I need to get my brain in gear before commenting on this any further but there is NOT ONE solid argument for fractional reserve lending apart from arguing that the banking system has been running on fractional reserve lending for so long now that everyone is effectively locked into it and it has created a bubble and getting rid of it is going to result in some very serious redress for the economy.[unless you count greed as a solid argument for it]
"Jesus Huerta de Soto is today’s leading Austrian school economist, who in his book “Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles” published a proposal of a reform of banking system. He suggests a transition from the most controlled systems (those with central planning in the banking and financial sector) to the least controlled ones (those in which the central bank has been abolished and complete freedom prevails) which consists of 5 stages."
As an example there were over 300 privately/independently owned commercial clearing/lending banks before the Wall St crash which cleared them out and put them out of business as then like now its all about getting rid of the competition so thst there is no free market in banking and lending as what you have now is a multitude of different clearing banks that are owned and controlled by the very same banking oligarchs who are looting from you and sabotaging the various economies in the West and elsewhere.
Also there are calls to return to the Gold Standard.The problem is not that there is not enough gold to cover all of the cash in circulation as that isnt a problem as a ratio of gold to the inflated/deflated cash in circulation could be worked out[but it would vastly deflate the value of cash per Oz of gold] but its who owns all of the gold that is the problem.The majority of gold reserves have been systematically looted from the UK and the US and elsewhere by Rothschilds etc also known as the Inter-Alpha group or the Anglo-Dutch banking cartel-call them what you like so there is no publically held gold reserves in which to back the respective currencies so the stolen gold needs to re-patriated/recovered before the gold standard is re-introduced and any calls for gold standard to be reintroduced from official sources who are affiliated to the Anglo-Dutch banking cartel should be treated with suspicion as the banking oligarchs will try to use this tactic as a get out of jail free card and in doing so nothing would change as you would still have criminals running the banking system.
"Let’s start from the right – the Austrian school of economics, which is associated with libertarian political perspectives. They argue for an extremely limited role for government and the smallest possible amount of government intervention in the economy."
Its no surprise that the banking oligarchs advocated the Austrian school that was fronted by Libertarian perspectives as the only free market that the banking oligarchs support is one which they control.This is self explanatory but if you wanted to establish your own clearing bank you would not find that this is possible as in the fake free market as competition is a sin.So they argue FOR a free market that is in reality non-existant.
You could argue that its the lack of regulation that has caused the collapse of the western economies but it is not an argument against lack of regulation per se as it was all deliberately designed to fail so if the banking oligarchs were removed from the equation then you could argue that lack of regulation would be a positive thing but again a complete lack of regulation within the banking sector would not be positive thing because with complete freedom the banking system would be up to its usual tricks so one scenario becomes virtually indistinguishable from the other.However the creation of a genuine free market within the banking sector would create banks that would be favorable to account holders so those banks would naturally generate more business than those that are less favorable which is the nature of a free market as it means choice but i think that a complete lack of regulation is a naive idea as regulation is in theory meant to protect you and if there is no regulation then banks will be doing what they are doing now as they were allowed to generate 10 times the amount of lending through fractional reserve lending.
If lending is based on 100 percent reserves then its likely that borrowing terms will be much more stringent than they are now with higher rates of interest to compensate for their loss of leverage.
I have started writing this just after getting up and its way too early in the morning for this kind of shit so i will have to stop typing for now.
However the article doesnt differentiate between commercial clearing banks and the activities of privately owned central banks whose paper currency is printed out of nothing with no leverage required wheras commercial clearing banks have leverage of approx 8-10 times its cash deposit so theoretically $100 becomes $1000.There has to be a fairer and more ethical way for banks to generate credit for borrowers because at present they offer you virtually NO interest on savings yet charge extortionate amounts of interest on mortgages for example so if the interest that you are charged reflected the fact that they create credit out of nothing then it would be more acceptable and ethical.To add insult to injury banks and the FEDRES are proposing negative interest rates for holders of accounts within commercial clearing banks which means you pay the bank to hold your cash.
All of this is pointless unless the criminal element who own and control the banking system are removed from the equation.
Presently banks in the US are being paid not to lend out cash as they make more money by keeping the reserves that were paid for by taxpayers* as they are paid interest on their reserves.
A quote from the article :
"We don't think GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry should have threatened to kill Ben Bernanke the other day, but we can certainly understand his frustration."
I wouldnt concern yourself too much over that comment as Rick Perry is yet another sellout/bought and paid for sellout NWO/Corporate/banking duplicitious WHORE [just like Obama] who is only saying that to throw you a bone trying to sound like Ron Paul so any frustrations voiced by Rick Perry should not be taken seriously.Perry describes the activities of the FED as "almost treasonous" so which part of treasonous doesnt Rick Perry understand as its completely treasonous and given the fact that Rick Perry is a traitor [therefore treasonous] its surprising that Rick Perry has a problem misunderstanding what is defined as treason*.
Rick Perry is a subject for another day.
*However since the FEDRES is NOT a govt institution then its debateable that they can be described as treasonous as they are a private company posing as a federal agency so they could likely get out of the situation on that technicality despite the fact that they claim to be acting on behalf of the US govt.Its those in political office who are allowing the existence of the FEDRES on behalf of the banking oligarchs who are the traitors.
[I dont understand why anyone would want to listen to the Grateful Dead]
*Too big to fails are the biggest ever welfare recipitents in history.