In FRB, two people own 100% of something.
It helps to have a definition; now I know Walter’s.
That’s incompatible with private property rights, one of the basic foundations of libertarianism.
Given Walter’s definition, I agree.
But his definition gives me pause. Why is there so much debate, angst, wailing and gnashing of teeth over a topic that is non-existent? Under this definition we do not live under an FRB banking system.
I can accept that there might have been a time that such was a standard practice; however this is not the practice today. I can accept that there might somewhere be an institution that promises one thing but delivers another – but this isn’t an FRB thing, it is a breach of contract thing.
Two people do not each own 100% of something in today’s banking world. Hand your money to the bank teller and the money is now an asset of the bank. The bank owns it – 100%. You are the creditor; the bank owes you 100%. But you and the bank don’t each own 100%.
So I really don’t get it: why, for a practice that is not a practice, is so much emotion spent?
Interview, shows common man is ignorant of frb
Common man is ignorant of many things. Unless you can point to several examples by banks offering one thing but delivering another (via advertising, contracts, whatever), this is not really relevant other than to point out the sad state of public education.