They call the mint and say hit the print button please.

As far as fractional reserve lending goes, I have no issues with it, but only with the FDIC and Fed involvement. If people voluntarily want to deposit their money in a fractional reserve bank and harbor the risks that go along with it, then there is no fraud and it is perfectly legal. Again, the bank is just the middle man.

If you are uncomfortable with the risk involved, then you deposit your money at a 100% reserve bank, and pay whatever fees are now associated with the services they give you, or through the free market, many banks will sprout up with reserve requirement ranging from 100% to 0%(whatever) as long as the banks retain the requirements they stated to their customers in their contracts with the bank, there is no harm.

The only harm is the govt mandated policy of fractional reserve banking, because as with all govt programs, the non optimal arrangements are almost always reached. Scratch that, ALWAYS reached.

There's no prohibition on full reserve banks. The reserve ratio requirements are a minimum, not a maximum. Anybody who wants to is free to setup a 100% reserve bank. In fact, virtually every bank in the country already has 100% reserve accounts. They are called safety deposit boxes.

It would be foolish to pass up the insurance given by the govt, so a full reserve bank would not be taking advantage of govt policies, so basically the govt has implicitly not allowed full reserve banks

What about a 100% reverse bank of a NEW currency?

The mint does coins imo. Bureau of engraving and printing actually prints the bills.

Lol. Go try to start a bank and get back to me on that.

haha I only read about half the thread here so hopefully no one has mentioned this yet but...

$ = debt and
debt = $

oops

No, it's not.

If rice is the money, then how is it debt?

wat

what real asset stands behind money?

it's not rice... wtf is it?

In the case of rice, rice stands behind it, namely the rice itself.

OMG RICE STANDS BEHIND RICE CRAZY I HAD NO IDEA THANKS BRO

Ok then.

yes ok

and what was your point btw?

My point was that money is not debt, which was your point.

to which I asked what the underlying asset is behind money

to which you answered if it was rice, it wouldn't be debt (?)

so anytime now please go ahead and refute that money = debt with a reasonable argument

If we use rice as money, then having rice does not mean you have a debt.

Understand?



Maybe this will help:

Murray Rothbard - What Has Government Done to Our Money

Introduction
http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audi...rd/money/1.mp3
Money in a free society
http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audi...rd/money/2.mp3
etc..
http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audi...othbard/money/

thanks for the links, too tired to check them out now but will likely do so tomorrow

although might I point out that rice is edible and money is not - that is a key difference... and so "If we use rice as money, then having rice does not mean you have a debt." is not sufficient to refute "$ = debt"

I know a bit about current ideas re: functions of money, M1, M2, etc., fractional reserve banking, double coincidence of wants, blah blah blah half my major was econ and I actually paid attention and was interested

A money is simply a commodity that people have realized has more value as a medium of exchange than in any other form of consumption.
The value is derived from the money enabling you to get means that directly sattisfy your ends. Money can also directly satisfy you if you do not exchange it either if you hoard it (in which case it will provide you with security etc.) or consume it in a different way (in the case of gold by turning it into jewelry etc.).

Only if a commodity initially had direct "use value" can it become a money (see: regression theorem) because people need to want it for it to become valuable in exchange.

I can't exchange a log of wood for a bag of rice and then half a bag of rice for 12 eggs?

of course you can but you should mix in some bacon and potatoes too, rice and eggs on it's own doesn't sound all that great

I'm just wondering about a situation where money is no longer the preferred mechanism for exchange, ie - economy reverts back to barter which we've seen examples of in the past (Argentina) - now how much utility can you derive from all that $$$ you've been hoarding?

Specifically, as inflation continues on and governments continue to "print money", it's conceivable at some point that the system could break down and revert to barter, then the money is useless and you'll have to go find a log of wood or some rice if you want eggs. Meanwhile you had a mil in the bank and now it's busto.