91–100 of 176 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brilliant. Continually proven wrong again and again and again but sure to be right eventually. Damn those irrational actors. Why can't everyone be as rational as an Austrian.
Rationality and efficient markets are never mentioned once, to my knowledge, in Man, Economy, and State.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where are you getting this information from? Surely interest on deposits is accounted for as a funding cost and is paid out of the bank's revenues (same for staff costs). I don't know why you're calling double accounting "trickery". It's literally the way a bank operates. I mean, it's enshrined in law for god's sake. A public company has to publish accounts every year, and the double-entry analysis you see in most di…
> Where are you getting this information from? Mainly my own personal thinking. No other sources. > Surely interest on deposits is accounted for as a funding cost and is paid out of the bank's revenues (same for staff costs). Of course. But before those are paid, they do not (need to) exist anywhere (but in the profit account if you want to take an accounting view) > I don't know why you're calling double accounting…
I'd suggest reading a summary of the Basel rules before contributing to a discussion on money creation and banking. Wikipedia has a halfway decent one.
I zoned out at Section II ("The Central Banking Narrative Has Collapsed") because every single paper he cites is written by him (and in fact so are 18 of the 20 publications he cites in the entire article)
Weirdly, some of the organizations and theories he's attacking are also his own (he was the lead author on the [weak] Positive Money paper which proposed making the Bank of England directly control the money supply he's now insinuating is some central banker astroturfing campaign, and the unconventional recommendation central banks broaden their remit to tackle Japanese economic stagnation by taking on some of the as…
It's interesting to think about how the role of central banks might change in the age of crypto currencies. Governments can print Euros and Dollars. But not Bitcoin and Ethereum. Popular theory is that governments have a good grip on currency usage because they can decide which currencies they accept for tax payments. And because they can force merchants to accept certain currencies. It will be interesting to see if…
It's interesting to think about how the role of central banks might change in the age of crypto currencies. Governments can print Euros and Dollars. But not Bitcoin and Ethereum. Popular theory is that governments have a good grip on currency usage because they can decide which currencies they accept for tax payments. And because they can force merchants to accept certain currencies. It will be interesting to see if…
Bitcoin so far doesn't scale. Not only in terms of transaction fees and processing times... but also at the most basic of levels. What will happen when the blockchain doesn't fit in a median harddrive? The decentralization narrative will go away. Only a few people will have enough storage for the blockchain and you will go back to having to trust someone.
The blockchain is currently at 160~GB, and I believe it will grow around [1] https://charts.bitcoin.com/chart/blockchain-size
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What free banking actually looked like: https://www.frbatlanta.org/-/media/documents/filelegacydocs/... TLDR: Banks regularly collapsed and not just because of fraud, but started to collapse less as they got regulated more. The system functioned (for certain values of "functioned"), but shockingly enough the man on the street did not turn out to be better at evaluating a bank's solvency than central banks. They were…
If you consider fractional reserve banking as fraud (banks should only be allowed to lend out funds that you have lent to the bank for a period of time, not funds that you are merely storing in your checking account; a bank run in this context is when account holders want to withdraw their money and it is not there), the system should be fairly stable without a "lender of last resort". I don't really see why fraction…
Also, since most full reserve proposals don't ban credit creation altogether (i.e. you can still issue and exchange IOU notes), but simply restrict credit creation and acceptance by institutions calling themselves banks, you end up with the economy relying on an unregulated shadow banking system even more prone to booms and busts to fulfil credit needs.
Probably not. I suspect the Austrian school of economics will be proven right about money and credit eventually.
Okay, but when? I ask because I've seen this claim made about Austrian economics lots and lots, but haven't seen anything telling a consistent story -- just a lot of "it's coming, keep waiting". Seriously interested in seeing these claims either supported by a real world narrative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weirdly, some of the organizations and theories he's attacking are also his own (he was the lead author on the [weak] Positive Money paper which proposed making the Bank of England directly control the money supply he's now insinuating is some central banker astroturfing campaign, and the unconventional recommendation central banks broaden their remit to tackle Japanese economic stagnation by taking on some of the as…
Hey, if it were actually an astroturf campaign, who would be in a better position to know than one of the principals?
Feels like the whole argument is going on inside his own head, and whilst I've heard economists conclude policies they used to advocate wouldn't work before, I've never seen them handwave their earlier beliefs away as "totalitarian" without even acknowledging they actually used to hold them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What free banking actually looked like: https://www.frbatlanta.org/-/media/documents/filelegacydocs/... TLDR: Banks regularly collapsed and not just because of fraud, but started to collapse less as they got regulated more. The system functioned (for certain values of "functioned"), but shockingly enough the man on the street did not turn out to be better at evaluating a bank's solvency than central banks. They were…
If you consider fractional reserve banking as fraud (banks should only be allowed to lend out funds that you have lent to the bank for a period of time, not funds that you are merely storing in your checking account; a bank run in this context is when account holders want to withdraw their money and it is not there), the system should be fairly stable without a "lender of last resort". I don't really see why fraction…
Theoretically if it is that much of an anathema one could have a 1:1 reserve and explicit money market style transactions for everything but the question is what would be gained? The liquid cash would be "safe" from bank runs at the cost of guaranteed losses to depreciation and storage fees. Keeping it insured and interest generating is a winner as an option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a cosensus protocol that can be used to propose and approve a change the crypto, this is no more difficult than changing a monetary policy it’s just different. The code changes isn’t the hard part the policy itself is.
"hard part the policy itself is" which is ultimately the point of a 'central bank' really.