FRB is fraud and coercion and thus necessarily aggression..
The fact that it could theoretically not be fraud and has in some historic case not been fraud is interesting but so long as the state is involved, it is fraud and coercion.
Personally I consider the free banking position the correct one. I don't think FRB is intrinsically fraud. I am however not unaware of arguments that FRB, if allowed, does seem to lead to control of the state. FRB does seem to lead to fraud and corruption.
Which observation predates the union. Jefferson was not warning us about precious metal storage facilities. He was warning us about FRB.
And please do list these many austrian monetary economists who consider Murray's contributions to monetary economics specious and mediocre. I won't hold my breath waiting.
It's exactly his monetary economics, most obviously his work on the great depression, (which rebutted Friedman who was a poor monetary economist) garnered his initial fame.
Murrays position on FRB is a normative one. He thought it was intrinsically fraud and thus illegitimate. That's not an economic position.
His economic description of the effects of FRB are exactly correct, as we have seen through over a century of evidence of FRB caused business cycles. I have never once heard of an austrian, even free banker austrians, who disagrees with that part of the analysis.
They all know FRB does cause business cycles, it's just that they would be minimal if not exacerbated by the state.
It should be noted that implicit in free banker arguments is that the power to contervene FRB, like any other vice, will eventually and always be used for greater ill.
I agree with all aspects of the free banking position, despite Murray's opinion on the matter.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: