It's not fair that only the banks are able to increase the money supply

The banking system relies on the Government to prevent insolvency.

Bank credit is valuable, to people, only because it is recognised by the Government and can then be used for tax payments. Without the Government people would not value either bank deposits or cash. The banks are existing and have not collapsed only because of the Government, and especially because of deposit insurance. Without the Government they would not be solvent.

Banks are not subject to the pressures and rigours of the free market

Because of the nature of fiat currencies and deposit insurance, banks are not prevented from (there is no disincentive against) having more deposits than there are reserves, as would otherwise be the case in a free market. Banks are not held to the natural disciplines of the market, they are not able to fail, they do not provide a service like a normal company. We get free banking so that the bank can loan the money without having to borrow it from another bank, they would have no interest in doing this (for free) without deposit insurance. Receiving deposits enables them to increase the money supply, which subsidies bank accounts, only because of their ability to increase the money supply are banks likely and willing to do this, it is an unnecessary compensation that we (citizens) receive. If people instead paid for their banking at banks with full reserves, this would not happen. But even if people use these banks, they, the banks, should not (exploit the insurance and) repeatedly loan the money out anyway. When banks loan money it has not come from someone willing to be without the money for a period of time, it has come from bank deposits, so in that sense, it has not really been loaned. Money received (for repayment) from a bank is not a loan because no one has ceased to have use of the money. A loan is where the ownership of an object has switched for a period of time, but with a bank no one owned the money to begin with.

If, on the other hand, we consider the bank to have true ownership of reserves then the depositor has nothing more than bank credit and no claim on the deposited funds. The reserves of a bank are not truly owned by the bank, they are part of the State and not part of the money supply; the quantity of reserves does not alter prices. When a bank 'loans' money the money for the loan comes from the reserves which are not part of the economy and it is for this reason that the money supply (and the price of goods and services) increases when a loan of this type (by an insured bank) is made. Banks are not part of the free economy because reserves held in the bank do not influence prices, the degree of insolvency is irrelevant.

Proportional representation is a stronger form of Democracy

Proportional representation is a more powerful system of electing leaders than to have FPtP. It is more powerful because it makes it more difficult for malign politicians to thrive, because we are able to choose better parties, even if we identify broadly with their position. It places pressure on each party to do well, not only to beat the other side.

To hold an election is a violation of the natural rights of others since a derived authority is assumed

We know from truth that Governments are not wanted and yet people assume, we must deduce, that they are a valid entity and not (inherently) aggressive. When elections are held it on this false assumption that the premise rests. Elections are aggressive and Governments are not wanted so there is no valid justification for them to take place, and to exist. We have a natural right to be free of elections and free from tyranny. Elections are a violation of our natural rights and civil liberties.

There is never a reason to impose punishments for failure to repay debt and then for that reason debt does not exist

There are strong arguments to say that in the case, specifically, of monetary debts, there is no justification in imposing punishments for failure to repay: http://bit.ly/g0fJCM

In the case of general debt, the arguments are perhaps less strong but equally valid.

We know that there is no (or at least very little) incentive to repay a debt if there are no punishments associated with a failure to repay, except perhaps to maintain our good standing in the community. For debts to exist, in a legal sense we must have the possibility (risk) of some form of punishment being imposed upon us. But for the use of force to be valid, it must be defensive and it is difficult to see how failure to repay (inaction) can correctly be characterised as an aggressive act. Even if we (as the debtor) oppose efforts made by the creditor to reclaim the loaned object (in the case of non-monetary debts) we might, in some sense still be being defensive, if the ownership of the object is in dispute in our mind.

If we fail, or refuse to return an object once it has been loaned this is not equivalent to saying that the object has been stolen. We have not stolen something if we fail, or refuse to give it back once it has been loaned to us.

Unless bank credit is worse than cash then it is money

When banks issue deposit accounts they are increasing the money supply and printing money. Banks do print money when they extend deposits because they are guaranteed by the Government. If 'money' is assumed to be only cash then of course banks do not print money, but this is not the true definition. Banks print money because the word 'money' means more than simply cash, it generally means the most widely circulating medium of exchange, by most definitions. Because the definition of money is more broad than is assumed, commonly, when people say that banks do not print money they are stating a falsehood if they mean only that they do not print cash. The most commonly circulating medium of exchange is (made up of) a combination of bank deposits plus cash outside the banking system. To establish that banks do not print money, we must show how bank credit is inferior to legal tender cash. If bank credit is not worse than cash then it is money.

Governments do not have a right to exist and there is no reason for them to be recognised

Without hierarchies no crimes can exist because each crime assumes an unequal claim on natural rights. We have a right to be free of aggression. We have a right to be free of Government.

Proportional representation enables people to vote for whoever they like

The first past the post (FPtP) system of voting means that we have fewer political parties than we otherwise would have, and this in turn prevents the existence of coalition Governments. If we assume that the greater the proliferation of small parties, the less like 'Government' the Government becomes (due to their being a coalition, always) then FPtP prevents the erosion of, and protects the stability of the State.

Banks can print money only because of deposit insurance and the existence of Government taxation

A combination of taxation and deposit insurance means that banks print money. The existence of taxation means that Governments are able to dictate which assets have artificial value, by fiat. Deposit insurance means that bank deposits also have (are given) value, by extension, from the same source as the value of fiat currencies, which is taxation.

The banks don't care who they lend to because they are insolvent

Immediately borrowing the money you have just deposited (in a bank) results in an equivalent amount of money remaining outside the banking system and there are now new deposits. The money supply has gone up because the deposits are guaranteed. Creating debt, such as a mortgage, increases the money supply. You can put the money you have just borrowed back into the bank and your account will be twice what it was before, but you will now have some debt as well, and the bank is ready to lend again having received new cash. This can continue for as long as the bank is willing to lend, and if the bank charges less in interest than it is possible to make on an investment, perhaps in Treasuries, this is a source of free income. Once the bank is insolvent there is no reason not to continue to lend to people who will not be able to pay the money back.

Lending deposits should not be allowed for banks with deposit insurance

The Government does not need to borrow money because it can print it, it is because citizens cannot print their own money (unlike the Government) that they must borrow it if they want to get on the housing ladder.

For most people, the only way to get equity in a house is to borrow money from the banks (only people who borrow can get a house) because they are not able to print money of their own. The choice has become between having a mortgage or not having a house. It is difficult to have a house without having a mortgage, houses are for people who don't mind debt. It doesn't make sense for the Government to allow banks to increase the money supply, which removes the natural punishment for profligacy provided by the market, as it hurts the citizens. Reserves would not be removed from the money supply (they would count towards prices) if deposit insurance did not exist. Normally customers would lose out if their bank did not keep their money safe but with deposit insurance the banks and their customers are protected. Deposit insurance protects people who use a bank that lends deposits, which (the lending) is a bad thing only as a result of deposit insurance. Without deposit insurance banks and anyone else could lend money with no harm to third parties, the insurance Socialises lending. Deposit insurance means that when a bank makes a loan this increases the money supply because the deposits are protected, without it, lending would not increase the money supply. Banks cause inflation only because of deposit insurance.

In an ideal world banks would not lend money that has been deposited with them for safekeeping. They (the banks) should not be allowed to lend deposits if they seek also to have deposit insurance.

Money is no more than whatever the Government thinks that it is

There is no definition of money which is not satisfied by bank credit, with the existence of deposit insurance.

The only reason there is not a run on the banks is due to the insurance. Without the insurance there would be a run on the banks.

We don't need deposit insurance (to maintain the stability of the banks) all that is required is for the Government to recognise bank deposits, just as they do with cash. If the laws to do with legal tender are extended to include bank deposits, deposit insurance can be removed without consequence. Removing deposit insurance would make no difference in those circumstances. If the Government does not (seek to) recognise bank deposits as money then it makes no sense to provide deposit insurance. Deposit insurance means that banks can print money, for money is nothing more than what is recognised by the Government, it is only what the Government thinks that it is.

