on board with that. However you are going to need a transition plan in place if you do it otherwise a lot of people are going to lose their deposits, and we will soon have communism or 'democratic socialism'.

      I am sure that abolishing the FED is not on the table though, especially since we can't even get a FED audit, or even an audit of the gold in Fort Knox (possibly no gold to audit). So in this context our options are between different regulatory regimes. The current one enriches crony capitalists. There are perhaps other options.

      BTW, do you have to be of a certain ethnicity to be FED chairperson? The only post that Wenzel ever censored on his site was a question along those lines. Wonder why?

      Delete
    12. Nick

      “…but he on occasion speaks ill of the concept of "bankruptcy"- which I don't fully understand.”

      I have read such things from prominent libertarians and do not understand these either. Bankruptcy is nothing more than the fulfillment of a contract; certainly not the desired fulfillment of both parties when they entered a contract, but the fulfillment nonetheless. There are libertarians who want to limit the object of contract – not just regarding bankruptcy. I don’t get this at all.

      Big boys make agreements: if things go well, X happens; if things don’t go well, Y happens. Sometimes things don’t go well.

      If there is fraud or unlawful conveyance, this is a different matter. But two great features of a free market system is the ease by which labor and capital in poorly managed enterprises can be deployed by new owners and new enterprises. Inherent in this is the concept of bankruptcy.

      As t your second point and “entity”: yes, this is what I meant to suggest.

      Delete
    13. Matt, the problem is the monopoly; everything else is a distraction. I have not forgotten about money multipliers or anything else you have written.

      We are not talking past each other. More precisely, I just choose not to be distracted any longer by these peripheral and secondary points - I have spent too much time working through all of these (have you read my 60+ posts on FRB and 70+ posts on free banking?).

      My conclusion is simple: the problem is the monopoly, nothing else.

      Delete
    14. "BTW, do you have to be of a certain ethnicity to be FED chairperson?"

      Yes. Jewish. You have to be Jewish. Bonus points if you are a rabid Zionist and Israeli citizen:

      http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/01/stanley-fischer-a-dual-u-s-israeli-citizen-and-pro-israel-activist-as-vice-chair-of-the-fed/

      Delete
  2. "I'm sorry, is this a 5 minute argument or the full half hour?":

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c

    Enjoy!

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  3. See Michael Rozeff's critique of Block's post here:

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/fractional-reserve-banking-not-illicit/

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great article!! And "Great" comments from everyone!!

    But ultimately is it not fraud?

    Other than people who read pieces like these.

    Who understands,(general public)and would tolerate a banking system like we have today.if they really understood the contracts
    implications, and inflationary effects?

    Why did Henry Ford say:

    "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning". ........................................Henry Ford


    What is the probability that Ferrari,and my neighbor going to give them selves a haircut?

    Owyhee Cowboy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “But ultimately is it not fraud?”

      I have been down this road too many times, so I will get to the punchline: for each of BofA, Chase, and Citibank, show me five advertisements (because you *will not* find this in the contract, so I won’t bother with this rather important detail) where the bank states that they are holding your money as a bailment – or words to this effect. Then we can begin a discussion about fraud. There is more fraud in advertisements for woman’s makeup or men’s testosterone treatments.

      “Who understands, (general public) and would tolerate a banking system like we have today if they really understood the contract’s implications, and inflationary effects?”

      Oh, if they only understood *my* truth….

      Yes, who today would choose to pay a fee for storage and receive no interest income and not receive many other free or low cost services as opposed to not pay for storage and not receive interest income and receive many other free or low cost services? I suspect many people – knowing that they will rarely need 100% access to 100% of their money 100% of the time – would swap this unneeded access and unnecessary certainty for the small risk that there might be an occasional delay. In fact, I suspect this is why the practice of FRB gained traction in the first place.

      As to inflationary effects – in any free market, inflationary effects are unavoidable. In any government regulated market, inflationary effects are unavoidable. Do you offer a third method of regulation – neither regulated by the market nor regulated by the government – that will avoid inflationary effects?

      Regarding Henry Ford, I agree with him – but the issue not understood is the monopoly, not the FRB. Eliminate the monopoly, the government protection and enforcement. Leave banking to contracts and markets. This is sufficient.

      Delete
    2. Woops….should read:

      “Yes, who today would choose to pay a fee for storage and receive no interest income and not receive many other free or low cost services as opposed to not pay for storage and receive interest income and receive many other free or low cost services?”

      Delete
  5. Great response! .......Valid on all parts.

    I am reminded though of a friend who tried to sale me a dead horse .
    He said:

    " Plumb gentle,no buck,and easy keeper"

    You will be receiving new 2112 remastered cd for prize for efforts!!


    Thanks ,Owyhee Cowboy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keep the CD, get them to tour one more time!

      Delete
  6. BM is right again, as usual.

    Even Rothbard taught that it is the monopoly protection racket that allows the banks to "get out of hand." Without this monopoly protection racket the banks would be more circumspect and would be liable to the vagaries of the market. In other words they would compete.

    ReplyDelete
  7. OK, I went through many of your free banking posts, BM, admittedly not all 70 or so, however. I have discovered the reason for our impasse.

    "Regarding money and banking: I don’t care about inflation, I don’t care about gold, I don’t care about shadow banks, I don’t care about fractional reserves, I don’t care about business cycles; these are all issues for entrepreneurs in the free market to deal with. It’s called life. Competition, pricing, and profit and loss will send the necessary signals and separate the profitable wheat from the loss-making chaff."

    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/selgin-and-salerno-on-free-banking.html?m=0

    That is a concise list of the things that worry me about banking. The above would be a fairly good disclaimer for people reading your posts. Knowing this they wouldn't bother you with stuff you have written about before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt

      I am thinking to write a short compilation of a subset of my posts - highlighting the main ones that focus on my main points.

      As to this specific quote... do you worry as much about which grade of steel a manufacturer uses to build a bridge, or the quality of the wing on the airplane you fly? Do you not think competition has *something* to do with ensuring the level of quality that people are willing to pay for?

      Or is it government regulation that ensures quality? As, ultimately, it is here where the two of us will disagree regarding the quote.

      Delete
    2. I think I will have to change my avatar. It was supposed to be a joke but we have been odds since I put it up there. The avatar triggers me too.

      My concern about money and banking relates more to people reaching a revolutionary (as in communist or statist) fervor because of it. If steel quality could cause the same problems that would likely concern me too.

      Delete
    3. It seems to me the more important the commodity (and money / credit is one side of every transaction in a modern division-of-labor economy) the more we should fear solutions from the top - pre-conceived notions of what is "good" vs. what is "bad." When such central planning is taken, it never ends well.

      After air, water is the most important resource to sustain human life; God blessed the world with water covering 75% of it. Yet water is a constant catastrophe - too much of it in some places, never enough in others.

      Why? It is centrally planned, owned and operated by "municipalities and the like. A resource in infinite supply, and Southern California - bordering the largest body of water on earth - will soon die of thirst.

      Markets work; overriding markets does not work. Simple and dogmatic!

      Delete
  8. The fruits of FRB :

    http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.rs/2016/06/please-dont-pop-my-bubble.html

    Owyhee Cowboy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cowboy, you are confused. It is a confusion common to many. I have written about it approximately a million times.

      The author mentions fractional reserve banking or FRB exactly zero times in the subject article. He mentions central banking several times.

      The "fruits" that concern you are those of the monopoly. End the monopoly. End government enabled central banking. End the Fed.

      Delete