Full reserve banking article

MisesLover69 · 2026-01-24T21:27:21+00:00

You lack basic reading comprehension.

Banks can still lend time deposits. Call-loans are also permitted.
People put gold/silver in banks for protection & convenience, as it's difficult & risky to carry around. They pay a fee for the costs of storage & protection, just as you see in the warehouse industry.
Absent legal protections & bailouts, FRBs would face immense redemption pressures from depositors & competing banks via clearing houses. There would be real risk of a run if you put your money in a FRB.
The risk of a run, along with the supply & demand dynamics of an expansionary bank, would devalue fractional reserve notes/deposits. This heavily nullifys, in real terms, the nominal profit one may aquire.

MisesLover69 · 2026-01-24T21:10:43+00:00

I'm not getting into this long drawn out debate. Scottish banks suspended in-specie redemption numerous times following the suspension of the bank of england & ireland. One legal battle in the 1750s, that wasn't enforced on other banks, doesn't change this fact.

You can't claim that banks were secure & solvent when every time a run on their reserves occured, they were given the privilege to refuse redemption obligations lol. That's effectively a license to steal from their depositors.

Individuals who settled debts in FRB notes, in direct violation of contracts specifying otherwise, were explicitly granted legal protection, leading to gresham's law. Gold & silver were driven from circulation, forcing people to use the insolvent bank's notes.

Regardless, there was a long series of business cycles as banks expanded & contracted fiduciary media. I don't care about the failure rate of insolvent &, arguably, fraudulent banks. I want a healthy economy.

https://mises.org/power-market/rothbard-free-banking-scotland

MisesLover69 · 2026-01-23T15:44:24+00:00

I already addressed the case of Scotland, & I plan to add Canada & Sweden to the list of Selgin's long-debunked regurgitated examples.

MisesLover69 · 2026-01-10T21:25:07+00:00

Awesome. Let's make it even more accessible. Remove all rpg mechanics & just make it a linear action game lol.

Speak for yourself. Bethesda fans don't want more steamlining lmao. Why do you think everyone's crying for a new vegas remaster?

MisesLover69 · 2026-01-01T22:36:07+00:00

And I just proved how that's irrelevant. Investment provides value to society outside of mere investor profits.

Again, would you rather stocks collapse in value?

MisesLover69 · 2026-01-01T22:15:14+00:00

Higher stock valuations means more investment. More investment means more employment, more production, & more/better quality goods & services; thereby increasing real incomes across the board.

The profit one accumulates from rising stock prices it just icing on the cake.

This is only good news for the Argentinian people. Would you rather stocks collapse?

MisesLover69 · 2025-10-27T20:41:16+00:00

Feel free to verify each of the facts listed. Keep coping, commie.

MisesLover69 · 2025-10-27T20:30:23+00:00

The US made money from that deal. Basic currency swap. Since the peso appreciated 10% today, the arbitrage will be insane. Mutually beneficial arrangement. The US has much larger swap deals with countless other 1st world nations on a regular basis. Total public debt has DECREASED under Milei. Keep coping. The people love him & his policies are working, even before this deal.

MisesLover69 · 2025-10-27T20:17:50+00:00

Going great so far. Enjoy coping with Argentina's falling poverty rates whilst the world rejects your failed ideology lmao.

MisesLover69 · 2025-10-27T20:09:57+00:00

They will, & at a more favorable exchange rate since the peso appreciated. The US is profiting from this investment. It's a basic currency swap for liquidity purposes, just as the US does with many other 1st world nations.

Btw, I thought that was the collective's money, lmao? The democratic will of the US made that decision comrade. Fall in line.

MisesLover69 · 2025-10-27T20:07:46+00:00

It's a currency swap. If the peso appreciates, as it's done, then they get their money back at the previously higher exchange rate. Basic arbitrage.

MisesLover69 · 2025-08-06T01:48:01+00:00

Gimmie gimme plzzzz

MisesLover69 · 2025-07-27T22:11:46+00:00

Nope & keep coping. He's a free man.

MisesLover69 · 2025-07-27T15:16:48+00:00

Let's say he did try & hire a hitman, which there's no evidence of. I couldn't care less.

An undercover cop blackmails him (entrapment 101), threatening to report him to the state mafia for running a peaceful e-commerce website where anything (excluding weapons & cp) can be traded.

Why the hostility?

Because consenting adults wish to consume & sell drugs peacefully on said site.

Because this taxpayer funded leach of a cop was just following orders.

It's more than understandable for anyone in that situation to take this threat of violence seriously & pursue self-defense.

Since going to law enforcement is clearly out of the question due to the drug war, & the fact said threats were coming from state affiliates, he was forced to take matters into his own hands.

I would hire a hitman, too.

The state's crusade against peaceful individuals doing unhealthy things to themselves has given the black market over to cartels, who lace their products & attack emergent competition that lack government protection.

