contract empties all claims of FRB fraud
the recent thwapfest at LRC over fractional reserve banking should be labeled “morons arguing with morons”, or “’cause murray said so”. much of it’s like being transported to the trunk of a car in which, windows down, two blowhards in the front seat are drinking beer and shouting over the wind without much consideration of the subject. lew’s continuing it today with a worthless piece of piling on by laura davidson, his blurb to which states about FRB, “It’s fraudulent”.
FRB “backed” by FDIC and illegal legal tender FRNs is inherently fraudulent. FRB as a market option is not. of course, for it to be a market option, it cannot be fraudulent, so the obvious question beyond my assertion is “how is it not fraudulent?”
it seems the confusion on FRB begins with the brainwashed notion that banks should pay for the supposed privilege of warehousing your money for you, setting up mechanisms for others to withdraw money, with your permission, from your 100% demand account. mark thornton notes correctly, albeit only of non-FRB,
In a market economy, depositors pay fees to have their money deposited in banks and to write checks on those deposits.
but what if risk or inconvenience is added? FRB brings both. however, nothing about FRB alone brands it fraudulent, disqualifying it as a market tactic. it’s essentially a mutated flavor of mutual fund speculation without the formal stock market. you approach bank A, which notifies you that all demands for FRB deposits are subject to availability. you are given a contract stating all repayment details and the full procedure should the bank default. you read it and, deducing that there’s adequate protection and incentive for payback of your deposits (including software-triggered run prohibition), deposit 10 ounces of gold. because much of your money can be lent out — a practice you agreed to — you are paid a fee commensurate with your risk of inconvenience and loss. how commensurate? enough for you to have agreed to it knowingly.
the difference between this FRB and fedgoon FRB: it’s voluntary. all policy, including personal liability of the bank officers, was disclosed before participation. because it’s non-coercive, competition ensures regular improvement through the allowance of success and failure. laura davidson’s “refutation” of FRB rests on the tautologic redefining of FRB, via the argument of another dumbass, into something that is not and cannot be FRB:
When someone deposits his money in a checking account, it is redeemable on demand. That is the definition of a checking account.
obviously, to non-dumbasses, 100% demand deposits are outside the definition of FRB. however, nothing precludes FRB from a checking account from which withdrawals are authorized and confirmed specifically before the check is used as payment. nothing precludes the regular success of such practice leading to not bothering to confirm. davidson and others are essentially making an anti-market argument, in that they want to prohibit others from peaceful, knowing participation in FRB, the very foundation of which prohibits universal 100% repayment on demand. so they come up with “selling a square circle” and other flavors of unctuous busybodyness in the guise of the great protector of children from theft. their forum-style arguments are a modified form of straw man where instead of composing stupid arguments to be struck down in the cause of damning something, one finds and rebuts arguments from stupid people to pose as the universe of defense for that something. if FRB is fraudulent, they’ll need to do better than debunking obvious coercion-freak jackasses on the subject.
where FRB is disclosed and voluntary, calling it fraudulent is the closest to fraud. when all one is rebutting is the coercive brand of FRB — tied irrevocably to “legal tender”, FDIC, and similar diseases — he should get the language straight and stop fucking with FRB generally, a valuable market practice which cannot be rightfully denied simply because criminals have used it as part of a corrupt regime. blanket anti-FRBers want you denied peaceful risky banking options because they don’t understand or don’t agree with them, and they claim the foundation for that action is the non-aggression principle.
bullshit. next stop for that bus: las vegas, for FRB as a market option is a gamble among consenting parties.
update01 081117
forgot to address overtly that another thrust made by anti-FRBers is debasement of the currency via credit expansion. that’s the main reason i mention fedgoon illegal legal tender* above. absent contract, no one has a right to non-debasement of a voluntary currency through credit expansion. tough shit. convert to one that isn’t being so debased. invent a digital currency impervious to expansion. do something peaceful. perhaps soon a radically cheap method of gold production will be discovered or invented, through which gold religionists may embrace the true and extra-statist swath of currency debasement. state fixation regarding currency ultimately leads to advocating mind control, for value is and must always be subjective. state fixation is the first hurdle of the anti-FRBer.
* the US constitution delegates to the fedgoons no power to make anything legal tender. legal tender power’s reserved to the states via the tenth amendment and the “exception that proves the rule” aspect of the gold and silver coin clause in article I section 10. of course, the whole notion of unilateral “legal tender” is criminal bunk.
September 1st, 2010 at 03:51
[...] by H-cubed and block which don’t discuss “legal tender”; go no further than this blog: forgot to address overtly that another thrust made by anti-FRBers is debasement of the currency [...]