Is Fractional Reserve Banking Fraudulent?

The hardest-hitting chapter of The Evil Princes of Martin Place is a critique of the legality of fractional reserve banking. Chris Leithner makes the case that fractional reserve banking is constructive fraud. This is a direct challenge to the arguments of George Selgin and Lawrence White in their Review of Austrian Economics paper defending contractually based fractional banking. Leithner argues that even if parties sign a contract that permits a bank to treat demand-deposits as loans, this cannot be a valid contract:

The inescapable problem is that agreements and contracts cannot create reality; they must presuppose it… Proponents of [fractional reserve banking] fail or refuse to recognise that [a fractional reserve banking] agreement implies no less an impossibility – and constructive fraud – than that involved in the purchase of dogs that lay eggs…[I]t’s logically impossible that a bank and a customer can agree to convert money substitutes (i.e. warehouse receipts, banknotes and demand deposits) into debts. It’s also logically impossible for two people to simultaneously own the same item of property. They may, of course, certify otherwise…But what they…certify is objectively false.

What about the argument that fractional reserve banking is only fraud when a bank cannot fulfil requests for redemption as they arise? Leither is not having it:

Quite the contrary: [the fractional reserve bank] commits fraud each time it DOES fulfil its obligation to redeem!…[FRB] clearly contradicts the title-transfer theory of contract that defenders of FRB claim that they’ve accepted. In accordance with this theory, individuals can only contract to transfer their own property. In contrast, FRB, by its very nature (and even if practiced “successfully”, that is, until the inevitable crisis and bust occur) involves contracts concerning the transfer of other people’s property. Hence the issue of fiduciary media is inherently incompatible with the title-transfer theory of contract; hence the constructive fraud.

What do readers think?

132 thoughts on “Is Fractional Reserve Banking Fraudulent?

  1. If the quotes are supposed to illustrate Leithner’s answers to my and Larry’s arguemhts, then they are no answers at all: just shriller versions of the same (now very tired) arguments our article refutes. I hope those who think otherwise will read our article before assuming otherwise!

  2. I deal with land titles, and we often have cases of Joint Tenancy, and Tenants in Common, where more than one person has a share in owning one block of land, so I don’t accept the argument that such ownership is false.

  3. I agree with White and Selgin. Contractual FRB is not fraud.

    And honestly, as much as I appreciate the Mises Institute as a resource, I don’t always agree with their scholars (then again most of them don’t always agree with each other). There is often a strain of social authoritarianism within some of the people at the LvMI (Hoppe and Rockwell in particular seem to be prone to this tendency) even if they are free market anarchists. Plus, the fact that some of them seem absolutely hell-bent on disparaging, defaming and distorting Hayek does put me off.

  4. “Is Fractional Reserve Banking Fraudulent?”

    The short answer is that fractional reserve is fraud if the law says it is, and its not fraud if the law says it isn’t.

    We have to get that sorted to try and avoid stupid people creating threads of doom.

    But there is no doubt that fractional reserve OUGHT TO BE ILLEGAL, and considered fraud. And that would be the way to frame the argument.

  5. “I agree with White and Selgin. Contractual FRB is not fraud.”

    No no. The matter is very clear. If it was illegal and defined as fraud, it would indeed BE fraud. Since its legal it is a protected counterfeiting racket where the banks conjure ponzi-money, and the central bank swaps the ponzi-money for cash.

    It doesn’t matter who or what you agree with. The matter is as I have described it.

  6. “No it is not fraud.”

    Well we know the state of the law Taya. Its not legally defined as fraud. So obviously its not fraud. Its a protected, immoral and astonishingly destructive racket.

    But if it were illegal and defined as fraud it would be fraud. And anyone practicing it would be defrauding the public.

  7. Graeme Bird is wrong regarding FRB. We could argue the detail but it would just be a rerun of a well worn debate. There is some scope for agreement regarding central banking. It is probably more fruitful to explore that.

  8. “But if it were illegal and defined as fraud it would be fraud. And anyone practicing it would be defrauding the public.”

    So Bird, would you jail every Australian with mismatched assets/liabilities like say yourself?

    Didn’t you commit fraud under your own definition by taking out a mortgage and then matching that with shorter term POTENTIAL income that didn’t exist at the time you signed up for the loan?

    By your own standards , Bird you ought to be in the dock facing the music in front of the judge.

    Hypocrite.

  9. I think the fraud issue arises because banks know when they accept deposits that they will not be able to meet their obligation to repay on demand if all depositors demand repayment at the same time. They are making promises that they know they may not be able to keep.

    The fact that depositors also know that the banks are making promises that they may not be able to keep doesn’t make it ethical for banks to make such promises.

    In my view the deposit agreement should specify what the bank will do if it cannot keep its promise to repay on demand.

  10. “So Bird, would you jail every Australian with mismatched assets/liabilities like say yourself?”

    The crime is not mis-matching assets and liabilities under the scenario implied.

    The crime is

    1. Fraud with malice.

    2. Counterfeiting.

    3. Fraud with a view to unjust enrichment.

    2. Conspiracy to undermine the currency.

    3. Conspiracy to reignite the business cycle, thus ruining peoples lives and creating unemployment.

    4. Conspiracy to distort the allocation of scarce capital resources during the boom phase.

    5. Conspiracy to subsidise the REAL AND NOMINAL profit share, of national income, at the expense of real wages.

    6. Subversion of the confidence that less well off people can have in the more-voluntary society as a fair and functioning setup.

    7. Conspiracy to create a national or local “prosperity delusion” thus enticing people to save less, spend more, and borrow more, than they otherwise would if price information had not been distorted.

    8. Conspiracy to normalize NEGATIVE INVENTORY SPECULATION which is an anti-social undertaking …. as opposed to POSITIVE INVENTORY SPECULATION ……. which is probably one of the most beneficial undertakings in economic life.

    9. Treason. Selling out Australia and the human species, to SYSTEMICALLY (and possibly conspirationally) EVIL networks of the Northern Hemisphere, who are fed and sustained, by the money creation function.

    If you don’t know what I’m talking about just dwell for months at a time, pacing backwards and forwards, on the molten iron streaming from the South Tower, before it collapsed into its path of greatest resistance.

    10. Conspiracy to promote Marxism and Keynesianism through social vandalism …. as opposed to promoting these philosophies via persuasion. Promoting Keynesianism via persuasion ought to get you sacked from any publicly funded economics department. But the sanctions should stop there.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Now as to punishment. Sir Isaac Newton had a fellow hung, drawn, and quartered, for attempting persistently to undermine the pound sterling. Thats hung to his death. Then his body cut in half. Then his body cut in half again.

    This was a major undertaking for Newton to kill this fellow, and he stayed on the job year in and year out until this fellow was dead, and in pieces, …….. publicly.

    We have to have punishments for the breaking of this particular law which stops the law-breaking in its tracks. Because once there is a break-out of the breaking of this law, the pain (at setting the capital markets back to being effective) is just incredible.

    So with many other laws we can reel the buggers in well after the law has been broken and fine a bunch of them. We don’t have to be nazis about it. But you break this law THIS LAW, the consequences for the entirety of society are so bad, ………. that we have to make sure the law is never broken in the first place or found out quickly and dealt with very fast.

    This can mean harsh penalties. But it need not mean harsh penalties. After all the banks have for decades stopped their own tellers from practicing more humble forms of embezzlement, with very soft penalties but with simple vigilance.

  11. Winton – the terms and conditions for my bank account make it pretty clear. They will delay payment.

    The problem is not unique to banks. Consider electricity utilities. If everybody turns on their washing machine and air conditioner and dryer at the same time transmission circuits won’t cope. They will fail to deliver their service. Same sort of problem for the phone company. With the ISP things will grind to a halt. If everybody claims on their insurance at the same time the insurance companies are out of business.

  12. “So Bird, would you jail every Australian with mismatched assets/liabilities like say yourself?”

    The crime is not mis-matching assets and liabilities under the scenario implied.

    The crime is

    1. Fraud with malice.

    2. Counterfeiting.

    3. Fraud with a view to unjust enrichment.

    2. Conspiracy to undermine the currency.

    3. Conspiracy to reignite the business cycle, thus ruining peoples lives and creating unemployment.

    4. Conspiracy to distort the allocation of scarce capital resources during the boom phase.

    5. Conspiracy to subsidise the REAL AND NOMINAL profit share, of national income, at the expense of real wages.

    6. Subversion of the confidence that less well off people can have in the more-voluntary society as a fair and functioning setup.

    7. Conspiracy to create a national or local “prosperity delusion” thus enticing people to save less, spend more, and borrow more, than they otherwise would if price information had not been distorted.

    8. Conspiracy to normalize NEGATIVE INVENTORY SPECULATION which is an anti-social undertaking …. as opposed to POSITIVE INVENTORY SPECULATION ……. which is probably one of the most beneficial undertakings in economic life.

    9. Treason. Selling out Australia and the human species, to SYSTEMICALLY (and possibly conspirationally) EVIL networks of the Northern Hemisphere, who are fed and sustained, by the money creation function.

    If you don’t know what I’m talking about just dwell for months at a time, pacing backwards and forwards, on the molten iron streaming from the South Tower, before it collapsed into its path of greatest resistance.

    10. Conspiracy to promote Marxism and Keynesianism through social vandalism …. as opposed to promoting these philosophies via persuasion. Promoting Keynesianism via persuasion ought to get you sacked from any publicly funded economics department. But the sanctions should stop there.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Now as to punishment. Sir Isaac Newton had a fellow hung, drawn, and quartered, for attempting persistently to undermine the pound sterling. Thats hung to his death. Then his body cut in half. Then his body cut in half again.

    This was a major undertaking for Newton to kill this fellow, and he stayed on the job year in and year out until this fellow was dead, and in pieces, …….. publicly.

    We have to have punishments for the breaking of this particular law which stops the law-breaking in its tracks. Because once there is a break-out of the breaking of this law, the pain (at setting the capital markets back to being effective) is just incredible.

    So with many other laws we can reel the buggers in well after the law has been broken and fine a bunch of them. We don’t have to be nazis about it. But you break this law THIS LAW, the consequences for the entirety of society are so bad, ………. that we have to make sure the law is never broken in the first place or found out quickly and dealt with very fast.

    This can mean harsh penalties. But it need not mean harsh penalties. After all the banks have for decades stopped their own tellers from practicing more humble forms of embezzlement, with very soft penalties but with simple vigilance.

  13. But Birdy [“Harry May”], you’ve already conceded that fractional reserve banking is legal and NOT fraud. You conceded it is NOT a crime. You folded in a manner most fowl.

    Now, forget your flustered filibustering and answer the question: what’s immoral about fractional reserve banking, Birdy?

    P.S.F.Y.I. that wasn’t “molten iron” streaming out of the South Tower.

  14. Take care to moderate Fyodor. Fyodor is the original fractional reserve thread-wrecker and compulsive liar on the subject of monetary economics. He was the creator of the threads-of-doom over at Cattallaxy.

    Fyodor. If fractional reserve is legal than legally it cannot be fraud. So obviously it cannot legally attract punishment IF YOU ARE A BANKER.

    The rest of us will indeed be arrested if we try this on. But since bankers are given a special crony privilege it is not illegal for them to exercise this special crony privilege.

    The banks create ponzi money. Then the central bank turns this fake money into cash. This racket is the biggest ripoff in history. But it cannot legally be fraud. Since it is not illegal for this conspiracy against the public to continue.

    But if we made it illegal, and defined it as fraud, then it would be fraud. And it would be illegal.

    Now for goodness sakes someone put Fyodor on moderation before he wrecks another thread.

    Now do I need to repeat myself?

  15. “P.S.F.Y.I. that wasn’t “molten iron” streaming out of the South Tower.”

    There is nothing this fellow won’t lie about. Okay then. What molten metal was it, and how do you know this and how does molten uranium (or anything your lying fingertips comes up with) support the absence of an American wing to the conspiracy.

    Don’t answer these questions. Its merely worthy to note that Fyodor is a compulsive liar and threadwrecker. And moderators must be more severe on people who do this under cover of anonymity.

  16. But if we made it illegal, and defined it as fraud, then it would be fraud. And it would be illegal.

    And if you deployed a tautology as an argument then your argument would be tautological. Alternatively put, if you had a point, you’d have a point.

    Birdy, anybody who meets the prudential requirements can establish a bank in Australia. There’s no nefarious “crony privilege”. I’d suggest you give it a shot, except I’m fairly certain you’d fail the requirements for integrity, prudence and competence. But then your failure would not be evidence of cronyistic cabalism so much as of the natural order of things.

    Are you going to answer the question, or will you squib again?

    What molten metal was it, and how do you know this

    The NIST report concludes, convincingly, that it was aluminium, as the fires would not have been hot enough to melt iron or steel.

  17. Right. If its legally a special crony privilege then its not legally fraud if you are a special crony. So the banks can create ponzi-money and the central bank can reward them with cash newly printed from the mint and thats not illegal. In fact they have reams of legal cover for this gargantuan industry-wide subsidy.

    But if its illegal and defined as fraud, then to practice it is illegal and fraud.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Now you say that there was molten aluminium streaming from the South Tower. You are lying, but how did this come about in your lying view?

    Did all the parts of the jet fall backwards into one place, after scattering?

    And you are lying about NIST.

    And it wouldn’t matter if you weren’t. Aluminium does not have that heat signature, nor could the scattered pieces have reconstituted a neat pile in the manner you claim.

  18. “as the fires would not have been hot enough to melt iron or steel.”

    Thats right. The fire wasn’t hot enough to melt iron. The fire didn’t melt the iron. And now you have confessed to lying about the metal not being iron. You have just confessed to not having a clue what the metal was. So you made it up.

    You cannot get melted aluminium or melted aluminium alloy to glow orange or red like iron at the temperatures that the fire could have reached. It stays silver. So while I cannot prove that it was necessarily iron instead of lead, or some other metal, I know for a fact that you were lying about it being aluminium.

  19. Right. If its legally a special crony privilege then its not legally fraud if you are a special crony. So the banks can create ponzi-money and the central bank can reward them with cash newly printed from the mint and thats not illegal. In fact they have reams of legal cover for this gargantuan industry-wide subsidy.

    But if its illegal and defined as fraud, then to practice it is illegal and fraud.

    Fractional reserve banking is legal. It’s not fraud. It’s not a “special crony privilege”. You have no argument, and you STILL haven’t answered the question of its alleged immorality.

    Now you say that there was molten aluminium streaming from the South Tower. You are lying, but how did this come about in your lying view?

    How did molten aluminium come to be streaming out of a tower in which an aeroplane partially constructed of aluminium crashed and burned, thereby melting said aluminium? You mean that? How did that come about? I believe some terrorists were involved in piloting said aircraft into said tower. Do you have an alternative, substantiated view?

    Did all the parts of the jet fall backwards into one place, after scattering?

    Who said they did?

    And you are lying about NIST.

    Prove it.

    Aluminium does not have that heat signature, nor could the scattered pieces have reconstituted a neat pile in the manner you claim.

    “Heat signature”? “Neat pile”?

    Evidence, please, for these dopey assertions of yours. Else I shall have to conclude that you are the one lying.

  20. We can rule out Aluminium, Titanium and Tungsten. So now that you were caught lying, claiming that it was not iron, what metal do you now claim it was?

  21. Thats right. The fire wasn’t hot enough to melt iron. The fire didn’t melt the iron. And now you have confessed to lying about the metal not being iron.

    Nope. I noted that the NIST report concluded it was aluminium. The only person confused here is you.

    You have just confessed to not having a clue what the metal was. So you made it up.

    Not at all. Your comprehension is failing you again.

    You cannot get melted aluminium or melted aluminium alloy to glow orange or red like iron at the temperatures that the fire could have reached. It stays silver. So while I cannot prove that it was necessarily iron instead of lead, or some other metal, I know for a fact that you were lying about it being aluminium.

    No, you can’t prove it was iron.

    What you CAN do is read the NIST explanation [Ref #11] as to why the molten aluminium did not look silver.

    Then what you CAN do is apologise for being such an ignorant crank.

  22. “Fractional reserve banking is legal. It’s not fraud.”

    Thats right Fyodor. Fractional reserve is legal for banking croneis. Therefore its not legally fraud for the banking cronies to engage in it.

    Moderators must take note. Fyodor can and will keep this up for weeks on end.

  23. “molten aluminium did not look silve”

    No you are lying. We can rule out aluminium absolutely based on the orange coloring. We cannot rule out gold on that same basis. Do you speculate that it was gold Fyodor?

    Now you are going to keep on lying. But it does seem we are in agreement on one thing. Since fractional reserve is legal if you have a banking license, it cannot legally be fraud if you have that banking license.

    Whereas if fractional reserve was illegal and defined as fraud, then it would be fraud were you to practice it.

  24. Once the planes were blasted apart and their parts scattered everywhere there was no chance of them melting and then pooling in one place. And we know for a fact that they didn’t do this since on coloring alone we can quickly rule out molten aluminium.

    The problem with theories of the aluminium unscattering and melting is that the molten iron was not molten aluminium and could not have been molten aluminium given any reasonable temperature.

    So now we know Fyodor was lying as he does all the time, we can ignore his interjection and continue calling the metal molten iron as perfectly acceptable shorthand.

    But should anyone have some thesis about the metal being lead or plutonium thats just fine. So long as it is an informed opinion and not just some fool lying.

  25. All – please ditch the discussion about airplanes and associated theories and stick to the fractional reserve banking topic.

    Graeme – why are you changing your name mid discussion? Please pick one name, let us know what it is, and then stick with it.

  26. Graeme Bird babbling about science matters is like a lifelong homeless person rambling on about interior design, except the homeless man would be likely to actually have more of an idea about the concepts of interior design than Bird has about science.

    The reference that Fyodor gave you didn’t say that the metal was pure aluminium alloy.

    “Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.”

  27. Bird

    Stop running away from the question. Mismatched assets/liabilities is a feature of fractional reserve banking.

    Leverage is also obviously the main feature and in bringing up the example of you having a mortgage underlines both being in operation, you fraudster.

    1. Clearly your assets and liabilities are mismatched

    2. you have leveraged your own position.

    So you are practicing example what you not only wish to ban, but also criminalize.

    So i ask again, would you be the first person in the dock charged with criminal fraud as a result of fractional?

    No bullshitting around Bird.

    Answer the freaking question and stop the lying.

  28. You are clueless Cambria. Do your homework and find out how new money is created.

    Fractional reserve is bank cash pyramding. Its the creation of ponzi-money. Stop typing if you are going to lie about it.

    The fact is that there is more money then cash. Ignorance of the facts is no excuse.

  29. Are we clear on bank cash pyramiding? Other than Cambria is there anyone willing to pretend that this doesn’t happen?

    The banks everywhere establish a central bank to defraud the public. The scam consists of the banks pyramiding upon the cash. Then with the ponzi-money they buy cash from the central bank.

    So suppose I was to pretend to have money, and I swapped the pretend money I didn’t have with cash from the central bank. You have to be pretty dimwitted not to understand that this is a swindle on the non-banking sector.

  30. This Harry fellow is entirely correct. The GFC was caused almost entirely by the ponzi-pyramding of the you-know-whos, who are now under the control of the gay usurper in the White House.
    Fractional reserve banking involves money creation by banks. To use an analogy, fractional reserve libraries creates ponzi books, and the taxpayer always foots the bill.

  31. Taya, 9/11 is important since it shows how far this source of funding has gone. I explained the situation to one old guy who knew the Corey’s in London when the Corey’s and the Krays were running things. He said that it sounds like the bankers had “gotten their own maffia”. This is what you are supporting when you support fractional reserve.

    From economic theory we see that fractional reserve leads to concentration in the banking industry. Since the bigger the bank, the more likely the loan money will come back to that bank. The next step is for those bankers to create a debt-based society, and for them to ruin other industries by over-concentrating THEM. This is necessary because they gain resources by new money creation. And they must do this on “sure things”. So they are going to always have pulsing inflation, real estate bingeing, the capture of huge resources in the hands of favorites, massive streams of revenue from government, and other extra-market effects.

    But if this goes on long enough it will no longer be a natural process. AGENCY will take hold. Well what 9/11 demonstrated was that a shadow government had been formed, and one with its own covert ops.

    The iron streaming from the South Tower, the visible multiple explosions, the molten iron in all three basements, three buildings down and only two planes, and the planes not being the type of plane they were supposed to be ….. All this tells us that the old rumors of a globalist banking cartel have truth to them.

    It may be a big blow to ones ego that people who we used to ridicule were right or substantially right. But 9/11 proves this and as pride goeth before a fall, we’ve just got to cop it on the jaw and go forward with the new understanding.

    But the only way to get out from under the parasitism of these people is to have a total ban on fractional reserve. And bear in mind that people who look like they are about to do this tend to have attempts on their life.

  32. “Taya, 9/11 is important since it shows how far this source of funding has gone”.

    Really. Can you please elaborate.

  33. The iron streaming from the South Tower, the visible multiple explosions, the molten iron in all three basements, three buildings down and only two planes, and the planes not being the type of plane they were supposed to be ….. All this tells us that the old rumors of a globalist banking cartel have truth to them.

    Harry,

    Where do you think the Russians fit into all this? I was watching a movie on Youtube that strongly suggested Russian involvement. Is it a coincidence that as the old Soviet stooges turned to banking, we have 9/11 a couple of years after the Wall fell?

    But the only way to get out from under the parasitism of these people is to have a total ban on fractional reserve. And bear in mind that people who look like they are about to do this tend to have attempts on their life.

    Well this all goes back to the problem of currency. What, in your opinion, Harry, is an appropriate substance for currency to be backed against? I mean in ideal terms. Gold has too many problems with it. We need something more liquid.

  34. Bird you freak, do you enjoy having inane conversations with yourself? Your insanity is showing, yet again.

  35. We always find thread-wreckers on fractional reserve threads. Parasites who cannot stand the idea of earning the money they make.