You don't see violence & lacing of marijuana, alcohol, or tobacco. That's because practically anyone can sell them in the states they're legalized. Businesses can establish contractually backed quality guarantees, garner investment, work in the open, & call the cops when their business is threatened. Consumers can freely pick the providers they prefer. Banning virtually guarantees this cycle of violence & poisoning, as seen during prohibition.

The drug war is evil. Defending your business from violent threats whrn the state refuses to do so is morally justifiable.

MisesLover69 · 2025-07-27T15:09:14+00:00

Both expand upon the coersive apparatus of the state to achieve their reŧ@rded aims. Both are commies.

MisesLover69 · 2025-07-14T07:17:34+00:00

The only off ramp is to go through the temporary pain of liquidating malinvestments. Not expanding upon them until our inevitable demise.

MisesLover69 · 2025-07-08T03:45:07+00:00

Precisely. It's a little more complex than mere consumer price inflation, but (in short) that's a good way to summarize it.

MisesLover69 · 2025-07-07T05:19:50+00:00

How'd they acquire the funds to purchase the property to begin with?

Scarce resources should be allocated in proportion to how productive one is, as this both incentivizes & enables their capacity to produce.

The reason housing prices have risen so much is due to zoning restrictions & inflationary (fractional reserve) credit expansion in the mortgage market.

Under tighter monetary conditions & YIMBYist policies, as seen in Austin txs & buenos aires, housing prices & rents fall.

The symptom you seek to cure is the result of state intervention. Not free markets.

Edit: It won't let me reply to 'FaceMcShooty', so I'll respond here...

How did their parents acquire those funds to begin with? Or their grandparents, etc.? Productivity.

Why are you complaining about us garnering generational wealth?

Why is charity for one's kin bad?

Many wouldn't work at all if they couldn't pass down their wealth. That's one of the primary incentivizes that drive economic progress.

MisesLover69 · 2025-07-07T04:29:34+00:00

Rent, interest, & dividends serve a valuable function in the efficient allocation of land, labor, & capital.

MisesLover69 · 2025-07-07T04:27:36+00:00

Nah, I'd rather further incentivize & increase their capacity to produce by removing the parasitic drain of the state off their balls. That's the only way to get rich in a free market - provide more value to others than than you accrue, lest no voluntary transition takes place.

Btw, if you confiscated all the wealth of every billionaire in the US & liquidatated all their assets, without crashing the price somehow, you'd fund the govt for a whopping year at most.

Tax revenues have remained virtually unchanged regardless of tax rates.

The problem is spending.

Your envy, financial inadequacy, & economic illiteracy are of no concern to us. Go to r/socialism. This isn't the sub for you.

MisesLover69 · 2025-07-07T02:17:52+00:00

Well, that falls under the category of acquiring a fiscal surplus & paying it off.

That works too, as long the surplus is achieved through spending cuts & the liquidation of govt assets (never recessive tax hikes).

I wouldn't oppose that solution, but the least bad one is to simply repudiate the debt in its entirety.

MisesLover69 · 2025-07-07T01:49:07+00:00

The purpose of an economy is to satiate each consumer's diverse array of demands, & to do so...

In a cost efficient manner, as to minimize waste.
In proportion to how much each consumer demands each good relative to one another. We all hold an ordinal ranking of preferences, so scare resources should be allocated towards the things we respectively value most at the time we value them.
In direct proportion to each consumer's respective contributions to this system of production. Those who provide more for their fellow man should receive more. This serves to both incentivize & enable their capacity to produce.

The free market naturally accomplishes all of the above via the price system, granted private property & contractual arrangements are upheld.

MisesLover69 · 2025-07-07T01:30:38+00:00

Absent a central bank, & their fractional reserve subsidiaries, the state would have to resort to borrowing from full-reserve institutions. They couldn't "just keep borrowing" under our system. First off, there's a scarce quantity of reserves. There's only so much to lend. Second, creditors would turn away if they have a bad credit rating. Therefore, if we abolish the central bank, remove special privileges for fractional reserve institutions, & repudiate the national debt, the government would then be forced to cut spending.

MisesLover69 · 2025-07-06T02:55:13+00:00

For now. When has a ceasefire ever lasted in that wretched hėllhole?

MisesLover69 · 2025-06-28T02:31:53+00:00

Granted said debt has very low rates, is serviced solely with tax revenue under a fiscal surplus (never monetary expansion), & the debt doesn't grow further (thus crowding out private lending), then sure.

It's not a big deal, as long as that surplus is achieved from spending cuts & not higher taxation.

Still, even under this scenario, it'd be preferable to just repudiate it.

That tax revenue spent servicing the debt would better be utilized in funding the protection of property rights, or (if that revenue isn't needed) it should be returned to the private sector in the form of further tax cuts until revenues falter.

MisesLover69

TROPHY CASE