Wednesday 11 September 2013
Banks can't print money
Counterfeiting is impossible because no one can print money. Money must have some underlying value if it does not (as with fiat) then it is not money.
Tuesday 3 September 2013
Full reserve banking is a natural right
To have anything other than full reserve banking requires support for the banking system from the state. Banks cannot practice so-called fractional reserve banking without deposit insurance otherwise there will be a bank run. It might be possible (for short periods of time) for a bank to have fewer reserves than deposits in a free market but very soon this will result in a bank run. For banks to be able to inflate the money supply to the extent which they have been able to do recently requires the support of the government.
But we have a right for the state not to support banks in this way since it is of no advantage to us (the banks are not providing a public service) and it is a cost to us. Socialism of this kind is justified only if the government is subsidising a public good such has healthcare or education. But since the banks do not claim to be primarily for the public good and since their assets are privately owned (for profit) this is not socialism but merely a government subsidy of a private business which is invalid. Even if socialism is valid this is not socialism. Neither can we claim that the banks provide a vital public utility and that despite them being privately-owned it is still in the interests of the state to protect them. If this is true then there is no limit to the extent to which this argument can be made. If the banks are vital then they should be given all the money they ask for which could be infinite and so if we are not to be owned by the banks then we cannot describe them as vital in this sense. No private firms are vital only the public sector is vital (if this concept exists). No private firm is too important to fail.
Since we have a right that banks are not subsidised by the state then fractional reserve banking cannot exist in any meaningful sense (the banks will not be able to inflate the money supply) and we will have full reserve banking. Since we have a right not to have fractional reserve banking then we have a right to have full reserve banking and full reserve banking is a natural right.
But we have a right for the state not to support banks in this way since it is of no advantage to us (the banks are not providing a public service) and it is a cost to us. Socialism of this kind is justified only if the government is subsidising a public good such has healthcare or education. But since the banks do not claim to be primarily for the public good and since their assets are privately owned (for profit) this is not socialism but merely a government subsidy of a private business which is invalid. Even if socialism is valid this is not socialism. Neither can we claim that the banks provide a vital public utility and that despite them being privately-owned it is still in the interests of the state to protect them. If this is true then there is no limit to the extent to which this argument can be made. If the banks are vital then they should be given all the money they ask for which could be infinite and so if we are not to be owned by the banks then we cannot describe them as vital in this sense. No private firms are vital only the public sector is vital (if this concept exists). No private firm is too important to fail.
Since we have a right that banks are not subsidised by the state then fractional reserve banking cannot exist in any meaningful sense (the banks will not be able to inflate the money supply) and we will have full reserve banking. Since we have a right not to have fractional reserve banking then we have a right to have full reserve banking and full reserve banking is a natural right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
