Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul vs. the Federal Reserve
Right Side News ^ | January 10, 2011 | Strapado Wrack

Posted on 01/10/2011 6:17:58 AM PST by IbJensen

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-137 next last
To: getsoutalive

If you eliminate fractional reserve banking, you’re eliminating banking as we know it. You’re left with bank time deposits.

And I bet even then you wouldn’t really eliminate the possibility of bank runs. Any bank that was rumored to be in trouble, would have people showing up trying to get their time deposits back earlier than agreed.

But a lot of capital would be setting on the sidelines, unable to earn interest because their owners aren’t willing to commit to a timeframe.

Again, where has this scheme worked. Didn’t the Austrian school actually try this in Austria for a short amount of time before it was abandoned?


101 posted on 01/13/2011 8:35:37 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Again, where has this scheme worked.

I'm not aware of,or even if there is such a thing as a Austrian School bank, but an era that I would consider more Austrian( ish ) would be America from it's discovery, up to the founding of the Federal Reseve( with the exception of the Civil War ).

We had basically free banking. Although most banks were state chartered banks. It wasn't centralized and we had US God dollars as a bench mark. I think that was our best period, all considering.

Look at that era's phenomenal, real,physical growth in real, physical capital. In population,in internal improvements, in cities built, wealth, increase in living standards and quality.

Now, many of our once great, productive wealth producing centers( cities ) are tax consuming, welfare spawning, pension debt centers. Zombie cities, kept alive by financial shenannagans. Even state now, take California, Michigan, Illinois. Those were once states so wealth creating, that we named battle ships after them. Now productive people and companies of productive people flee them.

Non of this AT THIS SCALE would of happened in the pre Federal Reserve banking system. These companies, states would of been spanked, hard.

I guess we now live in a era of Self Esteem Government where every one is equal.

102 posted on 01/13/2011 9:09:03 AM PST by Leisler (They always lie, and have for so much and for so long, that they no longer know what about.http://ma)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
They could sell their loan or pledge it as security for a loan.

Hardly makes my deposit available to me upon demand.

You don't have clear title to your bank account?

Legally, sure. Until everyone else wants their deposits as well. Then the rules change for some reason.

Why would banks accept demand deposits?

For storage/security fees.

It's a bad idea.

Heh, cause fraud is such a good idea. Gotcha.

103 posted on 01/13/2011 9:10:39 AM PST by getsoutalive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: getsoutalive
Hardly makes my deposit available to me upon demand.

How available was your deposit when you tried to cash in your CD early?

Heh, cause fraud is such a good idea. Gotcha.

Did you prove fraud on this thread? Which post was that?

How old were you when you discovered banks could pay interest because they made loans? Was it recently?

104 posted on 01/13/2011 9:14:28 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Getting personal. Now. Now.

My deposit is NOT available to me if I used it to purchase a CD. That is what a time deposit is all about.

What's the matter? You didn't address my comment about clear title to my demand deposit. Under normal circumstances, I can at will gain access. But why should the laws have to change if others wish to gain access to their demand deposits at the same time?

That is fraud. There is no need for legal banking protections if banking is honest.

105 posted on 01/13/2011 9:21:27 AM PST by getsoutalive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: getsoutalive
Getting personal.

No, just remembering that I was probably 5 years old when I first understood interest, loans and deposits. I never thought fraud was involved, why do you?

My deposit is NOT available to me if I used it to purchase a CD.

You can withdraw money in a CD.

You didn't address my comment about clear title to my demand deposit.

You have clear title.

Under normal circumstances, I can at will gain access.

Excellent! Then why are you confused?

But why should the laws have to change if others wish to gain access to their demand deposits at the same time?

The laws don't change.

106 posted on 01/13/2011 9:29:32 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: getsoutalive
Definition of FRAUD
1a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick

How does fractional reserve banking fit in this definition? Or maybe you have a different definition in mind?

107 posted on 01/13/2011 9:33:39 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Cute, but keep your insulting remarks to yourself, please.

The laws don't change.

You are correct. They are already written and don't need to change, because this has happened many times already. But as you still refuse to acknowledge, I WILL be refused access to my demand deposit, if too many others wish access to theirs. The bank can and must refuse my demand, and everyone else's. Simply because they wish access to what should be available to them upon demand. It may be legal, but that doesn't change what it really is.

108 posted on 01/13/2011 9:40:31 AM PST by getsoutalive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
intentional perversion of truth

You do not think it an "intentional perversion of the truth" for a bank to say that you may demand access to your deposit at any time. When they know for a fact, that the simple act of mass redemption makes that impossible?

109 posted on 01/13/2011 9:45:33 AM PST by getsoutalive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: getsoutalive
You are correct.

And you are incorrect.

But as you still refuse to acknowledge, I WILL be refused access to my demand deposit

You haven't been refused access yet you still claim fraud?

110 posted on 01/13/2011 9:45:40 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: getsoutalive
You do not think it an "intentional perversion of the truth" for a bank to say that you may demand access to your deposit at any time.

Maybe you should post the agreement you signed when you opened your account?

111 posted on 01/13/2011 9:47:22 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Did you look at the chart? Prices are almost exactly the same in 1870 and 1910.


112 posted on 01/13/2011 9:53:05 AM PST by Captain Kirk (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Maybe you should post the agreement you signed when you opened your account?

Hmmm, are you hinting that perhaps I don't really have clear title to my demand deposit? Do I not really have the ability to demand my deposit back at any time?

Imagine that.

113 posted on 01/13/2011 9:53:58 AM PST by getsoutalive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Prices are almost exactly the same in 1870 and 1910

That's not what the chart says.

114 posted on 01/13/2011 9:55:19 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: getsoutalive
Hmmm, are you hinting that perhaps I don't really have clear title to my demand deposit?

No.

Do I not really have the ability to demand my deposit back at any time?

You can demand it at anytime. Imagine that.

115 posted on 01/13/2011 9:56:25 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
You can demand it at anytime. Imagine that.

Sure I can make the demand. But the bank has no obligation to return my money if too many wish the same.

It OK. You can admit it. We all know already. Go ahead. Its OK. Really.

116 posted on 01/13/2011 10:00:46 AM PST by getsoutalive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: getsoutalive
But the bank has no obligation to return my money if too many wish the same.

You think the bank can keep your money? Forever?

You can admit it. We all know already.

That there is no fraud involved? Do we all know that?

117 posted on 01/13/2011 10:08:06 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Really, Todd? You refuse to acknowledge that during a time of banking stress, the bank will, indeed must, refuse to honor my demand?

I guess we are done then. thx

118 posted on 01/13/2011 10:13:05 AM PST by getsoutalive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: getsoutalive
You refuse to acknowledge that during a time of banking stress, the bank will, indeed must, refuse to honor my demand?

Why wouldn't I acknowledge that bank reserves are smaller than their deposit base?

If you ever read your account paperwork, I'm sure it will say something like, "You can access your demand deposit at anytime, certain restrictions apply".

Maybe you'd stop crying fraud?

119 posted on 01/13/2011 10:16:47 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
There you go. See, it was not that hard. "Certain restrictions apply." And they are all legal as the day is long. No argument on that point. Nice when industry writes its own laws isn't it? That still does not make it moral, ethical or less fraudulent.

The banking panics of the 1800's were caused by this fraud. The problem is that like any other ponzi scheme, it must have new inflows to keep moving forward. The central bank as lender of last resort cured the symptoms, but really just expanded the ponzi base.

Bernie Madoffs victims were thrilled right up til the end too.

120 posted on 01/13/2011 10:36:10 AM PST by getsoutalive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-137 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson