I started out my economic study with Mises, then I went on my own autodidact path through other competitive viewpoints.
I found Equitable Commerce, Trial by Jury, A New Paper Currency, Mutual Banking, The Science of Society, and what made the most (still makes the most) sense was Equitable Commerce.
I went back to the Austrians to figure out how they had missed the work in Equitable Commerce, so I went to Murray Rothbard and found his hit piece on Lysander Spooner.
Noticing some of the garbage above in this thread, there is a hit piece on Rothbard comparing Rothbard with David Icke, and a two with one stone hit piece on anarchism.
Is that three hits with one stone?
The concept of Rothbard being anarchist is not well supported if Rothbard is the source of the information.
Rothbard was the government monopoly of force guy. If you read Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature, and other Essays, by Rothbard, the obvious becomes true: Rothbard is not a representative of anarchism.
Anarchism is bad to who?
Who decides what anarchism is, or anything else for that matter?
Why play words games?
"It is a fraud if depositors or holders of banknotes are promised redemption on demand."
I can guess what you are saying, and I can guess that your words are accurate, but that requires that I guess.
It is fraud if the fraud is inventing, producing, and employing deception so as to cause injury to the targeted victims.
I can guess that you intend to mean that a criminal will use fraud to injure an innocent victim. I think that guessing is hazardous.
"Fractional Reserve Banking is fine if it is transparent."
My response was to call crime by the name crime and then leave no room for guess work.
Frauds are not in the banking business. Frauds are criminals. If frauds take over the banking business, then the word Banking no longer applies, the word Banking is now a false front.
If the sign on the building says Fraud instead of Banking, then how many customers will buy into the Fraud?
All the frauds?
If that is the only game in town, or the biggest game in town, my point is to point out how accurate words may help reduce the injuries to the innocent ones.
"In a free banking system, a Full Reserve banks could exist beside a Fractional Reserve Bank."
Since these words were replying to my words I think it may be a good idea for me to now response sentence by sentence so as to remove a lot of the guess work that may be current or future guess work.
Free banking does not exist while people are currently victims to a very powerful fraud where the very powerful fraud is denominated in dollars. If there is an example of free banking then my point about how free banking works is that the force of all the people who pick competitive bank A over competitive bank B, C, or D, is a force that forces those people in those competitive banks to increase quality, as judged by the customers, and lower costs, as judged by the customers.
When quality plummets, as judged by the customers, and costs rise, as judged by the customers, the obvious creation and maintenance of a monopoly (competition is crushed) exists in accurately measurable ways.
Quality goes down in monopoly, as judged by the customers who have one choice which is blind obedience.
Costs go up in monopoly, as judged by the customers who have one choice which is blind obedience.
The frauds learn how to play the fraud game.
Monopoly is the free market of victims, as plenty of victims are dumped onto that free market.
If a Fractional Reserve Bank existed then one could be studied, measured accurately, evaluated, even chosen by consumers: I guess.
If the concept is to look at a fraud in progress that exists behind the false front of a Fractional Reserve Bank, then that sounds like bait and switch to me, or a shell game.
Enie, menie, minie, moe, which bank is Fractional Reserve and which bank is fraud hiding behind Fractional Reserve?
If they are all denominated in dollars then they are all fraudulent when there is one "license" to counterfeit "legal tender".
My point: Imagine handing out the one license to produce fire.
Only Brand X is legally allowed to produce fire and any other producer of fire is guilty of a federal felony crime punishable by torture and whatever else may happen on a trip called Extraordinary Rendition.
So I have to cook today, or heat the house, and there once was a move toward electricity for cooking and heating but now there is one license for electricity too. I still use fire, so I go to my local fire bank and have a fire bank employee tend to the fire as I cook the food and heat the house.
It is a "Free Market" of course, since I have the "choice" of picking Bank A to tend fire for cooking and heating, or Bank B to tend fire for cooking and heating.
I have the "choice" of rubbing my hands together too, and the choice of eating cold food.
Where, and under what conditions?
I prefer to point out that the criminals are running the False Fronts they call government, and the funny thing is that the victims are obeying the orders to use those false front names: without question.
"Free competition balances greed with risk."
Why use the word "greed"? Much of modern technology has been investments made in the scientific study of statistics and the fruits of this labor, these risks, include the removal of a lot of uncertainty associated with investments.
Case in point:
Imagine a Democratic Federated Republic somewhere on some planet where human beings live, not a false front where criminals are perpetrating very serious crimes behind what their victims are calling "government" but an actual voluntary, anarchistic, competitive, non-monopoly, government system and on this planet and within this Democratic Federated Republic there was a free market of Despotism Insurance offered to the human beings, called The People, therein.
