12.07.2015 Views

Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles - The Ludwig von Mises ...

Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles - The Ludwig von Mises ...

Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles - The Ludwig von Mises ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Attempts to Legally Justify Fractional-Reserve <strong>Bank</strong>ing 119without backing. We will also discuss the corrupting influenceexerted on the insurance business by the recent trend (mostapparent in government legislation) toward clouding <strong>and</strong>obscuring the traditional legal <strong>and</strong> technical boundaries betweenthe two types of institutions (life insurance <strong>and</strong> banking).2WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EQUATE THE IRREGULAR DEPOSITWITH THE LOAN OR MUTUUM CONTRACTTHE ROOTS OF THE CONFUSION<strong>The</strong> attempts to legally equate the monetary irregulardepositcontract with the loan or mutuum contract are particularlyattractive to those who most benefit from banking practices(bankers <strong>and</strong> authorities). Indeed, in chapter 1, whichcontained an explanation of the legal nature of both institutions,we indicated that a loan implies the transfer not only ofownership of the lent item, but of its full availability as well,<strong>and</strong> therefore the borrower can make full use of it, by investingit, spending it, etc. Considering that this is ultimately whata banker does when appropriating dem<strong>and</strong> deposit funds, theideal legal solution for him is clearly to equate the irregulardeposit contract with the loan contract. Moreover, a worn-outlegal pretext has persistently been used to reinforce the argumentfor equating the two. Lax <strong>and</strong> superficial, it is as follows:Since the irregular deposit contract consists of the deposit offungible goods, the very essence of which implies theinevitable transfer of ownership of individual items deposited(because they are indistinguishable from one another), thedeposit <strong>and</strong> the loan are naturally one <strong>and</strong> the same, as bothinstitutions entail the transfer of ownership.In chapter 1 we saw that this line of reasoning is fallacious,superficial, <strong>and</strong> abstruse. In fact, even if ownership is transferredin both cases, the two contracts still differ radically concerningthe availability of the item (an essential feature of thecontracts). Indeed, whereas in the loan contract full availabilityof the item is transferred along with ownership, the veryessence of the irregular deposit contract dem<strong>and</strong>s that the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!