Everything is money unless it is not suitable to the Government

Everything is money until it has been rejected by the Government.

The Government assumes that bank deposits are as good as cash and so it provides deposit insurance. Deposit insurance results from the belief held by the Government that bank credit is as good as cash. The Government (apparently) doesn't have a problem with banks increasing the money supply, otherwise it would not provide deposit insurance. Deposit insurance means that the banks can increase the money supply. The Government doesn't care that banks are allowed to inflate the currency, it considers deposit insurance to be more important. We can have either a stable money supply or deposit insurance, not both.

With deposit insurance there is no disincentive against inflationary lending. Without deposit insurance fractional reserve banking (FRB) would be difficult, the insurance makes it much easier.

It's easy for the banks to operate in the way that they do because of deposit insurance, the insurance makes it easy for them.

If taxation exists, we must assume that everything is money until it has been rejected by the Government, we do not know what they will take, and they still take (have not rejected yet) bank deposits. Bank credit is (still) money (of interest to the Government, the holders not being punished) until the Government say otherwise and withdraw the guarantee of deposits. Until the Government guarantee is revoked, bank deposits will remain no less valuable than cash.

In a fiat economy money is whatever is not rejected by the Government, for taxes, and so bank deposits (and lots of other things) are money until they have been rejected. It is the opinion of the Government which affects the value of bank deposits, not that of individuals, and as a result of deposit insurance we can say that deposits are (a form of) money.

The crimes of the State are obscured by the fact that voting is popular

Voting makes it easier for the State to be violent because it looks popular

Normally violence is wrong but because we vote, and the Government have a majority, it seems like the violence is acceptable to people. Voting makes the (a) Government seem normal. Governments are not normal.

When we vote for politicians we are giving them our approval to continue their actions. To vote is to collaborate, certainly it is no less than a negotiation with them. Voting is to recognise and give respect to those who seek to be aggressive and violent to other people, as away of life. Instead, it would be better to isolate and exclude such individuals so that they will perhaps behave better. It is a form of disobedience to be inactive in this way, by not voting. Voting allows politicians to feel included and accepted in civilised Society, it normalises the violence and makes it (seemingly) more typical. Having a Government is unnatural and unhealthy. The Government want us to vote so (for the reason that) it seems like they are normal. Not voting will make them look even more (obviously) violent and awful since the legitimacy will be lessened. Voting is evil not because it legitimises the harmful actions of the State (it doesn't) but because it makes it easier to get away with the crime, due to the concealment.

In a free Society criminals fear everyone not only the State

Anarchism provides (natural) security from the crimes of strangers which is removed by the State. The State makes life more dangerous (for lawful people) because it is they (the State) who will deal with the actions of a criminal, not the victim, and criminals have less to fear as a consequence. The stigma associated with crime is partially removed by the Government and there is less reason to fear retribution from those who we have offended since it is illegal for them to take (direct) action against us. In a free Society everyone is potentially a lawmaker, not only the Government and we must, in part, fear everyone, not only the State.

Unless the Government plans to default on its debt it might as well just print money rather than borrow

There is no strong reason against monetising the national debt or even defaulting on it.

The National Debt is money owed by the Government to any private agency within or outside the country, domestic or international. This can be money owed to private investors, pension funds, insurance companies, foreign countries and so on. There are generally very few restrictions placed against people owning Government debt and it is usually held in the form of Treasuries (for longer-dated liabilities) or bills and notes for more short-term debt.

People, especially politicians, worry about the perceived reliability of the debt, often taking it by extension to be a statement on the fiscal heath of the country (or economy) as a whole. But in reality, many of the biggest economies have borrowed to such a great extent that to repay the debt in the expected fashion - to raise repayments from taxpayers - would now be impossible. The debt is so great that only by means of either continued borrowing or actually printing money would the outstanding debt ever be paid back. In a fiat economy both of these options (printing and continued borrowing) are continually available to a Government that has borrowed heavily, since there is no physical impediment against increasing the supply of money.