    But there is no denying the molten iron falling from the South Tower, and clearly this could not have been the result of 19 Arabs. Nor could the 19 Arabs theory explain molten Aluminium falling from the South Tower. Or molten gold or any other fantasy metal that the stupid people want to pretend the molten iron was.

    The fractional reserve advocates cannot come up with an economic justification, and yet there is some fantasy aspect of something-for-nothing that plays on their minds.

    Pyramiding on cash to create phony-cash, or to make any given amount of cash “go further” or “work harder” does not bring any new resources into existence. So why the manic support for this ripoff of society?

    Clearly there is something very wrong with the people who favor fractional reserve when the creation of new money could be a means to reduce our taxes or cover the costs of bringing up base metals.

    But what 9/11 does is prove the thrust of old rumors to do with a shadow government. And in this context the annoying irrationalism of those who support fractional reserve is far more sinister. It means that these people are selling us out.

    And think about the pro-fractional reserve thread-wreckers. Are they not sell-outs more generally? Do they not want to sell us out on the global warming issue as well?

    There seems to be a pretty strong correlation here. But I’m not casting aspersions on people who haven’t really looked into the issue. I’m talking about people who have regularly clogged up the debate on fractional reserve. They appear to be cast in terminal sellout mode.

  36. “Really. Can you please elaborate.”

    Thats way too large a topic for this thread. But since the 19 Arabs couldn’t be responsible for the molten iron pouring from the South Tower. Or the multiple explosions. Or the molten iron in all three collapsed buildings ……. then we have to ask “Who could have pulled this off”.

    But I’m not chasing that rabbit down to wonderland on this particular thread. Its enough to understand that fractional reserve is an unscrutinized source of resources.

  37. Birdy, are you going to answer my question?

    Why do you believe fractional reserve banking is immoral, when you’ve already conceded that it is neither fraud nor illegal?

  38. Given that it’s Anzac Day, I think it’s timely to reflect on how communist bankers (like this fellow above) have corroded our civic institutions, and emasculated our young men. Since currency was decoupled from the gold standard, we in the Western world have seen an explosion in buggery, sodomy, and general effiminacy. The Anzacs were not fighting merely for Paulson and Bernanke to have their way with the youth of today.

  39. Since currency was decoupled from the gold standard, we in the Western world have seen an explosion in buggery, sodomy, and general effiminacy. The Anzacs were not fighting merely for Paulson and Bernanke to have their way with the youth of today.

    You sure ’bout that, Mr Dobellina?

    They were attacking the Turks in the rear, and it’s not as if the Bashi Bazookas were unfamiliar with explosive buggery.

  40. No you are lying.
    Ever since we dropped the gold standard, and let wop ponzi artists into the pantry, we’ve seen an increase in enslavement to banksters. The corollary of this is effiminacy in our youths, pimped by the Maffia system. The effects of this interest rate-subsidy constitute the gravest moral and economic challenge of our times.
    It is as if Paulson, Bernanke, Obama and Cambria had inserted a glory hole into the great toilet of free capitalism.

  41. Look, under the free banking system devised by Rockwell and Rand, existing bank structures would be replaced largely by safe deposit boxes, which would themselves be comprised of pyramid-shaped compartments, each containing liquid assets/commodities.
    The crony socialist banksters and other parasites would be begging out the front of these free banks, wearing burlap sacks, and eternally confessing to the sin of fractional reserve banking. Yes, unemployment under my deflation-recession scheme would rise for a period, but we could stimulate the economy by importing women from China. Animals would be bred and slaughtered. Meanwhile, the productive members of society would enrich themselves from the free banking warehouses filled with precious, precious liquid coal.

  42. “Why do you believe fractional reserve banking is immoral, when you’ve already conceded that it is neither fraud nor illegal?”

    Your logic doesn’t follow even a little bit. You could make murdering girl guides legal. You could not make it moral.

    This sort of attempt at voiding all logic is what we expect from Cambria these days. Thankfully you have been making yourself scarce for some time.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Third parties do you see this. If you fail to moderate this moron, he’ll simply fill the threads up with this sort of stupidity. He’s anonymous, so he has no shame.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Does anyone NOT understand that making something legal does not make that thing ethical. It does not mean that this thing ought to be legal.

    Does anyone think that the Nazis being elected LEGALLY means that they should have been elected.

    Fyodor is too stupid to understand any of this. Which is why he ought to be moderated.

  43. Fyodor was the original creator of the threads of doom on catallaxy. All banking parasites and monetary cranks dive in when the subject comes up until such time as the laity becomes exhausted.

    The thread-killers were Andrew Reynolds, Fyodor, Mark Hill (who was merely deranged) and only later Cambria, who turned coat as soon as the GFC hit. Monetary cranks hang together. Humphreys went so far as to allow Cambria to post here supporting the GFC heist. And yet no argument can be found as to why anyone ought to support such an outrage in the entirety of his quisling spiel.

    Note that these people have made their livings on this parasitical lifestyle. All having been bankers.

  44. “Why do you believe fractional reserve banking is immoral, when you’ve already conceded that it is neither fraud nor illegal?”

    Your logic doesn’t follow even a little bit. You could make murdering girl guides legal. You could not make it moral.

    I didn’t ask you to debate the ethics of murdering of girl guides, Birdy. I asked you to explain why you think fractional reserve banking is immoral; a challenge you have failed yet again, piker.

    Brrk-bk-bk-brrk!

    Fyodor was the original creator of the threads of doom on catallaxy.

    That’s far too much credit, Birdy. I had considerable help…not least from you. Two to tango, yada yada.

  45. Ever since we dropped the gold standard, and let wop ponzi artists into the pantry, we’ve seen an increase in enslavement to banksters.

    I would say our two fatal mistakes were introducing income tax and ending the gold standard. However fractional reserve banking is not new. We had widespread fractional reserve banking in the gold standard days.

  46. Look. Most of you have almost no understanding of monetary economics. Its actually an easy subject, but lunatics like Fyodor always show up and ruin it.

    Secondly the subject is a technical subject. And you cannot have a technical understanding of it by reference to Ayn Rands idea of the non-intervention of force.

    So for goodness sakes moderate him, Cambria, Reynolds, Soon and Hill. They are morons and they always do this.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Fractional Reserve is not now legally defined as fraud, since its legal under cronyist licensing. This is analogous to the bailout being legal, although it was brazen theft, since the bankers bribed the politicians.

    The argument ends there as to whether fractional reserve is legally fraud or not. It is if thats the law, and it isn’t if thats not the law. And murdering girl guides isn’t legally murder if the law says its okay. Thats the alpha and omega of this argument.

    But fractional reserve combines a rolling thunder of conspirational activities that ought to be illegal.

    Fyodor, Cambria, Reynolds, Soon and Hill have nothing to add to this. For starters they are not very bright, and they are incapable of logic, as we have just seen in the case of Fyodor.

    So moderate him. You moderated me for five years in preference to learning the material that is now in Chris Leithners book. You can moderate the stupid people as well.

    Note well. Fractional Reserve, in reality, and under Austrian Theory, causes the banking (ie the business) cycle. And this can be shown empirically.

    Here is a study that begins this process:

    http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Johnsson2.pdf

  47. But fractional reserve combines a rolling thunder of conspirational activities that ought to be illegal.

    Assertion, not argument. You have yet to show that fractional reserve banking is in any way immoral.

