There is no need for deposit insurance

Deposit insurance enables banks to lend repeatedly and cause inflation, Fractional-reserve banking is a result of this insurance. There would be no need for deposit insurance if the banks held sufficient reserves, it is required only because of this problem. Without Fractional-reserve banking there would be no requirement for deposit insurance.

A genuine type of debt is when an object is loaned and later returned. The banking system creates false debts when it 'loans' money to customers, no one is deprived of the money, the cost is collective inflation only.

If the Government is helpful they would not lend inflationary money to citizens, it would be debt-free. It doesn't help the citizen to be forced to pay back the interest. It is not the case that new loans of this type do not affect the money supply, if we have more money to spend prices will then be higher. The money supply increases when a bank makes a loan because the money is put into the economy when previously it was bank reserves, which do not influence prices. It (the money supply) does not reduce when a deposit is then made because, although the money again becomes reserves, there are now some new bank deposits which replace the circulating currency. Bank reserves do not influence prices, whereas deposits do.

The reserve ratio of a bank has no bearing on general prices, it doesn't matter if a bank has fully-funded reserves or if it is entirely empty, the value of the deposits is unaltered. The value of bank deposits is unaffected by the reserve ratio, because of deposit insurance which removes the incentive for a bank to keep a high level of reserves. Deposit insurance means that there is nothing to prevent banks from repeatedly lending deposits received.

There is no reason to have elections

We have a right to be free of elections, where they presume that the law is derived from the outcome. It would be better if the authorities didn't bother to arrange them.

When we vote we are choosing the least bad option available

Not even an election is sufficient to justify tyranny.

Elections are the mechanism by which tyrants receive permission from the populace to be aggressive.

Democracy has no legitimacy as we have no right to control other people

The concept of Democracy is based upon a falsehood. We have no right to claim the property of others, no matter how numerous and strong we are. It is much better simply to let other people do what they want to do, mostly they will not do harm to us, or others.

There is no Government and there is only people

It is a delusion to think that we have a right to take money (the labour) from other people, even if we are (or consider ourselves to be) the Government.

There is nothing wrong with deposit insurance and bailing out the banks

There is little rhetorical protection against inflationary banking and bailouts and it is not aggressive to print money to save depositors from losing their money.

It is difficult to protect oneself from the inflationary banking system. Even if the Government doesn't provide deposit insurance initially, a priori, they might still attempt to monetise the debt in the event of a bank run at uninsured banks. Using reliable, well-reserved banks is no protection because other banks may be bailed out by the Government. A fiat currency makes it very likely that banks (anyone) will be able to inflate the money supply, not only the Government because of the subsidies which seemingly inevitably follow insolvencies. There is not much that can be done to prevent against this because it is not under a specific delusion that people act in this way, they (the authorities) know what they are doing, it is not like a miscarriage of justice the only people to be placed under arrest are those who refuse to pay taxes to provide the bailouts. Printing money to monetise the debt is not, in itself, aggressive, it is only because fiat currencies are a protected medium that the theft and poverty arises.

The Government should make it clear to people that the banks can increase the money supply

The Government wants to protect depositors from their decisions. As a result of this, the money supply will increase as bank deposits increase. Although the protective impulse is perhaps laudable the result is that the banks are able to inflate the money supply. In Communism it is illegal to be unemployed and as a result everyone starves to death, a similar result follows from deposit insurance. A bigger problem results from the deposit insurance than was presented by the risk of a bank failing. It is not the fault of ordinary taxpayers if some banks have loaned repeatedly and have insufficient reserves. To impose deposit insurance is not a defensive use of force and so it is not the concern of Government, or anyone. There is no reason to impose deposit insurance on innocent associates, we are not responsible for the actions of banks we are not involved with. Neither banks, nor their customers should be protected from the consequences of their actions by force. The Government should not pretend to provide deposit insurance if it does not intend to save the banks, equally if it does intend to save the banks, by monetising the deposits, as there is no other way, then it should be clear to everyone that the banks can inflate the currency.

Bailouts are normal if Fractional-reserve banking is legalised

If the deposit insurance is to be maintained and not reneged upon then the Government has no choice but to bail out the banks. Neither is it the fault of the banks, they are merely exploiting their ability to lend deposits which would otherwise be held in the vaults. Instability and bailouts are a natural consequence of endorsing this system of banking. Bailouts are a normal part of (State-endorsed) Fractional-reserve banking. There is no reason to be angry at the banks for a normal consequence of the (legalised) banking system.

There is no reason for people to prefer cash if banks and their deposits are guaranteed

The debt created by the banks and the Government cannot be repaid in the conventional sense otherwise it would not cause (have caused) inflation.

The only way the banks and the Government will be able to repay their debts is by printing money, assuming repayment is not delayed for a longer time. The debt cannot be repaid in the conventional sense, by those to whom it has been loaned, we know this because otherwise the money would not have been loaned, firstly. The debt cannot be repaid unless it is monetised, and so, in that sense, it is not really debt.

If cash is much better than bank credit it would make sense for there to be (to have been) a bank run.

Inflation results from a reduced value in the currency, which can only mean that something else is present (and has been added) which has the same function as the original currency. If bank credit does not serve the same function as paper money, it would not cause inflation. Cash has no function above that of bank credit, people like bank credit just as much, perhaps because they are not aware of the distinction. If bank credit is not a form of money, or something like it, it makes no sense that there is no bank run. If cash is much better than bank credit there would be a bank run. The absence of a bank run suggests that bank credit has 'special' value.

Banks are able to inflate the money supply

Because of the way the banking system is arranged, banks are able to inflate the money supply. The money supply is not subject to the constraint of the central bank and Government alone, it can be altered by banks.

The Government is part of the banking industry even if it is not aware of the fact

The banks (and the Government) force citizens to pay deposit insurance and make good on their deposits, otherwise they will be thrown into prison, as with taxes. The Government are the banks. Politicians are politicians alone (and not bankers) if they do not enforce deposit insurance, until that point they are nothing more than an extension of the banking industry.

The boom and growth has been caused by bank credit creation

Bank licensing and deposit insurance has ruined the economy and the currency by the creation of an artificial boom caused by (bank) credit creation. The 'boom' was not (in the main) caused by a growth in the economy, it is mainly credit creation.

If bank deposits are guaranteed it doesn't make a difference to people how solvent the banks are

People don't care about the solvency, or otherwise, of the banks if the bank is licensed and has a Government guarantee.

Given the choice between having cash and holding bank deposits with Government deposit insurance, from licensed banks, people are indifferent. People don't care about any of the perceived advantages of cash, if they (such advantages) exist. If the Government has provided a guarantee this is enough and customers are not concerned as to the solvency of the banking system, and there is no reason for them to be concerned.

The existence of deposit insurance means that each unit of cash is worth less

If the Government is to give the banks deposit insurance, from the taxpayer, this will cause inflation because if the deposits are good for the payment of taxes then they will have value from the same source as the rest of the money supply. It is easier for people to pay their taxes, with the inflation and so the tax rates (in absolute quantities) go up and the old money is worth less than it was. It's easier for the Government to charge more as more people are able to pay, employers are able to pay higher wages and the old money buys less. The price of goods and services can be altered (increased) with the introduction of deposit insurance, not only the supply of base money, to get deflation we can remove this guarantee and watch the banks collapse.

First Past the Post excludes minority parties

Minority parties are excluded if only one party is able to emerge as the winner under FPtP.

It's not Democracy if some votes count more than others, as with First Past the Post. Democracy requires proportionality which we don't have because there is only one winner in each Parliamentary seat. It would be better to take measures to encourage proportionality, otherwise it is difficult for minority parties and only mainstream parties can do well.

Repeated lending of base money increases the money supply because of deposit insurance

Debt would not be subsidised in a free market and it is because of deposit insurance that we see such high levels of debt in the economy.

Because of Fractional-reserve banking (FRB) we have a choice between selling our labour and getting into debt. We are artificially incentivised (subsidised) to get into debt. The levels of debt that we see in the economy are not the result of a free market, they result from deposit insurance.

Countries are always stupid and always wrong even if they are popular

Under Democratic systems, the majority has the right to be aggressive to the rest. If Democratic systems do not have this right, they do not form a Government and they are not malign, then, to take a vote without this aggressive right is nothing more than an opinion poll. Opinion polls are not violent, just because people agree with the ability of the Government to be aggressive doesn't make it justified.

It is not possible for anything to be better than free trade

Only behaviours which are mutually agreeable to all parties are valid, where all agents have chosen to take part and have not been coerced into the arrangement. If a political action (involving more than one person) is not criminal it must have been mutually chosen by everyone, as with free trade. There is nothing better than free trade, when it comes to engagement with other people.

What happens when you get rid of Parliamentary constituencies

Part of the problem with Westminster politics is that all of the parties must focus their efforts on winning constituency seats. This means that, rather than best serve the electorate, instead their motives are better directed at beating the other main party. Politics would be more broad, and more Democratic if we removed the restriction of constituency seats altogether.

For more on this please read the following further discussion here Complete representation would mean that politicians could have influence according to their popularity...

Banks are able to increase the money supply

If banks have deposit insurance, there is nothing to prevent them from increasing the money supply. The existence of deposit insurance means banks are able to (can) increase the money supply.

Under AV parties can offer more than one candidate without splitting the vote

The Alternative Vote system enables individual parties to put forward more than one candidate and not split the vote.

Under First Past the Post (FPtP) people do not have a second and third preference which, normally not important, matters when there is a lack of proportionality. It (having more than one preference) means that, having given their more desired choice, voters can give their insurance party. Due to this absence people must instead choose their first option as their insurance candidate. Knowing this, parties have no reason to offer more than one candidate, if they do it will split the vote. The Alternative Vote system enables parties to give their supporters at least a choice between perhaps two or more candidates, and not split the vote, which they cannot do under FPtP.

Under an Alternative Vote type system of elections, people do not need to give their first preference to their tactical (least worst) choice. Because of this, a party can field more than one candidate in the knowledge that this will not harm them by splitting the vote, that supporters will give all chosen candidates one of their preferences. A party fielding more than one candidate will not suffer from a split vote if supporters give them each one of their preference votes. Under First Past the Post a political party would not want to field more than one candidate because voters cannot endorse both of them. Being able to endorse more than one candidate means that individual parties are able to offer their supporters more choice, and if they don't voters may come to resent being offered a limited selection of candidates.

There is no reason to value any form of fiat money

There is no reason to value fiat currencies other than for the reason that the Government values fiat, which is not a very good reason. And since bank credit is not better than legal tender cash, equally there is no reason to value bank credit, either.

Inflation is not necessary for a strong economy

Fractional-reserve banking is bad news for savers and for people who need to pay taxes.

The Government apparently failed to anticipate that with deposit insurance people will be indifferent between cash and bank deposits, suggesting they were not expecting this to cause inflation. Now they are in trouble because the quantity of bank deposits much outnumbers the amount of reserves and the banks are unstable. The banks could have been helpful to the Government by showing restraint in lending, but they were not and they kept loaning the money out which generates more deposits. People hoping to save wealth with fiat currencies are not able to do so because of the banks.

The only way to get rid of Fractional-reserve banking (FRB) is to get rid of the Government which provides the deposit insurance. Without the Government there would be no FRB, it relies on the Government to operate but they don't care because the Government exists. The banks (like the Government) are parasitic because their wealth derives from taxpayer support, they will fall with the Government.