Yaron Brook's Call to Action - October 2009

I'm sure that you know alot more than I do about the history of FRB than I do. But the concept of FRB is really quite simple.

What's wrong with the government only supporting 100% reserve banking? I'm well aware the history of the private goldsmiths of Europe and their FRB system. I don't understand why you think that FRB is necessary? It is the root cause of numerous bank runs and financial crises.

That's the same exact argument people calling for the end of Capitalism make. The second defenders of freedom start justifying the utility of that freedom, they forfeit the moral argument for it.

FRB should not be illegal, because you haven't demonstrated that it isa violation of individual rights. I have no desire to convince you that it is necessary.

Look up "Fractional Reserve Banking versus Ayn Rand's Ethics" on youtube. Paul McKeever does a lot better job at explaning why FRB is a violation of individual rights than I ever could.

Paul McKeever's position is the same as yours (because you copied his position), and he's about as effective at augmenting his position as you have been. You're both saying that the public is uneducated about the details, so it is fraud.

But noone is preventing the public from getting educated, even if it was true that only Paul and his disciples know the big secret about how banks don't keep the money you deposit in their vaults and magically come up with the interest when you go to collect.

I'm just trying to show you the problems of FRB, and that banks would be better off without FRB. 100% reserve banking is far superior to FRB. FRB would never survive the free markets; FRB always requires government support. If the 100% reserve banks got just 10% of the FRB customers, the resulting domino effect will colapse the whole system. Why would anyone want to do that? Simple, by colapsing the FRB system my dollars will become worth 9x more than they are worth now.

What's 100% reserve banking?

This web page does the best job of explaining why we are both right

thefreemanonline.
org/columns/fractional-versus- 100-reserve-banking/#

Sorry if this is double posted. I don't think my first attempt worked

I was being absurd to illustrate the absurdities of FRB.

You're right, FRB is protected by law and that people shouldn't be charged with crimes that are not illegal. That's why I'm advocating to change the law so that FRB is not longer protected.

You're advocating for it. Fine. I don't care what you're advocating for. Just stop lying, by saying that's the Objectivist position.

I never claimed to speak for Objectivism. I only question how an Objectivist could support FRB. consider Ayn Rand's position on money.

"Money cannot function as money, i.e., as a medium of exchange, unless it is backed by actual, unconsumed goods." -Ayn Rand

For money to be "Backed by actual, unconsumed goods" can't happen without also having a 100% reserve banking system; for FRB only a backs up a fraction.