    Note well. Fractional Reserve, in reality, and under Austrian Theory, causes the banking (ie the business) cycle. And this can be shown empirically. Here is a study that begins this process:

    Nope. It shows no such thing. You’ve floated this garbage before and it’s still garbage.

  48. No you are lying.
    Reynolds is a monetary crank. SOON is a communist agent of influence, straight from Beijing. If Fyodor wanted to educate himself, there are plenty of credible economic scientists publishing their research on Youtube. He should start there.

  49. So does anybody have any evidence at all that FRB is not an immoral, effeminising policy orchestrated by Marxist-Keynesian economic vandals? Anybody at all?
    Right. That’s that one settled.

    Now, in accordance with free banking, which commodity ought to be used to back our currency? Liquefied coal? Carbon nanorods?

  50. Yes assertion not argument Fyodor. Congratulations on your fantastic skills at telling the two apart. Bravo. Golf Clap. And all that. Its a pity you’ve already given away your incompetence in logic hey?

    The argument starts when they decide to put the thread-wreckers on moderation. The other wrecker today is either Soon or Cambria. Soon and Humphreys are obsessed with this issue, though they try to make fun of it. And this is what you find with many people who take an irrational approach to economics more generally.

    They monetary irrationalists seem to have an incredible fascination with bank-cash-pyramiding, and Humphreys has said outright that it creates something for nothing. These people really truly believe that this ponzi-scheme creates new investment resources where their were none. Incredible hey?

    This is what we call “Macromancy”; Mysticism in economics.

    The macromancer sees loanable funds as an aggregate. As a national aggregate. A metric. And the macromancer thinks that he, with his post-graduate degree, knows that he can create more resources by jazzing the loan market to create extra loans. The macromancy is where these guys think that this creates more investment and greater resources, and therefore more growth.

    This erroneous belief amounts to a religion, and it sort of justifies these peoples degrees to them. They consider this macromancy a sort of special esoteric knowledge and part of them being professionals. A calling card to an elite of sorts.

    Thats why, though both Humphreys, and Soon have established their ignorance by calling this a “20th order priority” they are actually totally obsessive about it and they work very hard to side with the money creators.

    Its not a 20th order priority in reality, or yet even for them. Its the most important social issue in the world today. The banning of fractional reserve is the most important social priority that any of us can have.

    So my idea is that the thread-wreckers be vigorously moderated, and hopefully if Chris doesn’t feel he’s going to have to get down in the dirt with these quislings …

    ….hopefully Chris will show up and help explain why this is a first order priority, or rather why this is the FIRST OF ALL priorities.

  51. Yes assertion not argument Fyodor. Congratulations on your fantastic skills at telling the two apart. Bravo. Golf Clap. And all that. Its a pity you’ve already given away your incompetence in logic hey?

    Where have I given such away, Birdy? Was it before or after I identified that your dopey assertions were unsubstantiated?

    You’re the one who’s conceded that fractional reserve banking is legal, is not fraud and, moreover, you’ve refused to substantiate your assertion that it’s immoral. Yet another squib, Birdy. Or should that be squab?

    Brrk-buk-buk-bukrrk.

  52. Graeme – the thread may get moderated but probably not according to your specification. If you have an argument that you wish to make then you had best get on with it.

  53. Who too? You don’t understand monetary economics Taya. And you have been incredibly belligerent in the past when it came to refusing to learn the subject. For example you refused point blank to get the process of money supply creation under your belt.

    No the deal is this:

    If people are going to learn monetary economics they have to WANT to learn it. There is no use pretending you are right, or trying to feel like you have a valid opinion on it when you don’t know anything about it. And there is no use pretending that people like Fyodor or Soon, or Cambria are intelligent people with a valid opinion when they are morons, who wouldn’t care to be right if they had the capacity, which they lack.

    The idea to learn anything is to get control of the disruptive element in the class, and get people asking Chris (or myself) intelligent questions. But people have to want to learn the subject, unless they are just content to support doing the right thing and are happy to stay ignorant about matters.

  54. There is no use pretending you are right, or trying to feel like you have a valid opinion on it when you don’t know anything about it.

    Two words: Champagne. Comedy.

    Bear in mind that you are a CO2-bedwetter as well Taya. So attempt to see things from my point of view.

    *golf clap*

    Don’t ever change, Birdy.

    …unless of course you get into serious physical, mental or legal trouble which – let’s face it – isn’t outside the realms of possibility.

  55. Yes well I thought it had a bit of sparkle to it. You wouldn’t believe how persistently annoying Taya can be when he’s trying to put together unworkable compromises with dimwitted people like yourself or the trace-gas-hysterics.

    Its another case of the same old same old again repeating over. Because with the global warming fraud we had another matter, technical in nature, and we had compromisers all around, trying to sidestep the technical questions as if they had no relevance.

    Humphreys had an obsession with ignoring the science, and Taya would meat him halfway, in an act of building on a compromise, based on losing ground, set against an accommodation, brought about after mastering the art of pre-emptive surrender ….. and the two of them moonwalking backwards out the door in the face of greenie loons whose approach to logic was identical to your own.

  56. Yes well I thought it had a bit of sparkle to it.

    Well you know I’m a fan. Everything you write has the manic sparkle of diamond nano-rods, Birdy, but the comedy is unintentional.

    You see, you believe you’re possessed of genuine insight, and you cling to this delusion like a shipwrecked sailor to a barnacl’d rock, but the reality that we all see is a mal-educated egomaniac with a credulous streak a mile wide for truly ridiculous conspiracy theories. That’s the joke that you don’t and can’t appreciate. If you could, your bubble would burst.

    Now, you owe Terje an apology for behaving so rudely in his salon. He may be a climate hysteriac, but that’s no excuse for bad manners on your part.

    You also need to answer my question, on which you keep squibbing, squab.

  57. You really are obsessed with this subject. Deeply suspicious for someone who doesn’t care how stupid he sounds, and who is arguing for the tired gray status quo. Your obsession now spans five years. You are an innovator of sorts. The first of the inside-outskies. The first internet commie and quisling who pre-emptively pitched himself as a conservative.

  58. You really are obsessed with this subject. Deeply suspicious for someone who doesn’t care how stupid he sounds…

    …and the lulz just keep on coming!

  59. Righto. Onward.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Note that failure to moderate Fyodor has allowed him a total victory. In that people have grown bored OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY SUBJECT IN THE WORLD. They feel embarrassed to side with the truth, even if they aren’t fond of the status quo. And others have become deathly bored all the way to insulin shock level.

    So he’s won again. And the banks will continue to steal off you. Continue to have a massively subsidised business environment. The Reserve bank Chairman will continue to be paid a massive salary, doing an appalling job, for tasks done badly, that in sober reality, constitute a part-time gig.

    The banks will continue to gain about three times the new money creation benefit (last I checked) that the government gets AS IF THEY WERE SENIOR PARTNER in the selfsame racket.

    Worst of all you had the chance to educate yourselves by asking intelligent questions of a fellow that just got through researching all aspects of this subject for a truly excellent book.

    But you blew it by expecting that it was okay to force him to get down in the muck with the thread-wreckers.

  60. So he’s won again.

    Of course. I win; you lose – it’s the natural order. Except, strangely, you’re not in Arkham Asylum as you should be.

  61. Thats a powerful monetary-economics argument you’ve developed there over the last five years Fyodor ……. (not).

  62. The laity must understand that Fyodor can and will continue like this for MONTHS. The monetary cranks are nothing if not committed filibusterers.

