Monday, September 4, 2017
Friday, May 27, 2016
That clueless troll and scoundrel, “Lord Keynes” is ranting again about Fractional Reserve Banking. He writes:
"The Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists are bizarre, utopian free market cultists (who, strangely, also have a decidedly anti-free market bias in their mistaken opposition to fractional reserve banking)".
There is nothing bizarre or anti-free market about Rothbardian analysis of fractional reserve banking. A dollar is a specific coin made out of a specific amount of fine silver. A warehouse receipt for a specific coin is not a dollar. Nor is a bearer note for any dollar coin. Now, a bank could theoretically lend out 60% of its actual dollar holdings while still issuing bearer notes for dollar coins, but those private notes would have to explain ON THEIR FACE that the note is a fractional reserve note and of what variety. I suspect that such notes would be heavily discounted if accepted at all.
“Lord Keynes” will argue that no one requires such warnings on the face of the notes because EVERYONE understands what those notes are. I think that’s plain nuts. In any event, the warnings would then be merely redundant and harmless, right? Each note issuing firm could have classes of notes (like classes of stock) representing 100% reserves or various fractional reserve amounts to which the notes would be associated. People who accept the notes will have been warned so they cannot complaint of fraud and prices would be stated in terms of a particular class of a particular brand of notes. Under historic fractional reserve banking, paying $100 in silver dollars is described as the same price as paying with $100 in fractional reserve notes. That is a source of false and unsustainable pricing. My idea of classes of notes avoids such fraudulent pricing too.
There. I have now solved the problem of fractional reserve banking.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
The American statist religion seems to have two branches, both of which coalesced in the mad “progressive” Wilsonian rush into WWI: America as a “Christian” nation with a duty to “save” the world with “democracy”. Read 8 pages of “The War for Righteousness” by Richard Gamble. The declaration of war was passed on Good Friday, 1917 and that was not a coincidence.
Since then, the Democrat “progressives” have dumped the “God” part of the religion, while the Neocon "progressives" have adopted a strange “dispensationalist” version where “Christians” and the USA have a duty to help Israel steal more land and induce WWIII and the “rapture”. (I have had the recent unfortunate experience of debating an entire army of Mark Levin types who “like” genocide of the Palestinians). The Neocons actually seem to believe that Obama is a liberal peacenik who simpathizes with radical Islam. They think Libertarians do too, while the left “progressives” think Libertarians hate everyone (and left "progressives" sure HATE us). Both sides seem to think the US government has magical powers to cure things, but they disagree about what those magic powers are and to whom and how they should be applied. Both sides worship FDR as their God. The Democrats believe the Holy Magic of the U.S. government saved the economy from the Great Depression and it must do so again and again. The Republicans believe the Holy Magic of the U.S. government saved the world from the Nazis and rebuilt Germany and Japan. The fact that the Germans and Japanese just went back to being Germans and Japanese does not seem to impact the story line. Both sides believe a significant part of the other side's story. As such, the U.S. government has magical powers to transform foreign countries through the application of Keynesian economics and/or war for democracy. The fact that democracy in a multi-cultural environment generally leads to ethnic strife including genocide matters not at all. The concept that there might be something wrong with their vision does not compute. Each side insists that folks who disagree are evil and/or stupid.
Both sides are still gung-ho about imposing their religion upon everyone else and the rest of the world. When their endeavors blow up in their faces, it’s because the opposing “progressive” side (left or Neocon) just didn’t do it right.
I suspect this is the real reason why we have such trouble even defining basic terms with the statists. This would also explain the instantaneous success of Keynesianism. Even more troubling is the realization that with this statist religion being fundamental to the statist belief system, the statist is not going to be in the mood to hear that his or her life's work has been for naught. And they are really not going to be in the mood to hear that they and their belief systems are basically the worst problems facing mankind. Unfortunately, both Libertarianism and Austrian School analysis are based upon that grim conclusion.
Saturday, August 30, 2014
But if we define the term “libertarian moment” more modestly, a different conclusion emerges. No, we have not reached a point at which anything like a majority of Americans have embraced our ideas. But we have reached a point at which even mainstream sources, which in the pre-Internet age could get away with ignoring us altogether, are forced to acknowledge us, if only for purposes of dismissal and ridicule.
Hey Lew Rockwell: They dismiss and ridicule us because they cannot begin to refute us and they are afraid to even allow our analysis into their brains. No non-libertarian has any understanding of the non-aggression principle and no non-Austrian understands a) violent intervention vs. voluntary exchange; b) economic calculation vs mis-calculation; and/or how violent intervention results in mis-calculation.
They are so cowardly that they will not allow the public to hear of the theory that the Great Depression was just a hangover of statist monetary policies from World War I. Heck, the statists cannot even admit to themselves that they promote and engage in violence much less that it accounts for about 99.9% of their “policy” proposals.
We need to get right in their face and challenge them on their cowardice.