The banks are the same as the state if they have a deposit guarantee

There is no difference between the banks and the state.

The government does not understand how banking works

If the government understood how banking works it would not allow it.

Banking (in its present manifestation) causes inflation which harms the poor disproportionately. The fact that Frb (relending deposits) is not illegal is evidence that the government does not understand its consequences.

Frb is an ambiguous term to use to describe the banking system

A better description for Frb would be partial reserve banking. To use the word Fractional is somewhat ambiguous because it allows for (does not exclude) the possibility that the fraction might be greater than unity.

Partial reserve banking (clearly) means strictly less than unity, which is why it is a more accurate description.

Elections give the government no legitimacy

Having an election does not alter the legitimacy of the government. The moral position of a thief is not altered even if there is an element of choice in the crime. We (the victim) might prefer to suffer less but the crime remains.

Cash is not money unless it is a liability of the state

Bank credit is money, not cash.

Bank credit is money because it is a liability of the state. Cash is only money if it is a liability of the state, which sometimes it is.

The individual has rights equivalent to those of the group

The law emerges spontaneously when we seek safety from others.

Something is money if it alters the price of other money

Money is either bank credit or cash (which is held) outside the banking system. If credit of any kind causes (price) inflation then it is money. If credit causes the price inflation of other established money then, it too is money. Something is not money if it (its quantity) does not alter the price of other money.

Frb damages the integrity of the currency and should be illegal

There is no valid reason for frac. res. banking to be legal and tolerated. If the customer is aware, in a free market, this is not to be rightly known as banking in the conventional sense, and should be renamed.

In the case of Frb under deposit insurance, whether or not the customer is aware, the money supply is being inflated which removes value from those holding the currency. Even in the free market Frb can be tolerated only if the customer is aware of the theft, in which case this is not banking and must be described as something else. Frb is either fraud (allied with theft) in the free market or it is inflation (when banking is) in the public sector.

Only an institution which keeps full reserves can be said to be a bank

If a bank does not keep sufficient reserves, it is not a bank. Only a ‘bank’ which keeps full reserves can be said to be a bank. There is no form of banking which is not full reserve banking. It is a trick for an institution to pretend to be a bank if it does not keep full reserves. Most ‘banking institutions’ pretend to be a bank, which they are not since a bank keeps full reserves.

It is not illegal for banks with deposit insurance to lend out deposits

It is not a safe assumption that the government would make sure to prevent banks from causing inflation. In fact, the government allows banks to increase the money supply. The government has not outlawed fractional lending.

There is no reason to assume the banks are not able to inflate the money supply. The money supply is not stable.

The ability of banks to inflate the money supply is a form of fascism

The reason banks are able to make risky loans is that their credit is guaranteed. The banks would be more prudent, and would hold full reserves if there is a market requirement for them to do so, as there would be in the absence of a deposit guarantee.

The government cannot be said to be different from the banks if banks cannot fail.

It is fascism when the government provides services because it is not the responsibility of the government to do this. The government is the authority which has a legal monopoly on justice, they are to be feared by criminals and perhaps those who do not pay their taxes, but nothing more than that. It is fascism when the government provides services because the money has been stolen, to pay for the services. The victim cannot refuse. The opinion of the victim is irrelevant. Fascism is when there is no ability to refuse the government, and we (the victim) are not a criminal, in the ordinary sense. There might be some justification for taxation so that resources might be redistributed to the poor, but this is best achieved by the denial of property rights.

Taxation is not justified to provide government services. All government services are fascism, including the provision of deposit insurance.

The banks should not be trusted

If debt is invalid we should not be so confident about placing our money in the banks.

We have no right to ‘force’ the banks to return our possessions. We can, perhaps with justification, complain if the bank is obstructing our efforts to reclaim our goods (which are present) but if the bank no longer has the goods, there is not much we can do about it. The banks should not be trusted, as no one to whom money has been loaned should be trusted.

Political elections are a violation of our natural rights

An election doesn’t justify the destruction of private property. Individuals have a right to be free from elections.

If, by its nature, (by definition) an election means that the outcome takes precedent over (is superior to) natural rights, then we have a right to be free from elections. It means nothing to have an election which does not have elevated legal status above an informal poll of opinion. If it means anything to have an election (more than to have a meaningless poll) then elections are a violation of our natural rights.

Banks cause price inflation unless they hold full reserves

There would be no problem with the banking system if either banks are prevented from lending deposits, or there is no deposit insurance and banks can fail. There would be no problem with banking if there is no state involvement or the state prevents inflationary lending.

It is less bad to tax the rich than to tax the active

It is not such a good idea to tax (work and) labour as it would be to tax wealth, alone.

Labour and work is something people do not really want to do, they would prefer to be doing something else otherwise it would be called recreation. They are working because someone else wants them to do the work and is paying them, so it makes little sense for the government to provide yet more disincentive against the behaviour. We should forgive those who seek to improve their circumstances. If revenue must be taken it should be taken from the place where its absence will cause the least harm, that is it should be taken from the rich.

Fptp doesn’t work at providing good government

Fptp tends to result in socialist outcomes and for that reason it doesn’t work at providing a moral and fair system of government.

There is no such thing as money

There is no reason to be concerned about inflation of a fiat currency. It is not aggressive to print money, and it hurts no one.

Fiat money is not real money.

It’s best not to expect that debts will ever be paid back

Only debt which cannot be paid back will cause inflation.

If it could be paid back it would not have been loaned. No debt can (or will) ever be paid back.

Fptp gives an unfair advantage to the main parties

Under Fptp the votes cast for populist parties count extra.

Banks do not have a right to be bailed out

We have a natural right for other people not to be printing money, if there is a sanctioned, fiat, currency.

We have a natural right that no firms are protected from insolvency, if there is a government.

Frb is counterfeiting but nothing worse than that

If deposit insurance is provided to banks and they are not prevented from making loans, then inflation will result. If a bank is immune from failure the quality of its assets and reserves becomes irrelevant, the bank credit becomes magic, not mortal. A bank (of this type) is not a normal business, it can increase the money supply like the government. The problem is that there is no point trying to save money (for most people) if banks are able to cause inflation, not only that, people who are not offended by getting into debt have access to property above those who prefer to be free. Unlike the enforcement of debt, or taxation, or any other violation of property rights, with banking and counterfeiting no property is violated.

Banks issue money because they are part of the government

If banks were not part of the government they would not be able to issue money. The banks are not separate from the government.

If bank credit is guaranteed this means that the banks are able to issue tax receipts, which is money, and they are part of the government. Only the government can issue money which makes banks part of the government, since they too can issue money. If banks were not part of the government they would not be able to issue money.

The government should not monetise bank credit

Banks are able to increase the money supply only because of the presence of deposit insurance. Without deposit insurance there would be a bank run whenever a bank issues an excess of liabilities, which would cause the bank to collapse. Bank runs prevent price inflation, only the people with real cash, not false credit, would have purchasing power in that case. Bank customers don’t have money until it is printed.

There is nothing special about cash

The shocking thing (about the financial system) is not that banks inflate the money supply, the shocking part is that the money supply includes bank credit. Of course banks can issue their own credit.

The money supply, which affects prices, is made up of not only cash but also bank credit which is just as good. Cash is not better than bank credit.

As below

There is nothing to prevent banks from increasing the money supply.

It doesn’t matter that banks are insolvent because of deposit insurance

People don’t care about the solvency of their bank if their deposits are guaranteed by the state.

Banks don’t need to worry too much about making bad loans because, in most cases, they are insolvent already.

Frb is not a very good idea

Frb is not a very good way to organise an economy because it means that people can gain wealth by doing nothing more than ‘borrowing’ money from a bank. It’s not a very good idea to allow banks to have control over the money supply.

Frb is the wrong choice for the government to have made

It doesn’t make sense that the government has chosen to utilise an inflationary banking system.