    One time Andrew Reynolds filibustered daily for four straight months (he did not miss a single day) over a piece of straight sophistry. They are there to tire you out so the thieving can continue.

  63. Thats a powerful monetary-economics argument you’ve developed there over the last five years Fyodor.

    As you’ve conceded and I have won, I’d have to agree with you there, slim.

  64. Marvelous. Your technical expertise in monetary economics is just exemplary.

    Now tell me how bank-to-bank loans help create our trade deficit.

  65. Now tell me how bank-to-bank loans help create our trade deficit.

    They don’t. Next?

    Oh, wait…forgot to mock your earlier comment…

    The monetary cranks are nothing if not committed filibusterers.

    Hahaha.

  66. Clearly you have no interest in this subject beyond the maintenance of bank parasitism.

    Lets try again. How do bank-to-bank loans help produce our near relentless trade deficits?

  67. That one too hard for you?

    Lets try something else. Why do the banks require the central bank to aim for at least some consumer price inflation in order that they make massive profits?

  68. How does fractional reserve money creation dovetail with taxes on retained earnings to devastate our manufacturing industries?

  69. Which historians thousand year survey showed that periods of expanding fractional reserve money creation are periods of greater domestic and international violence?

    Which came first in the Spanish Empire? The development of fractional reserve nflation, or the vicious and obsessive hunt for gold in the New World.

  70. What was the difference in the pattern of inflation in Europe before and after the formalization of fractional reserve banking amongst the goldsmiths in Britain?

  71. Yes or NO?

    Did Medici-run Florence suffer from periods of seemingly inexplicable unemployment? Did they have labor unions or minimum wage laws?

    What two price categories always rose first at the onset of the expansion of fractional reserve banking in medieval Europe?

  72. How do bank-to-bank loans help produce our near relentless trade deficits?

    Already answered.

    Why do the banks require the central bank to aim for at least some consumer price inflation in order that they make massive profits?

    They don’t.

    Which historians thousand year survey showed that periods of expanding fractional reserve money creation are periods of greater domestic and international violence?

    No historian has shown this.

    Which came first in the Spanish Empire? The development of fractional reserve nflation, or the vicious and obsessive hunt for gold in the New World.

    Gold was “hunted” in the Americas before the invention of fractional reserve banking.

  73. What was the difference in the pattern of inflation in Europe before and after the formalization of fractional reserve banking amongst the goldsmiths in Britain?

    There was no noticeable difference in the pattern of inflation.

    Did Medici-run Florence suffer from periods of seemingly inexplicable unemployment?

    No.

    Did they have labor unions or minimum wage laws?

    Yes.

    What two price categories always rose first at the onset of the expansion of fractional reserve banking in medieval Europe?

    Medieval Europe didn’t have fractional reserve banking.

  74. Looks like we have to go over it again:

    How do bank to bank loans exacerbate our trade deficit? We are talking about foreign banks lending to our local banks.

  75. Fyodor has every question wrong so far. He will keep this up for months. This is why he must be moderated.

  76. Medieval Europe did indeed have fractional reserve banking, try again.

    Nope. We’ve been through this before. Produce your evidence.

    How do bank to bank loans exacerbate our trade deficit? We are talking about foreign banks lending to our local banks.

    I understand the question; the premise is incorrect. Bank to bank loans do not “exacerbate our trade deficit”. If you think otherwise, prove it.

    Fyodor has every question wrong so far. He will keep this up for months. This is why he must be moderated.

    Do stop whining, Birdy. Focus your energies on producing a coherent argument.

    Now, I’ve answered your questions. It’s your – much belated – turn to answer mine:

    “What’s immoral about fractional reserve banking, Birdy?”

    Now, GO!!!

  77. “One tenth of the people were unemployed, and lived on pickings from noble self-indulgence.”

    page 32.

    (Speaking of 1429) “….. work was scarce..”

    page 40.

    “It was not an easy period for the Medici interest,least of all for Piero. FLORENCE WAS GOING THROUGH ONE OF HER SUDDEN FINANCIAL CRISIS. There was a crop of unexplained bankruptcies which ricochetted down through society”

    Page 55.

    UNEXPLAINED bankruptcies. A mystery. So no fractional reserve in medieval Florence hey doofus?

    “Only in times of acute unemployment, as in the period of the clompi revolution, did their condition influence politics.”

    page 86.

    All quotes taken from the book “Lorenzo The Magnificent.” by Marice Rowdon.

    Now some more questions:

    Was their periods of acute unemployment in medieval Florence?

    Was their fractional reserve banking in medieval Florence?

    Were there Labor Unions in Medieval Florence?

    Were there minimum wage laws in Medieval Florence?

  78. Fractional Reserve Meltdown in Medieval Florence:

    “Between 1422 to 1470, the number of banks operating in Florence had slowly dwindled from seventy-two to thirty-three. Two years after Lorenzo’s death, they could be counted on the fingers of one hand.”

    page 211.

    We can cross-check this picture of bank ponzi-money deflation against the price information of the time. I’ll just retrieve information on the timing of when the inflation ended in Europe and the money-famine began. But first another question…

    Typically in medieval Europe how long did “money-famines” tend to last?

    (a) Around about six months on average since the labor market was flexible without trade unions or minimum wage laws.

    (b) Close to 18 months because of a flexible price of labor.

    (c) About 5 years.

    (d) Close to about 20 years.

  79. I’d rather you didn’t ban Birdy (in any of his guises), but I would appreciate it if you could unmoderate my comments. They seem to be dropping out.

  80. I’ve got an idea Taya. This time around you could learn monetary economics. So that you didn’t ever go around supporting fractional reserve mono-metal. If you actually understood the subject you would never advocate as dangerous a thing as that ever again.

    When I explained the process by which banks create new money you said I was confusing money with credit, when it was you who was confused. No evidence has appeared since then to say you had sorted the matter out.

  81. What has the international banking cartel done over the last 15 years to destroy wealth?

    (a) Lent to governments thus subidising poor budgetary practices.

    (b) Used phantom supply to warp pricing and decision-making throughout the entire structure of production.

    (c) Diverted huge funds into bidding land prices up as opposed to investing in wealth-producing micro-loans and venture capital.

    (d) Practicing share-pyramiding (ie “naked short-selling) and thereby starving new business of needed capital.

    (e) Interfered in the political process to support leftist and crony-rightest policies.

    (f) All of the above.

  82. Which sort of loans can create wealth.

    (a) Wherein cash flows (possibly excluding principal repayments but always including interest payments) are greatly enhanced.

    (b) Where the loans are made for the purpose of making a killing in the trading of assets.

    (c) Loans for buying a small or medium-sized business, improving and expanding that business, and making a massive capital gain on sale of that business.

    (d) a&c

  83. “Hi, Terje? Do I have a comment in moderation?”

    Several one hopes. Taya I trust your judgment to some extent. Why not go back and wipe a bunch of tit-for-tat comments. Wipe his one and mine in pairs. Leave comment pairs that have some sort of monetary-economics value.

  84. A mere 95 comments? Pfft. Back in my day this would by up to 600 by now, on its way to 2000, before causing the internet to implode.

  85. Jarrah – don’t worry. It will probably still get to 600. It will just take a bit longer.

  86. Jarrah – don’t worry. It will probably still get to 600. It will just take a bit longer.

    Mmyeah. I’m not so sure. It looks like Birdy’s run out of puff. He’s only reached five comments in a row on the Bird-o-Meter, so I wouldn’t be as confident that he’ll make the distance.