If the debt has become such a perceived problem for the Government that heavy tax increases are being considered, it is possible that the Government could instead default on the debt. For an ordinary citizen, the disincentive against doing this is that we would find it more difficult to borrow again in the future; our credit rating would have been affected. For Governments this is not a problem since they, effectively, have access to the printing press which means they can always get hold of money when they need it. The most significant argument against defaulting on the debt would be the moral hazard of defrauding holders of Treasuries who are relying on the assets to be valuable, perhaps for their retirement, which would result. But weighed against this is the fact that taxes are being collected from poor people all the time, including pensioners, so in many ways a default of the Government debt can be seen in this way as a progressive measure. Also, people who have lost out in their savings, as a result of a default in the Government debt might be compensated with the issuance of some new base currency, thereby partially monetising the debt. There is no persuasive reason to keep the debt lingering around. The economic damage caused by Government borrowing (inflation, an increase in prices) is no worse than that resulting when the Government prints money outright and so there is no real reason to be fearful of replacing the Government debt in the economy with another form of currency such as physical notes and coins.

It is only if there is a genuine risk of default that there is a difference between Government debt and actual base currency, and since we can assume that the Government never intends to default on the debt it might as well just issue new currency rather than debt.

There is no reason to prefer cash is there is deposit insurance for the banks

Bank credit is taxpayer credit; there is no difference between being owed money by the bank and by the Government, if there is deposit insurance.

If the (licensed) bank owes you money, then the Government owes you money. Banks might not be able to 'print money' in the conventional sense, but the Government can. A bank is (part of) the Government if it can cause inflation, enabling people to pay their taxes more easily. Cash is not more valuable than bank credit if deposit insurance exists.

Deposit insurance is required because banks do not retain customer funds

If the banks didn't steal our money there would be no need for the inflation. The inflation (deposit insurance) is because of the theft. There would be no need for deposit insurance if banks maintained full reserves.

If a bank lends money it will be increasing the money supply

The banks increase the money supply when they loan deposits. An organisation with a banking license 'should' refrain from lending out deposits given that, by doing so they will cause inflation.

The problem with the banks is that they are doing fractional reserve banking. This means that they can increase the money supply, it would be better if they held all deposits in reserve so that the taxpayer is not required to protect their customers. Given that we are not able to hold them to account by withdrawing our funds because of deposit insurance, they should refrain from lending out deposits, otherwise they are increasing the money supply.

The banks are not very forthcoming about explaining how banking works

Banks are able to increase the money supply and yet there is no Democratic accountability, unlike with the Government.

The existence of deposit insurance means that depositors don't care whether or not the bank is making risky loans, which enables the money to leave the banks, only to be recycled again as deposits. If there is deposit insurance there is nothing to prevent profligate banks from taking (and thereby creating) almost unlimited deposits. Then an account at a bank with a good reserve ratio is worth the same as one at a bank with only very few reserves.

Deposit insurance makes the reserve ratio irrelevant for customers and so there is little disincentive against banks lending recklessly, the owners, shareholders, management and employees are still able to collect earnings (from interest payments) even if the reserve ratio falls and the bank falls into a version of insolvency. It is not surprising then that the banks do not explain their system better, printing money is not something most people would welcome.

Bank deposits have value only because the Government will accept them

We are forced to value cash and we are forced to value bank deposits.

There is no reason why a bank deposit would be worth less than cash. It's not true that cash is worth any more than bank deposits.

Like Treasuries, bank deposits are a form of money. In a fiat economy, 'money' is whatever the Government directs it to be, and so it is possible that banks can print money, in that sense. If the liabilities of banks are guaranteed then they will be able to print money because (fiat) money is nothing other than Government liabilities. If banks cannot print money then neither can the Government. So, we might very well say that there is no such thing as money, since the concept (apparently) seems to rely on being able to create wealth from nothing, with money being the thing that results from this magic. And since no one is magic, there is no such thing as money.

Banks are able to print tax tokens, due to their being protected by deposit insurance. Something cannot be money unless it has a purpose like a computer, or a television, or food, from whence it derives its value. Fiat money is not a true store of value, and thus it is not money.

No one can print money, nothing of value can be printed out of thin air and so not even the Government is able to do this.

The presence of deposit insurance means banks can increase the money supply because, of course, they can increase their own liabilities. Cash is nothing more than something given value, by instruction, by the State, so if banks have deposit insurance they too are able to print something (of value) equivalent in value to normal cash.

Having deposit insurance means that banks cannot go bust, in the conventional sense. Their liabilities will always have value because (or until it ceases to be that case that) the Government retains the ability to print money out of thin air.

Not everyone realises that the banks have the ability to increase the money supply

If people don't realise that banks inflate the money supply then banks have duty to inform people of the realities, otherwise it is theft.

Fractional reserve banking is a violation of property rights, only because people don't realise their money is not kept in a vault at the bank. A fraud like this is a type of theft because the customer is not being given what they expect, without the deception there is no crime because we get what we expect. It might be forgivable if the banks do not consider that their customers are not (might not be) aware of the reality, if we are aware of the trick (and that the customer might not know about what is going on) then we have stolen from the customer, and are guilty. We, as bankers have no responsibility towards the customer (we are free to assume they know what is going on) but if we suspect that they might be assuming a different model of banking then we do have a duty to properly inform them of the truth, failure to do so is a negligence on our part. It's not fair to sell someone something they believe to be something else, it is (becomes) a form of theft and exploitation when we discover that they are making different assumptions about how the system works, or that in fact they are ignorant of the existence of a banking system to begin with, assuming it only to be a warehouse vault.

A commodity is not money if it does not alter prices

Money is something that alters prices.

When a bank makes a loan it puts more money in circulation, this effectively creates money because a reduced reserve ratio does not alter the quantity of bank deposits and money held in reserve doesn't alter prices.

Fractional reserve banking is a form of theft because when the money is deposited, the cash is spent into the economy (perhaps to purchase a mortgage) not kept in a vault, and instead the customer is given bank receipts (credit) instead of a warehouse account.

Cash is not money if it is not 'active' in the economy. If cash is held by banks, in their vaults, is does not alter prices and so, for that reason, it is not money in the truest sense. A bank with full reserves alters prices to the same extent as one with no reserves, hence cash cannot be said to be money in and of itself, it can only be money if it is outside the banks. It is not money in all cases. Cash might be money if it is altering prices.

The problems with the banking sector derive from deposit insurance

The problems with the banking sector, such as inflation and price uncertainties are due to deposit insurance. Without deposit insurance there would be a banking crash, but with deposit insurance there is no reason to prefer cash over the liabilities of an (otherwise) unsound bank.

The money spent by Government is not spent well

The Government spends the money collected by taxation on projects and services which have no value, hence wasting and destroying resources. The money is spent on vanity projects, needless and ornamental activities which might make people (those that are responsible) feel better about the theft but achieve nothing worthwhile.

The Government is not a charity because it uses violence to achieve its ends

There is no place for charity in Government, the two should be divorced entirely.

The Government is not responsible for forcing us to do our own charity work and it has no right to take the credit for anything that is achieved using coercion. Stealing money makes it easier for us to do charitable work but the money taken cannot be used by the original owner to carry out what they want to get done, it reduces the charity that can be done by individuals. People feel good about helping others, it gives them pride and so when the Government (almost) monopolises charity it blocks this avenue to well-being, for the citizens. Government provision of healthcare, for example, prevents anyone from individually providing this service because it is already taken care of. Governments monopolise charity since there is no reason why a helpful person would not join the public sector, they can help people (which is what they originally wanted) and get paid for it. In this way, the Government 'crowds out' private charities to the detriment of everyone concerned, both the recipients of the care and those participating, by effectively paying off and buying those who are interested in helping others. It enables people who would like to help others be lazy and take a salary, rather than be committed to the charity.

The Government is not being charitable if it requires the use of violence, in the collection of taxes, to achieve its aims. The difference between Government and charity is the monopolisation (and use of) of force.