Deposits, Loans and Banking: Clarifying the Debate Report as inadecuate




Deposits, Loans and Banking: Clarifying the Debate - Download this document for free, or read online. Document in PDF available to download.

Abstract

The relationship between banking deposits and loans remains a contentious topic. While the defense of a 100 percent reserve clause to eliminate fractional reserves has commonly been asserted on economic and ethical grounds, new legal arguments found in Jesús Huerta de Soto 2006 remain largely ignored. We address Michael S. Rozeff’s 2010 recent article as a case in point of this ignorance. Contrary to supporters of fractional reserve demand deposits, we show that such a contract – one treating a loan and a deposit interchangeably – is impermissible due to both established and a priori legal principles. At best, a fractional reserve demand deposit contract may be considered an aleatory contract. Based on an uncertain future event, we find this type of contract wholly incompatible with the reason individuals hold money – the mitigation of uncertainty. Despite what defenders of fractional reserve banking claim, deposit and loan contracts are distinct, and may not be contractually melded together.



Item Type: MPRA Paper -

Original Title: Deposits, Loans and Banking: Clarifying the Debate-

Language: English-

Keywords: Banking, fractional reserves, fraud, ethics, law, business cycle-

Subjects: E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E3 - Prices, Business Fluctuations, and Cycles > E32 - Business Fluctuations ; CyclesE - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E5 - Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit > E59 - Other-





Author: Bagus, Philipp

Source: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/79598/



DOWNLOAD PDF




Related documents