    Anyhoo. My previous comment’s obviously lost, so I’ll have to repost.

    Birdy, unemployment and medieval patronage in medieval Florence aren’t inexplicable. Nor are bankruptcies. Neither is attributable to fractional reserve banking as medieval Florentine banks did not practise fractional reserve banking. Their bankruptcies were thus not the result of fractional reserve banking.

    If by “money famine” you mean a dearth of specie relative to demand then there was no “typical” such period.

    Now, are you going to answer my question, squab?

  87. Harry, this Isaac Newton seems a bit of a nutter. Perhaps you had to be a nutcase to be so dedicated to science, but he is not a good role model in most regards!

  88. Bad reasoning, Fyodor. Things can be immoral, but not illegal. If I fornicate, that would be against my Christian religion (immoral to me), but it is NOT now against the laws of the land (illegal to all).
    Spot the difference?
    and another point- fraud is usually practiced in secret, but this can be discovered and talked about publicly- I found out about Fractional Reserve practices by reading books on banking. So this is NOT fraud, even if it is immoral.

  89. “Bad reasoning, Fyodor. Things can be immoral, but not illegal. If I fornicate, that would be against my Christian religion (immoral to me), but it is NOT now against the laws of the land (illegal to all).
    Spot the difference?
    and another point- fraud is usually practiced in secret, but this can be discovered and talked about publicly- I found out about Fractional Reserve practices by reading books on banking. So this is NOT fraud, even if it is immoral.”

    It’s not immoral either. Consenting adults etc. No externalities.

  90. I have never resorted to fairy tales.
    As for the meaning of the word ‘moral’, my Macquarie dictionary has ‘sexually chaste, virtuous’ as one of the definitions of that word, though not the only one.

  91. “I have never resorted to fairy tales.”

    Of course you have: “If I fornicate, that would be against my Christian religion (immoral to me)”

    As for the meaning of the word ‘moral’, my Macquarie dictionary has ‘sexually chaste, virtuous’ as one of the definitions of that word, though not the only one.

    Cherry-picking the Macquarie dictionary? That’s your argument? Jaysus.

    And this relates to the fractional reserve price of fish how, exactly?

  92. Do you mean your Dictionary DOESN’T have this definition? What source are you using- you never say.
    And I have never resorted to fairy tales. You may have decided to label all religions as fairy tales, but I don’t, and I bet your arrogant tone makes more enemies than friends in this column.
    And you are the one who seemed to think that if something was legal that meant that it was moral. Now that is a false argument! In most muslim countries it is legal to kill someone who converts from Islam to any other religion- but I would argue that this is Immoral! What would you say?

  93. Do you mean your Dictionary DOESN’T have this definition? What source are you using- you never say.

    It’s not a matter of which dictionary one uses, “moral” does not everywhere and always have reference to fornication. That is, you cherry-picked one definition that appealed to you, that has no bearing on the argument.

    And I have never resorted to fairy tales. You may have decided to label all religions as fairy tales, but I don’t, and I bet your arrogant tone makes more enemies than friends in this column.

    Couldn’t care less, Nuk-Nuk. Whether you label your particular brand of fairy tale a “religion” or not does not negate the fact that it is based on fairy tales. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

    And you are the one who seemed to think that if something was legal that meant that it was moral.

    Nope. Never said so, never implied so.

    Now that is a false argument! In most muslim countries it is legal to kill someone who converts from Islam to any other religion- but I would argue that this is Immoral! What would you say?

    Which Muslim countries, Nukular? You do realise that “most” implies a majority, right? And before you get het up on Teh Muzzies and their Awfulness, I believe killing people for their beliefs is immoral. The ethics of that position are pretty simple.

    Now, when you’re finished whining about fairy tales, why don’t you try defending your assertion that FRB is immoral.

  94. You have misconstrued what I have written. I have never stated that FRB is immoral, nor do I believe that it needs to be, so long as all parties are aware that it is happening, and nothing is being hidden.
    As for the false charge of cherry-picking, I did not give the whole quote about the definitions of the word ‘moral’ because I thought that it would be too long, and I dislike padding of arguments. Also, I said that to me, it would be immoral to fornicate. Other people have other codes, and I do not try to force my code on them.
    As for Muslim countries that kill apostates, Saudi Arabia does this, Iran also, Afghanistan tried to impose this until america objected- then the apostate was declared insane, Yemen, Morocco, Algeria, syria, etc. A few places, like Indonesia, don’t , but they are very rare. Malaysia doesn’t recognise any change of religion from Islam- so they don’t officially have apostates-so they don’t kill people about it. And, until the recent regime change, Egypt also was tough on apostates- and routinely discriminated against the Copts.
    And I never whine about fairy tales. the only ones telling tales are those who believe that the Universe created itself from nothing- they are called cosmologists, and are allowed out without a keeper! amazing!

  95. You have misconstrued what I have written. I have never stated that FRB is immoral, nor do I believe that it needs to be, so long as all parties are aware that it is happening, and nothing is being hidden.

    What’s to “misconstrue”? This is what you wrote:

    I found out about Fractional Reserve practices by reading books on banking. So this is NOT fraud, even if it is immoral. [my emphasis]

    That’s what you wrote. If you’ve changed your mind, fair enough, but don’t lie about it.

    As for the false charge of cherry-picking, I did not give the whole quote about the definitions of the word ‘moral’ because I thought that it would be too long, and I dislike padding of arguments.

    FFFS. It’s not a matter of providing a “whole quote”, Nuk-Nuk. As you yourself conceded there are multiple definitions. You only presented one, that you think favoured your case. That’s called “cherry-picking”. Look it up in a dictionary if you still don’t get it.

    As for Muslim countries that kill apostates, Saudi Arabia does this, Iran also, Afghanistan tried to impose this until america objected- then the apostate was declared insane, Yemen, Morocco, Algeria, syria, etc.

    Depending on how you want to cut it, there are about 50 Muslim countries, Nuk-Nuk. Of the countries you list, only Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iran list apostasy as a crime under their criminal or penal code. That is not even close to a majority of Muslim countries. FAIL.

    As you claim to be a Christina I’m surprised you’re so worked up over punishing apostasy. Consider Deuteronomy 13:6-10:

    If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

    Nice little fairy tale you got going on there.

    And I never whine about fairy tales. the only ones telling tales are those who believe that the Universe created itself from nothing- they are called cosmologists, and are allowed out without a keeper! amazing!

    Not as amazing as the people who believe some bearded bloke in the sky created everything in six days then had a bit of a kip. You know, because All-Powerful Creators of Everything need their nanna-naps.

  96. Stop misconstruing my arguments! I added ‘so long as all parties are aware.’ that definitely changes the meaning! If one party were unaware that FRB was happening, shouldn’t you tell them before they trade with you? Is it moral or immoral to not tell them?
    I must do some work, but I’ll respond later to what else you have scribbled here.

  97. ” If one party were unaware that FRB was happening, shouldn’t you tell them before they trade with you? Is it moral or immoral to not tell them?”

    Nuke. A lot of people think share prices and land value increase and never decline.

    Should we take them out back and shoot them as an act of mercy and in order to preserve the capital of their heirs? Obviously they should never invest, let alone earn interest from a bank account and banking system they can’t be bothered to study and understand.

