• Category Archives News and Politics
  • Fractional Reserves, Legal Tender, and Central Banking

    If you ever want to see a furious discussion break out among libertarians influenced by Austrian economics, just start talking about money and banking. Despite their agreement on so many things, they often have a variety of views on the ideal banking system and how to best understand terms like “inflation” and “deflation.” The debate over the morality and efficacy of fractional reserve banking is one of the most divisive issues. I have addressed that topic in an earlier column, but here I want to tie it into some broader issues that enter into this debate.

    This discussion is prompted by Larry White’s testimony on the history and practice of fractional reserve banking before Rep. Ron Paul’s subcommittee on monetary policy in late June. White’s testimony is a concise yet thorough discussion of why fractional reserve banking came to be and why it is not at the root of monetary problems. As he points out, “[A] fractional-reserve banking system is not unstable when the banking system is free of hobbling legal restrictions and free of privileges.” U.S. history illustrates this point.

    No Branch Banking

    Until only the last few decades, U.S. banks faced severe legal restrictions on their ability to open branch offices, both across state lines and in some cases even within a given state. These restrictions led to highly under-diversified banks that were more prone to failure and whose troubles would be exacerbated by fractional reserve banking. In the post-Civil War era, regulations that required banks to purchase certain government bonds before issuing currency made them vulnerable to bank runs when the demand for currency rose and they were unable to meet it. Again, fractional reserves combined with this legislation led to recurring panics.

    The “solution” to those panics was the Federal Reserve System. It, however, replaced those old regulations with both new regulations and new privileges that combined with fractional reserve banking to create problems. In particular the Fed was given the power to change the quantity of currency and the level of reserves banks hold on deposit at the Fed by either printing more currency or buying government bonds from banks and paying them by crediting their accounts. That power enables it to change the “monetary base,” the foundation from which the banking system can multiply its lending. This privilege belongs to the Fed because it is the only institution allowed to produce currency, which allows that currency to serve as reserves and enables the Fed to create new reserves out of thin air.

    Monopoly–not fractional reserve–is the problem. As I’ve said before, there’s nothing wrong with fractional reserve banking that getting rid of central banking wouldn’t cure.

    Legal Tender

    Some libertarians point to legal-tender laws as another source of trouble. The claim is that because such laws force us to use government money, they make it impossible for us to get out of the system and cut short the multiplier process. The problem with this argument is that it misunderstands legal tender laws. What “legal tender” normally means is that if one is offered the money defined as such in payment of a debt, one must accept it. It does not say that only such money is acceptable in transactions. In other words, payment in legal tender is sufficient but not necessary to discharge a debt or obligation, and legal-tender status does not matter for nondebt exchanges.

    Monopoly Status

    Yes, the federal government has prosecuted people for trying to establish circulating gold coins, but that is not a matter of legal tender; rather the issue is the Fed’s monopoly. It would be perfectly possible, as was the case before the Fed, to have some kinds of money in a competitive system declared “legal tender” and some not. That would be a privilege, but it would not completely undermine the competitive system.

    Libertarians need to aim their fire at the real source of trouble–the monopoly privileges of the central bank. Fractional reserve banking and legal-tender laws are distractions from the real issue.

    Full article: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/fractional-reserves-legal-tender-and-central-banking/


  • Gary Johnson campaigning in Florida throughout the week

    The Libertarian Party’s 2012 for President of the United States, Gary Johnson, is traveling across the State of Florida the first week of July to introduce himself to potential voters, and answer any questions Libertarians may have regarding his campaign for President . Between Tuesday and Friday, Johnson will be visiting locations in Jacksonville, Orlando, Boca Raton, and here in Tampa Bay.

    http://www.megalextoria.com/politics/?x=entry:entry120703-114651


  • Romney losing ground to Obama without support from Paul Nation

    National Republicans may have some serious thinking to do. Their presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney looks to be in serious trouble on multiple fronts today.

    Governor Romney has lost ground to President Obama and is now trailing in all of the national polls with the exception of the Rasmussen Reports poll which has been the poll most favorable to Governor Romney. Governor Romney is now tied with President Obama in the latest Rasmussen poll, which is a steep decline in that poll for Governor Romney relative to President Obama since early June.

    In battleground states, Governor Romney is seeing similar declines. According to the poll numbers at Real Clear Politics, Governor Romney is behind in Florida, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Obama groups are running hard-hitting television advertisements against Governor Romney in several battleground states that appear to be having an impact. The ads are portraying Governor Romney as a vulture capitalist whose business practices created a net job loss instead of a jobs gain, which is a narrative that is challenging the cornerstone of the Romney campaign strategy. If the Romney job creating narrative is tarnished, he may not be able to find another narrative on which to run.

    President Obama won a huge victory with the Supreme Court decision that validated Obamacare, his only signature achievement. Under other circumstances, the Supreme Court decision might be seen as a rallying cry for the limited government opposition. However, it is unlikely that Governor Romney will be able to mount a serious counter-offensive to galvanize the anti-Obamacare forces because his own plan in Massachusetts was the prototype for Obamacare. Governor Romney, the conservative Heritage Foundation, and Republican luminaries like Newt Gingrich were all philosophically predisposed to favor the individual mandate provision which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. Thus, they do not have a lot of credibility on that issue.

    Governor Romney’s remaining GOP opponent, Congressman Ron Paul, on the other hand, has been a consistent opponent of the individual mandate, and of government healthcare in principle. Therefore, Governor Romney cannot create the type of contrast with President Obama on Obamacare that Congressman Paul can.

    Unfortunately, rather than trying to work with the Ron Paul energy, the GOP alienated many of the the Paul supporters during the primary season, which has created a rift that may be too deep to be repaired. Congressman Paul’s voters are left wondering what could have been possible if the GOP had not decided on Governor Romney prematurely.

    Full article: http://www.examiner.com/article/romney-losing-ground-to-obama-without-support-from-paul-nation