Deposit insurance is inflationary

To have deposit insurance means that an institution cannot fail, their creditors will always be paid. To be immune from failure all that is required is deposit insurance, nothing more is needed. A downside exists to this guarantee otherwise we could protect everyone in the same way. It is not possible to provide this insurance and for banks not also to be able to inflate the money supply. Protecting failed businesses in this way (deposit insurance) is inflationary.

It is impossible for banks to fail if they have deposit insurance

The problem of deposit insurance is that inflation will result. The reason to allow firms to fail is that otherwise the economy will be meaningless, the profit incentive will be gone. The consequence of guaranteeing bank deposits is that banks cannot fail. Banks cannot fail if they have deposit insurance, it is impossible for them.

Increasing the money supply is theft

It is not significantly different from printing money to allow banks to receive deposit insurance. There is no meaningful difference between issuing bank credit and printing money, or theft.

Banks print government credit which is the predominant form of money in a fiat economy

The problem with paper money is that if the government provides a guarantee to a company such as a bank, this is no different from allowing them to print their own currency, in economic terms. There is no reason why people will not treat government credit as though it is money. In a fiat economy government credit is money. Nothing is like money (has numismatic value) which is not a form of government credit, in the present fiat economy. Anything which has numismatic, monetary value above its intrinsic worth has some element of government credit within it, such as bank credit does. There is nothing which is money that is not a form of government credit. All money is government credit, at the present time.

There is no point having a parliament or MPs if big parties are allowed to dominate

The advantage of a parliament over a single president (or mayor) is that legislation has to meet the approval of more than one person, a majority must vote in favour of it. Each politician is able to veto (reject) new law with their vote in the chamber. The presence of Fptp negates this advantage because at the constituency level, representatives are generally sent from one of the two main parties. It is the leader of the winning party which ends up in control, as Prime Minister, in a similar fashion to an absolute president. In this manner, the advantage of having a parliament is destroyed because a single parliamentarian is taken from each seat.

Big government is a result of the voting system

Electoral reform is only (considered) an important issue by people who think the behaviour of government could be improved, or it could be less awful. If government as it exists under Fptp is not a problem there would be no need for improvement, to do so would be a waste of time. We would hope that government would be not so bad under fair votes. Democracy makes tyranny (slightly) more difficult, more democracy makes tyranny even more difficult and therefore reduces the size of government. The large size of government is often a result of the manner by which politicians are elected.

First past the post restricts choice for the voter

Under proportional representation there is no need to worry about who everyone else is (expected to be) voting for, so there would be no requirement to switch to a more popular party, for your vote to count. Under Fptp (winner takes all) your vote counts more if you vote for a party expected to be popular, this is why a duopoly of parties will usually emerge, in voting systems of this type.

Voters care more about national representation than local because the laws are made nationally. If our representatives are taken from constituencies this limits our ability, as voters, to influence the national outcome. It is difficult for a liberal (or any minority view) to ensure that their vote will be effective if representation is at the constituency level, their opinion can be smothered. Sometimes the minority view will be prejudiced or otherwise problematic in some way, in this case (often) the bigots are in the minority, but this is not a problem because over time people tend to become more enlightened so this minority bigotry will be held by fewer and fewer people. It is already out of the political mainstream and so is not able to accomplish any lawmaking. The serious problems (delusions) in politics are those bigotries held by many people, including the political establishment. Under Fptp there is little ability (for voters) to diffuse popular bigotry, beliefs common to the main parties. Proportional representation is better at removing delusions held by (both) leading parties.

It is better not to have our choice restricted to only a small number of parties, choice is better because enlightened parties can then do well. Fptp enables parties to be unaware of their bigotries and lack of true popularity, it gives them a false sense of popularity. The main parties might be surprised by what people actually want.

PR would remove the inherent advantage enjoyed by the main parties

A proportional system of voting would remove the inherent advantage enjoyed by the dominant parties under a winner-takes-all system. The main parties do well largely because the method of selecting the winner is tilted in their favour. Fair elections are proportional elections, where everyone has an equal chance of victory, and representation.

Only the state is immune from bankruptcy

In a fiat economy, an organisation which has deposit insurance is not a bank in the conventional sense, it is part of the government. Only the state (not banks) is immune from bankruptcy. If an organisation is able to be insolvent and go out of business (as all free-market institutions are) then it is able to describe itself as a bank, otherwise it is part of the state.

It is incorrect to describe an entity which cannot go out of business as a bank.

The government increases the money supply when it issues a mortgage or loan

When the government lends money, in the guise of banks, this increases the money supply because money which was previously a reserve is now in the economy. When money is deposited with the government (the banks) the money supply does not fall to the previous level because it is now government credit.

Within most banks deposits exceed reserves many times over

The government makes bank credit valuable by providing a guarantee to depositors, which reduces the (relative) value of cash. Bank credit would be worth less than it is without the guarantee. Without the guarantee banks would not be able to cause inflation. The banks are not a rich as they might appear. Only a very small fraction of a customer’s deposits are backed with cash reserves.

When a bank makes a loan this causes inflation

Prices increase when a bank makes a loan. This is because reserves are not in the economy and do not alter prices.

Bank lending causes inflation.

The money supply is not independent of bank activities

All government credit is a form of money so then banks do print money.

If the word ‘money’ is used to mean only narrow notes and coins (or even only central bank deposits), and does not include broader government guarantees then banks do not print money. But that is not a useful measurement of (or a definition for) money. (A useful definition of) money includes bank credit.

It is not useful to exclude bank credit from a definition of money.

All governments are collectivist

Socialism is a war crime, to mean a crime perpetrated deliberately, with intent by the government.

No government is liberal, all of them are collectivist and deny rights to the individual.

People that own themselves do not have a government

An election does not justify a crime, if a thief explains that their group has held a ballot to justify their actions this makes no difference in court. A crime is either objectively bad and immoral or it is not a crime. Ethics of this type are objective and unaltered by popularity, or ballots. There is nothing virtuous about government, about owning others. Government is the body which owns others, it is based on a falsehood. The government owns people.

Proportional representation is more efficient at allowing people to get what they want

Fptp is less efficient at producing a fair outcome.

PR would be more efficient at providing freedom for the most people, if there is a democratic government.

First past the post doesn’t work

First past the post doesn’t work because it protects political parties from having to adjust to the wishes of the electorate.

Frac res banking is not aggressive

Unlike taxation, frac res banking does not violate the non-aggression principle and does not violate common, or natural law. Inflationary banking is not, in itself, aggressive, it is the bailouts and the taxation which follows which initiate force.

Higher prices are not a sign of economic strength

Inflation is not the same as wealth.

Rising prices might be confused for economic strength but mostly it will be a market reaction to an increase in the money supply. Deflation (falling prices) usually results from economic and industrial innovation.

Without deposit insurance the money supply would not increase

The banks don’t keep our money safe.

Banks don’t make (conventional) loans, to make a loan requires that someone has been deprived of the asset for the duration of the loan.

When a deposit is made by the customer this results in an increase in the money supply, an equal quantity of bank credit is created as there is cash deposited. The money (from the deposit) held in the bank is removed from circulation and does not alter prices, the bank deposits are now responsible for the price support. The cash deposited generates and becomes bank credit.

Making a deposit returns the cash to the bank as reserves (and removes it from circulation) but extra bank credit is created, causing inflation, so that prices remain as they were. Making a deposit increases the money supply, because the customer is still owed money by the bank in spite of the cash now being part of the reserves. We do not have a fixed deposit as we might expect with full reserves, instead we have been given bank credit instead, and the cash is not hypothecated to us, it forms part of the reserves. We are not really making a deposit, instead we are given bank credit in exchange for our money, the money is not held in reserve, the bank is not acting as a guardian of our money.

Banks should be allowed to fail

Any firm which is immune from bankruptcy is then able to print money. Money in a fiat economy is represented by state liabilities, if a firm cannot fail it can print money. They do not physically need to print notes and coins for this to be the case.

Fractional reserve banking is nothing more than another name for insolvency

A bank is insolvent when it has debts exceeding its assets. It may be able to settle debts as they fall due (it is not cash flow insolvent) but it cannot settle all outstanding debts, even in liquidation.