  98. FFFS, Nuk-Nuk, stop bullshitting.

    This is your entire comment:

    Bad reasoning, Fyodor. Things can be immoral, but not illegal. If I fornicate, that would be against my Christian religion (immoral to me), but it is NOT now against the laws of the land (illegal to all).
    Spot the difference?
    and another point- fraud is usually practiced in secret, but this can be discovered and talked about publicly- I found out about Fractional Reserve practices by reading books on banking. So this is NOT fraud, even if it is immoral.

    NOWHERE in this comment did you add ‘so long as all parties are aware.’

    You only added this qualification in a much later comment, in a desperate attempt to climb out of the hole you’ve dug, AFTER I pulled you up on your dopey assertion.

  99. Fyodor, the use of the word ‘if’, as in ‘even IF it is immoral’, is not a statement that something IS immoral. If I had meant that it certainly was immoral, i would have written ‘So this is not fraud, even THOUGH it is immoral’. the two sentences are different. The ‘If’ implies we need to look at other factors, such as the context of the transaction.
    Or do other people routinely swap ‘IF’ and ‘THOUGH’ around as interchangeable words? I don’t.

  100. Wong again, Nuk-Nuk. You did not use “if” in a conditional sense or subjunctive mood, but to make a concession.

    “So this is NOT fraud, even if it is immoral.”

    That is, you “concede” that FRB is immoral while asserting that it is not fraud.

    If you had meant it in a conditional sense, you would have used a construction like:

    “Even if it were immoral, this is not fraud.” [N.B. subjunctive “were”]

    Like I said, resile from your assertion if you wish, but don’t bullshit about it.

  101. That is the way I use it. I do not concede anything.

    How YOU use words is irrelevant, Nuk-Nuk.

    You’re no chop in banking, in ethics, in theology, in law and now in grammar. Clearly your ignorance has great breadth.

  102. You won’t even tell us which dictionary you use, if any, Fifi. It seems to me that your ignorance is even bigger than mine, the one area you exceed at!

  103. Whereas I don’t have to consult a dictionary to correct your mistakes, you cherry-pick, clumsily, from the Macquarie Dictionary.

    Good one, Nuk-Nuk – consider me convinced that you’re not an ignorant clown.

    Please, Great Sage, share with us some more of your erudite eructations.

  104. I have a life beyond the Internet, and I am going to enjoy it, starting now. Bye-bye, Fi-fi!

  105. He’s just part of the misinformation crew. I TOLD YOU TO MODERATE HIM TAYA so we could have a decent debate. That wasn’t too much to ask.

    Now since you decided not to moderate him, can you contact me if he goes away for good, or if he makes a valid logical point?

    Taya what do you think you are doing!!!!!

    Hey!!!!!

    This is six years now you jerk. And you won’t learn monetary economics, nor will you learn economics. Piss or get off the pot. Learn monetary economics or trust those who have.

    Get it together. We are not going to send some pathetic sellout to Canberra.

    You might think we are but we aren’t.

    You might think we are but perhaps you are in the wrong party.

  106. Terje sold out on global warming. He sold out on moderating Fyodor. And just the other day I caught him hanging shit on the Donald for the crime of ASKING A PROVEN USURPER for his birth certificate. Never once did Terje mention the birth certificate. But thats the reason he was running the dumping raid.

    It ought to be of vital concern where someone holds an office that he is legally barred from holding. It used to be that the rule of law was important to libertarians.

  107. To those who might be interested in Theology, Jesus said that he came to fulfil the torah. Therefore, everything he did must have been in conformity with the Torah. As Fyodor pointed out, apostasy carries the death penalty, as does adultery, in the Torah.
    However, Jesus effectively banished the death penalty for adultery when he asked those around him if they were totally sinless, and therefore the only ones good enough to carry out the law! This element of mercy was always in the Torah, but not utilised much. This example probably applies to all death-penalty laws in the Torah.
    And God does not need to rest, but the Sabbath was designed for man, not man for the Sabbath, as Jesus pointed out.

  108. This is six years now you jerk. And you won’t learn monetary economics, nor will you learn economics. Piss or get off the pot. Learn monetary economics or trust those who have.

    You hear this a lot, don’t you, Birdy? Do you ever wonder why people question your genius? Do you ever ponder the gap between how you see yourself and how others see you? Honestly, how do you rationalise it?

    We are not going to send some pathetic sellout to Canberra.

    Hahaha, I’m sure we can dimiss your political advice out of hand. How many votes did YOU win, Mr Dobellina?

  109. To those who might be interested in Theology, Jesus said that he came to fulfil the torah. Therefore, everything he did must have been in conformity with the Torah. As Fyodor pointed out, apostasy carries the death penalty, as does adultery, in the Torah.
    However, Jesus effectively banished the death penalty for adultery when he asked those around him if they were totally sinless, and therefore the only ones good enough to carry out the law! This element of mercy was always in the Torah, but not utilised much. This example probably applies to all death-penalty laws in the Torah.

    “Probably?” Do you make this shit up as you go along? The bible – your preferred book of fairy tales – says that adultery and apostasy are both crimes for Jews and Christians alike. End of story.

    And God does not need to rest, but the Sabbath was designed for man, not man for the Sabbath, as Jesus pointed out.

    Genesis 2-2. Thanks for playing.

  110. The bible says no such thing- else why did Jesus let go the woman caught in Adultery? (John chapter 8, verse 11)

  111. The bible says no such thing- else why did Jesus let go the woman caught in Adultery? (John chapter 8, verse 11) As for the Sabbath, try Matthew, Chapter 12, verses 1 to 8.

  112. The bible says no such thing

    “Thou shalt not murder. Neither shalt thou commit adultery.” Deuteronomy 5-16.

    That Jesus is supposed to have forgiven a woman her crime of adultery does not mean she did not commit a crime in the first place.

    “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”. Mark 2, verse 27

    So what? The bible says that Yahweh rested on the 7th day because the duffer ran out of puff. It’s a dopey fairy tale, get over it.

  113. No, it is not a dopey fairy tale, but an encapsulation of human history, based around a real man. None of your insults have influenced me in any way whatso-ever, except to waste time trying to enlighten you. A final point of fact- the word ‘rest’ has many definitions, in any dictionary you care to name, and one of the meanings is, ‘the ceasing or absense of movement’. God ceased to move, and let the created world get on without him adding to it.
    I intend to rest from answering your posts, mainly because it seems pointless. You have been needlessly rude, gratuitously insulting my beliefs, so you are probably someone who cannot be improved by wisdom. “The fool says in his heart,’There is no God'”

  114. Yes. It is fraud.

    The laws do not have to specifically mention fractional reserve banking. A typical fraud statue defines the crime as “using false pretenses to obtain another person’s money or other thing of value.” When a bank takes your money and promises to keep in on deposit when, in fact, it has no intention to do so, they are taking your money under false pretenses.

    The Hill v. Foley confusion tries to define a deposit as a loan, however, if that were the case, everyone who writes a check to his utility company is committing a fraud and his bank is an accomplice. Since he has already loaned the same money to a bank his check is a false pretense.

  115. “The Hill v. Foley confusion tries to define a deposit as a loan”

    A deposit is also a loan, which is why banks treat them as credits.

    “however, if that were the case, everyone who writes a check to his utility company is committing a fraud and his bank is an accomplice.”

    This is ludicrous, buy a dictionary, and perhaps your State criminal code. The bank is doing the exact same thing as Pay Pal or B Pay, the cheque is simply bill of exchange.

Comments are closed.