George Selgin has a great post up on points that were raised here a couple days ago on 100% reservists, namely, that if everyone is on the same page on exactly what a deposit at a fractional reserve bank entails it doesn't make any sense to talk about them being "defrauded". It doesn't matter if customers aren't banking experts. They know about all the things you guys complain about, and they accept it, so it's hard to argue that they're victims of fraud.
In this post, Selgin points out that there is no similarity at all between warehouse receipts (which is what a 100% reserve note would amount to) and banknotes. Nobody could confuse them or think they were making a deposit at what amounted to a specie warehouse.
Speaking of George, at that post by Danny Sanchez responding to me on Ron Paul's hearings, George Selgin seems somewhat self-conscious about his own publishing record! I have no idea why. If George Selgin doesn't count as an insightful monetary economist I don't think such a creature exists. I would have thought Selgin of all people could appreciate my point that Ron Paul has used his chairmanship to, rather than seeking out well regarded monetary economists, bring in a bunch of people from the Mises Institute that don't even work on this stuff. If Ron Paul were a responsible chairman, I think he would have invited White, Selgin, Horwitz, and Salerno and largely omitted a lot of the rest of the Mises invitees, and then had them talk with the distinguished monetary economists the committee used to invite. Taylor was invited by the committee but that seemed like about it. I would have thought that would be reasonable to Selgin.
An Axiomatic Case for the Flat Tax
59 minutes ago