I do not have a fundamental issue with a fractional reserve banking
system nor with a central bank as a banker's lender of last resort.
What I do have an issue with is 'the state' using its monopoly power of
violence based coercion (the threat and use of force) to tax the people
and underwrite that central bank.
In a stateless society people could legitimately offer banking services which employed a fractional reserve method of money creation and dealt in a form of money brought-about in this way. These banks, by way of assurance of their eventual solvency, could employ the services of central banks to effectively 'insure' their ability to repay depositors.
What those stateless central banks could not legitimately do is force the public to underwrite their losses. It would then just be up to the prospective customers of such banks to judge if they believed their deposits were safe in such institutions. And if those banks went bust the owners and directors of the bank would be liable to the creditors for their losses, every penny of their personal assets would be liable for forfeit.
So I think it is important to, truthfully and accurately, identify the real 'elephant' in this room. The elephant is not money, not fractional reserve money creation, not the bankers, not the banks, not the central banks, not even the inflation of an over-produced fiat currency. The elephant is the relationship between 'the state', money and banks, a relationship which indemnifies the banking system from its losses at the expense of an unwitting public.
It may be that the bankers have manipulated and cajoled 'the state' into the position of offering their commercial interests this indemnity (along with the protection of limited liability incorporation); that much is apparent to those who have studied the history of banking. But that is the prerogative of businesses: take whatever advantage you 'legally' can within the prevailing system.
Clearly 'the state' should never subcontract the function of the creation of money to entities outside of itself and yet continue to offer the resources of 'the state' to back-up that non-governmental commercial banking system. But whilst there is a central power, such as 'the state', it will always be at risk of being subjected to whatever pressures can be brought to avail. Pressures to turn the power of 'the state' into the service of those who would see that 'usurpation of power' gives them an irreproachable commercial benefit.
'The state' is, first and foremost, the mechanism by which the money-power and ruling oligarchy does their bidding. That is the purpose of 'the state' and all other apparent functions just illusionary 'window dressing' to fool the people into the belief that the role of the state is to serve the interests of the people.
In a stateless society people could legitimately offer banking services which employed a fractional reserve method of money creation and dealt in a form of money brought-about in this way. These banks, by way of assurance of their eventual solvency, could employ the services of central banks to effectively 'insure' their ability to repay depositors.
What those stateless central banks could not legitimately do is force the public to underwrite their losses. It would then just be up to the prospective customers of such banks to judge if they believed their deposits were safe in such institutions. And if those banks went bust the owners and directors of the bank would be liable to the creditors for their losses, every penny of their personal assets would be liable for forfeit.
So I think it is important to, truthfully and accurately, identify the real 'elephant' in this room. The elephant is not money, not fractional reserve money creation, not the bankers, not the banks, not the central banks, not even the inflation of an over-produced fiat currency. The elephant is the relationship between 'the state', money and banks, a relationship which indemnifies the banking system from its losses at the expense of an unwitting public.
It may be that the bankers have manipulated and cajoled 'the state' into the position of offering their commercial interests this indemnity (along with the protection of limited liability incorporation); that much is apparent to those who have studied the history of banking. But that is the prerogative of businesses: take whatever advantage you 'legally' can within the prevailing system.
Clearly 'the state' should never subcontract the function of the creation of money to entities outside of itself and yet continue to offer the resources of 'the state' to back-up that non-governmental commercial banking system. But whilst there is a central power, such as 'the state', it will always be at risk of being subjected to whatever pressures can be brought to avail. Pressures to turn the power of 'the state' into the service of those who would see that 'usurpation of power' gives them an irreproachable commercial benefit.
'The state' is, first and foremost, the mechanism by which the money-power and ruling oligarchy does their bidding. That is the purpose of 'the state' and all other apparent functions just illusionary 'window dressing' to fool the people into the belief that the role of the state is to serve the interests of the people.