Texas (the hired employees running the government of Texas) may offer the voters who vote with their earnings, or their feet, a policy that covers any person against any loss by any government employee of any kind, a bonding type of thing, and the price (cost) charged to the customer for this service is X, and the benefits (quality) realized by this service is Y in case the investment does pay off since the risk of being alive among criminals who hide behind badges does exist.
Call it a Tax or call it Put Options, the force of competition between Free Market Government A (Texas), and Free Market Government B, C, D, (Arizona), (Nevada), (Arkansas), can be chosen competitively by the voters who vote with their so called taxes, or their so called feet, shopping around for the best bang for the best buck, or not.
What is the best buck?
"Free market in money. Only Congress can coin Money(big M)."
Here is where my brain is supposed to fall into line, and again I am guessing.
Congress, so called, is a usurpation that occurred in 1788, and an ongoing crime in progress since then, despite the efforts to chain those criminals down with advice such as The Bill of Rights. So my brain does not do what it is supposed to do with that sentence.
"Free market in money" can't exist as one denomination that is an ongoing fraud hidden behind a thin veil (or thick sculls) of legitimacy.
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
I don't mix up crime with other things, why would I?
"Free market in money. Only Congress can coin Money(big M). That is stamp it with the Congressional brand. The government's Coin can be used by people. But in a free market, money competes, like everything else."
When the criminals take over it is then a free market of victims as all the targets are dumped in that way onto that free market and the traders are all cutting each others throats for access to the bountiful supply of victims.
Competition can get ugly. Turf battles. Call it war, so as to keep the victims powerless, stupefied, and going all in: "voluntarily".
"In a free market no one needs a proposal for debate."
My guess is that the above sentence means something to the writer. To me that sentence is troublesome. A potential trader in a free market has to find out if there is anyone, anywhere, willing to trade something for something. I don't know the meaning of the word "proposal" in that context. I don't know the meaning of the word "debate" in that context.
People need power. Not having power is powerless, resulting in death.
One person alone, with no help, or no harm, from anyone, has to produce everything one way or the other, alone.
One person with help is a connection from one person to another person, in some way, a medium of exchange.
If one person proposes something to another person, it seems to me then there are things traveling through the medium of exchange, words, now called a "proposal".
Then the recipient, or the target, of the "proposal" encounters those things traveling through the medium of exchange, and that, at that point, is a one way transfer of things, a "proposal" sent, and a "proposal" received.
Debate is a word, it is 6 symbols arranged in an orderly way.
Does the word suggest a two way connection of things going from one source to another place and then from that place, a new source, traveling back to another place?
I have to guess.
I'm guessing. I don't speak falsehood, at least I'm trying to avoid speaking falsehood as much as possible.
If a free market can be exemplified, somewhere on earth, then it can be measured accurately, if there is a will to do so, then there is a way to do so, it seems to me.
"Someone who sees a way to provide a service that they think the can earn a profit, simply provides it."
Someone observes targets, and then someone targets those targets, and then the targets are hit with things, lies, false advertizements, and then the targets respond to those things, conditioned to respond to those things, in such a way that transfers power from the targets to the person who targets the targets, invents the lies, produces the lies, and hits the targets with the lies, conditioning the response, and the power flows one way, as the power flows from the targets to the person targeting the targets.
Or, something entirely different.
"Someone who sees a way to provide a service that they think the can earn a profit, simply provides it. If correct the market will use the service."
What is "the market"?
"Someone who sees a way to provide a service that they think the can earn a profit, simply provides it. If correct the market will use the service. If it is mutually beneficial it can continue until it is not."
Cutthroat A and cutthroat B are working the High School. A is on the north end, B is on the south end. The targets are observed, targeted, and hit with an abundant supply of opium products for free, for a little while, and then the supply dries up, so as to then start charging a return on the investment.
Cutthroat A and cutthroat B agree that it is a free market: mutually beneficial. It continues.
"Evolution is the way of business if not for creatures. Provide mutual benefit or become extinct."
Cutthroat A farms the targets called consumers of money.
Here is the score:
The Free Market of Victims has evolved into things called derivatives which is a neat way to increase the flow of power from those who produce that power to those who steal it, it is like, in English phrases (rather than with math as the medium of exchange), like, it is like The Business Psycho on Steroids.
False Fronts exist.
Confusing the two is not a crime perpetrated by those who are confused?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: