What makes me so damn angry is that depositors don't have any damn rights anywhere in the entire world thanks to central banking; only debtors or creditors have rights, it goes back and forth between the two.
Say we had let the bad banks fail. People would've lost a lot of their money, but much of that didn't exist and prices would've gone down enough for all but those who were in as much debt as the bad banks themselves, right? In addition to that, wouldn't those sorry ass Lehman Brothers have learned a lesson? Why should the depositors and taxpayers be required to subsidize the bad banks and the other extreme debtors?
Central banking is the antithesis of property rights. I do not consent to having my savings embezzled and even worse, the people are forced to bail out the banks who mismanage their embezzlements of your property.
It's better to just have the banks fail without a lender of last resort and without deposit insurance granted by the tax payer. Like I said, the Southern states, which required banks to have higher reserve ratios, did fine when the deficit-running northern states were in a huge panic (I heard that Lincoln initially proposed a system of failed banks to print money and manage credit to fund the Counterrevolution). If the state legislature requires banks to have tight credit policies, then there is no problem because there is limited or no borrowing and maximum saving, so no bank failures. If they over extend credit, then the state legislature can transfer the ownership of the banks to the depositors.
Say we had let the bad banks fail. People would've lost a lot of their money, but much of that didn't exist and prices would've gone down enough for all but those who were in as much debt as the bad banks themselves, right? In addition to that, wouldn't those sorry ass Lehman Brothers have learned a lesson? Why should the depositors and taxpayers be required to subsidize the bad banks and the other extreme debtors?
Central banking is the antithesis of property rights. I do not consent to having my savings embezzled and even worse, the people are forced to bail out the banks who mismanage their embezzlements of your property.
It's better to just have the banks fail without a lender of last resort and without deposit insurance granted by the tax payer. Like I said, the Southern states, which required banks to have higher reserve ratios, did fine when the deficit-running northern states were in a huge panic (I heard that Lincoln initially proposed a system of failed banks to print money and manage credit to fund the Counterrevolution). If the state legislature requires banks to have tight credit policies, then there is no problem because there is limited or no borrowing and maximum saving, so no bank failures. If they over extend credit, then the state legislature can transfer the ownership of the banks to the depositors.
The writings of Murray Rothbard (he's a hero of mine) inspire me deeply. They make the most sense to me. Keynesian policies are dangerous to liberty and they don't work; they've been proven to not work. The Chicago School isn't right either. Why did the GD happen? Because monetarist policies were in effect during the roaring 20s. The bubble had to be popped and the government intervened too much after the bubble had been popped. They didn't deflate enough. The government could've raised every single banks' reserve ratio to 100% of the gold deposited and then transferred the ownership of the banks to the depositors. Some people would've had trouble paying off their debts, but they would've been liquidated within 1.5 years at most. Had the free market been allowed to correct itself, it would've.
Facebook
Twitter