It's astounding how much work Richard has to do to dispell myths that "educated" people that "understand" finance believe.
Login to reply
Replies (23)
Do you got a link for this vid?
Everybody works for the bank https://fountain.fm/track/hIzvzhOo4e6wjK6D9NIR
Wow! Eye opening dialogue.
Are bankers some kind of illusionists
The core fact that flips the textbook myth: banks don't lend out deposits. The Bank of England said it plainly in its 2014 article Money Creation in the Modern Economy: whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower's account, thereby creating new money.
This is the video on YouTube I’ve kept in my download list the longest. It’s excellent.
I like where he gets to the problem, but,
No
The solution has always been to let banks fail.
The “productive money creation” he talks about is what keeps good, productive banks in business.
Remember when we decided banks couldn’t fail?
Me neither
Bob Murphy and Jonathan Newman (Austrians) go through the mistakes that Richard Werner makes about money. He’s close, but makes some subtle, but important errors.
Good video until 3min
Who will be the universal arbiter of defining "productive", and what is to stop that money once lent for productive reasons to be then respent unproductively? There is no difference, expansion of the money supply expands the money supply regardless of his subjective take on unsubjective value.
Not not to mention the theft of productivity flowing to the consumer, baked in.
🔥
This mf spittin!
And he takes credit for being the first to "understand" fractional reserves when the Austrians and the scholastic from Spain had already everything about it. Why is he on media and not any Austrian like Hoppe that understands economics much better?
Yes exactly! Like controlled dissent.
Yea Richard has some weird notions about banking and bitcoin. Hes pretty based but misguided imo.
I would rather let banks fail but if youre gonna have them they should be focused on production not speculation. I think thats the fair steelman.
The keyword is always “should”. “Should” usually implies a diktat…coercion. Unless a bank is committing fraud, ie theft, then it’s fine. Who has the right to say what an entity “should” do if they’re not violating the NAP? Thinly veiled socialism.
The word implies no such thing. It is short hand for not saying "in an economically optimal scenario".
No offense but this is why libertarians are seen as self righteous douchebags that don't accomplish anything.
The lending function itself currently has socialism baked in because it is giving license to lend new money into existence. I'd rather it didn't but if it does, I would rather subsidize creation of new better cheaper products instead of a zero sum asset bidding war.
It’s not up to you or anyone else to decide, which is my point. That would be central planning.
I’m making a tangential point about the word “should”. In our vernacular, it has an authoritarian connotation. Ponder on that a little and pay attention to how people use it. Then eventually, you won’t be able to unhear it. I avoid the word at all cost, even when speaking to myself.
I get your point. But I don't think you got mine.
When libertarians nag about language like this it just makes you less persuasive.
Ok sorry. It’s unclear whether you would *outlaw* interest or you think in a free market that no interest (presumably in favor of equity) would be more efficient. I reject the former (socialist central planning) and agree with the latter under a Bitcoin standard (re. Saylor vs Saifedean.)
If I had my druthers, I would properly enforce fraud/counterfeiting. If you lend money into existence that is a fraudulent act because you are claiming resources you didn't earn.
Yes that was going to be my next point. I’ve heard Austrians like Bob Murphy make the case that lending/fractional reserve is inherently fraudulent, which I’m highly amenable to, albeit very rusty on the details. Cheers.