What is the Latin for ‘Mayonnaise’? A Response to Bagus, Howden and Gabriel

If fractional-reserve demand deposits are common, and illegitimate, an obvious flaw in the banking system is exposed. However, this article maintains that the only reason why demand deposits may be considered illegitimate is because of a way of defining them that renders them almost irrelevant. This...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Evans, Anthony J. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Springer Science + Business Media B. V 2015
In: Journal of business ethics
Year: 2015, Volume: 131, Issue: 3, Pages: 619-623
Further subjects:B Time deposits
B Banking
B 100 % reserve requirement
B Fractional-reserve banking
B Demand deposits
B Maturity mismatching
B Fraud
Online Access: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Description
Summary:If fractional-reserve demand deposits are common, and illegitimate, an obvious flaw in the banking system is exposed. However, this article maintains that the only reason why demand deposits may be considered illegitimate is because of a way of defining them that renders them almost irrelevant. This article provides a response to Bagus et al. (J Bus Ethics, Forthcoming, 2014), and identifies examples of how they misrepresent Evans (J Bus Ethics, Forthcoming, 2013). It also provides further considerations on the tradeoffs relating to the availability of a deposit; methodological subjectivism; and the potential for hybrid contracts. Deposit and loan contracts may be hard to mix, but the actual results of doing so should not be ignored.
ISSN:1573-0697
Contains:Enthalten in: Journal of business ethics
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2299-0