>we must end fractional reserve banking What did he mean by this?

>>2313382
GAS THE FED
GOLD STANDARD NOW

>Expecting 4chan "/his/torians" to know anything about this man or his work

Kek

File: 30613232322e6a7067.jpg (95KB, 515x790px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 515x790px

>>2313382
Tell me about rothbard, why does he hate the children?

>>2313382
I don't even know what 'fractional reserve banking' is supposed to mean.

>>2313655
It means you only have to have a fraction of the money you're lending out.

If you have $100, at a 10% fractional reserve rate, you can fund a $1,000 loan.

>>2313654

America ruined thinking.

>>2313382
The gold standard isnt viable but there are alternatives to the fed in their infant stages.

There could come a day in our lives where private currencies become preferable or equal it the dollar and euro

>>2313671
Does that mean you yourself are also lending out that money from a non-existing entity?

How can you lend out money that does not exist?

What's a fractional reserve rate?

>>2313690

jesus christ get off this board and study
there's 14yo libertarian youtubers who know more about economics than you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1OJlJ9COg0

>>2313654
What's wrong with selling your children?

>>2313712

if you don't think creating and then abandoning your children on purpose is a violation of the NAP talk to a psychologist

>>2313690
Take an economics course or he'll even Google that shit

>lending money that doesn't exist

Literally yes. They literally create wealth out of nothing. And theydo it at at a far larger scale that what you may think cuz of the money multiplier effect.

>>2313727

>literally create wealth out of nothing

money != wealth

and no, not "literally nothing", an insane amount of thought goes into each decision the Fed makes, including even how they speak about these matters, they hire various contractors to gather the resources for manufacturing and distributing the bills, if libertarians were smarter they'd realize they could trace the injection of money into the various banks the Fed gives to, who each of those banks dose business with, and build a predictive model of the economy where you could make bank on the stock market

the only thing that is "literally created out of nothing" is a stable predictive economic indicator for people with brains

>>2313727

There was a really good YouTube of this. Can't recall the name.

1. Congress passes bond measures.
2. Banks buy bonds.
3. Banks take bonds to the Fed and cash them out.
4. Fed writes Banks checks on an account with no money in it.
5. Doesn't matter, check clears anyways.
6. Money has literally just been created.
7. Banks use money to buy bonds.

Rinse and repeat until hamburgers cost a million dollars each.

>>2313765

you're leaving out a retarded amount of steps and analysis prior to and between each of those steps and maybe you shouldn't be eating so many fucking hamburgers

>>2313765
The federal reserve just purchases some Bills/bonds from the treasury at their auction with money they've printed, and this is how the U.S. tackles rising debt sometimes, not to mention lowering or raising the fed funds rate artificially constantly.

We are living in Mises' nightmare. Not that I actually liked the guy that much but he would commit sudoku if he saw the amount of nonconvertible fiat currency floating around not backed by gold.

File: Keynes_1933.jpg (84KB, 289x300px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 289x300px

>>2313862
That being said though, so would Keynes.

Most economists don't appreciate the constant expanding of the amount of monetary unit, or artificial strengthening of the wage unit in terms of money. It simply means that because of the inelasticities of production and supply when it comes to a currency, the ability to artificially strengthen it necessarily means that articles whose carrying costs and liquidity value is small like houses have a constant increasing output when things like lowering interest rates to pay off debt become feasible.

>>2313382
That he had no understanding of monetary economics.

I really find it hard to believe there could be someone so retarded to not believe in fractional reserves.

Even in Von Mises bombastic barrage of contemporary financial trends, he never decried the use of additional funds to lend due to actual reseves. This being said, he did have some criticisms of Peel's Act and others like it being that they only restricted the interest rate, not the opening of unbacked drafts on the bank, if I remember correctly.