<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fractional reserve banking</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.peterrisdon.com/blog/2010/03/12/fractional-reserve-banking/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.peterrisdon.com/blog/2010/03/12/fractional-reserve-banking/?&#038;owa_medium=feed&#038;owa_sid=</link>
	<description>Weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Jan 2012 07:00:33 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://www.peterrisdon.com/blog/2010/03/12/fractional-reserve-banking/comment-page-1/#comment-185</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:07:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peterrisdon.com/blog/?p=2529#comment-185</guid>
		<description>I think the main problem with fractional reserve banking is the assymetry of power it involves. Essentially, some organisations (banks) get given the right to treat some money as if it is in two places at the same time. Deposited with an on-call demand, in one bank account, but lent out to another bank or bank account and deposited and available on-demand there too. 

In good times, this is literally a license to print money (well not absolutely literally, they are just numbers on a screen, but as close to literally as you can get). Presumably they have this power because they were meant to lend wisely. But they didn&#039;t, partly because of government regulation and encouragement, but also partly out incompetence and greed.

Without this system, you might still see growth (in fact, I am sure you would still see some growth). The only difference would be that lending would be more transparent. Depositors would know how much money they had available on-demand, and what money was being put at risk through lending. Some would choose to have all money on-demand and just pay a service charge to the bank. But I imagine plenty would be interesting in risking some of their capital in return for interest, whose rates would then be set by the market rather than a central bank.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the main problem with fractional reserve banking is the assymetry of power it involves. Essentially, some organisations (banks) get given the right to treat some money as if it is in two places at the same time. Deposited with an on-call demand, in one bank account, but lent out to another bank or bank account and deposited and available on-demand there too. </p>
<p>In good times, this is literally a license to print money (well not absolutely literally, they are just numbers on a screen, but as close to literally as you can get). Presumably they have this power because they were meant to lend wisely. But they didn&#8217;t, partly because of government regulation and encouragement, but also partly out incompetence and greed.</p>
<p>Without this system, you might still see growth (in fact, I am sure you would still see some growth). The only difference would be that lending would be more transparent. Depositors would know how much money they had available on-demand, and what money was being put at risk through lending. Some would choose to have all money on-demand and just pay a service charge to the bank. But I imagine plenty would be interesting in risking some of their capital in return for interest, whose rates would then be set by the market rather than a central bank.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Constitutional monarchy &#171; Peter Risdon</title>
		<link>http://www.peterrisdon.com/blog/2010/03/12/fractional-reserve-banking/comment-page-1/#comment-136</link>
		<dc:creator>Constitutional monarchy &#171; Peter Risdon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:42:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peterrisdon.com/blog/?p=2529#comment-136</guid>
		<description>[...] the dislike of fractional reserve banking and the fondness for the gold standard, this is the third area I find bizarre about [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the dislike of fractional reserve banking and the fondness for the gold standard, this is the third area I find bizarre about [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Smith on fractional reserve banking &#171; Peter Risdon</title>
		<link>http://www.peterrisdon.com/blog/2010/03/12/fractional-reserve-banking/comment-page-1/#comment-130</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Smith on fractional reserve banking &#171; Peter Risdon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:52:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.peterrisdon.com/blog/?p=2529#comment-130</guid>
		<description>[...] I posted before on this subject, I wrote: While [fractional reserve banking] might be inflationary, it also fuels growth. The alternative, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I posted before on this subject, I wrote: While [fractional reserve banking] might be inflationary, it also fuels growth. The alternative, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

