Do banks issue far too much uncovered liabilities these days? What do you think about the solvency of banks...

Do banks issue far too much uncovered liabilities these days? What do you think about the solvency of banks? Ludwig Von Mises in his famous Theory of Money and Credit, asserted that the issue of fiduciary media should be heavily discouraged because it is issued in exchange for money-substitutes. Even hypothecated loans can be dangerous assets for a bank to have if it isn't covering its bases correctly.

Why are we living in a system where the central bank of our country is issuing so much fiduciary media? Doesn't the fact that the fiduciary media we issue coupled with the complete and utter faith in the U.S. Treasury despite the absence of a Gold Standard worry some of you?

None of our clearing-house transactions are even backed by a gold standard, and this would clear up many problems with the inflation of our dollar, don't you think?

Great questions but...

Why is Austrian school of economics only taken seriously by community college neck beard libertarians?

No, seriously?

Because not having resources tied up means more people will work for future profits, which are the result of them working. Is it safe and secure? Not really. But it beats the alternative in terms of economic growth.

I don't ascribe to the Austrian School of Economics. I read Von Mises.

Because it employs heterodox methodology like praxeology that treats economics more like a philosophy than a social science.

But instead of exchanging fiduciary media for money-substitutes, why not just exchange money certificates for actual deposits. You could even use the traditional fractional reserve policy of the banks by issuing these money certificates in a greater number than the reserves, but they wouldn't be fiduciary media.

Back in Von Mises' day, the fiduciary media issued by central banks still had the possibility of being checked by a standard. But what had started in his time was a consolidation of the standard. Now we've even dropped that, and any contractual obligation due in dollars is not checked by any stable commodity that most countries have.

It can be very technical...

Besides the conciliatory views inside the actual 'Austrian' school are limited in the first place. Von Moses is unbelievably against some of the views adopted by Schumpeter concerning economic policy. I enjoy a nice dialectic on the policies of economists, and Von Mises is a fellow who is well read. That is something I enjoy. I had just finished reading Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class and boy was that book poorly written in comparison.

They're peddling fiction.

Schumpeter is not Austrian School. He's just Austrian.

>make a thread about economics
>post someone who has had an influence on almost every shade of economic policy since his time
HE-HES PART OF THAT SCHOOL WAAAAAAH

It's almost like you haven't read Von Moses, you guys...

Also, I'm probably going to read some Irving Fisher after I'm done this book, what am I in for?

>von moses
Sounds like a Jew name to me

I've heard him placed in the Austrian school.

Even on here. It doesn't matter, within this book in question he goes over many different economist's views in his country and Germany and sharply contrasts them with his. He was an iconoclast as regards popular Classical and even those who ascribed to the then-modern Quantity Theory and the Ricardian theory of production. Being obsessed with who was in what school is losing a part of what they were actually saying.

It's my auto-correct. Every single time I type Von Mises it auto-corrects to Moses.

>I've heard him placed in the Austrian school.
He's not.

>Being obsessed with who was in what school is losing a part of what they were actually saying.
No it really isn't. This is like being upset that Keynes is considered Keynesian. What you say does not apply when the person is one of the people who defines the school and not simply a follower. Now if you were talking about a modern economist, say Krugman, your point would be valid that you shouldn't get caught up in the fact that he's a Keynesian. But that's not what we're dealing with.

But our system doesn't require complete faith in the treasury. In fact, under the gold standard, the treasury would have more power and responsibility. Poor use of the gold standard is one of the main things that exacerbated the great depression.

Nothing?

No one has anything to say about the content of this thread or the authors involved? This post you've made is meaningless. You have no clue what Von Mises' principle theories in regards to money are. How he differed from Wieser, for example.

How do you think the Federal Reserve issues all of that fiduciary media? It needs some amount of, oh I don't know, money-substitutes? Where does it get these from? The Treasury.

>None of our clearing-house transactions are even backed by a gold standard, and this would clear up many problems with the inflation of our dollar, don't you think?
>unironically wanting deflation
>austrians everyone

>under the gold standard, the treasury would have more power and responsibility
Uhm. No. Not at all. Generally speaking, The Federal Reserve would still be the minting authority and the fed funds rate setter, however... the gold standard would simply be a way to gauge the variations of the nominal price differences arising from causes other than regular inflation. It would make contracts more secure and would also probably reduce the rate of interest as a result.

>reads and enjoys many different economists
>is an Austrian economist

You're a moron. You've never read any Austrian Economist and that's why you lump them together under an umbrella, so you can paint them with the same brush. Get the fuck out of my thread.

You do realize gold is an actual commodity now for technological goods and not just some rare noncorroding metal that is only good for luxury jewelry and coins now right?

And by the way, Janet Yellen technically wants a lowered inflation because of the policies she is adopting towards the Fed Funds rate. THIS policy is capable of deflation.

Instituting a gold standard can NOT cause deflation.

I'm not stating to USE the gold implied by the standard. That would be like saying that having a U.S.D. standard for all major currencies' long term contractual obligations (which some may) would necessitate having actual dollars on hand. It's just a way to gauge the relative fluctuations in the objective exchange values of the two or one other mediums of exchange.

This is hilarious. You're a fullblown nazi and you don't even know it. You have a rough life ahead of you

This is how the banking system worked in Nazi Germany.

Under the National Socialists, Germany's money wasn't backed by gold (which was owned by the international bankers). It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said, "For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark's worth of work done, or goods produced." The government paid workers in Certificates. Workers spent those Certificates on other goods and services, thus creating more jobs for more people. In this way the German people climbed out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the international bankers.

Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved, and Germany was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, with no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries (controlled by international bankers) were still out of work. Within five years, Germany went from the poorest nation in Europe to the richest.

This economic freedom made Hitler extremely popular with the German people. Germany was rescued from English economic theory, which says that all currency must be borrowed against the gold owned by a private and secretive banking cartel - such as the Federal Reserve, or the central Bank of Europe - rather than issued by the government for the benefit of the people.

You're a retard, the United States had a Gold standard until the 70s. This just rendered everything you've said regarding the nullification of the 'gold standard' null and void. Please leave until you've read Von Mises.

Labor vouchers are a Marxist Leninist idea.

And because of your inability to read, you don't know what fiduciary media or money certificates are.

it doesn't matter how you issue out your currency because all currencies always becomes backed by the US dollar

Right. Instead of gold.