Ep. 206 “What Did Bob Learn?” Part 3 of 3
Bob concludes his series on areas where he’s changed his mind. This episode covers the economics of climate change, fractional reserve banking, the US gold standard, his notorious inflation bets, Nelson Nash’s Infinite Banking Concept, and the God of the Bible.
Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:
- Bob’s chapter on the gold standard. Mises’ plan to put the USD back on gold.
- Bob’s explainer on the Tax Interaction Effect. His article explaining the contrast between William Nordhaus’ work and the UN global warming target.
- Bob’s journal article on the fractional reserve banking debate. Selgin & White’s classic defense of FRB.
- Bob’s blog post, “Why I Know There Is a God.” Bob’s full interview on the Free Born podcast.
- The Foundation of IBC video series. The documentary, “This Is Nelson Nash.”
- Help support the Bob Murphy Show.
The audio production for this episode was provided by Podsworth Media.
About the author, Robert
Christian and economist, Chief Economist at infineo, and Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute.
Is the part about the fractional parking garage in there twice? I thought I was hearing a glitch in the matrix, but you explain it slightly differently the second time.
Just to test if I understand the Misesian position on reserves as you describe it: is it that if we start with 100% reserves and then banks create extra money units in exchange for owning debt, setting up a fractional reserve arrangement, that this will go on to cause a *one-off* boom-bust sequence but then if the banks kept a fractional reserve arrangement by simply keeping the amount of those extra money units constant, there would be no further business cycles even though there weren’t 100% reserves?
And if so, would it have been Mises’s position that they *ought* to do this, rather than remove those additional units from circulation, or is the process only harmful in one direction?
Or am I getting this totally wrong!
I recommend listening to William Lane Craig who has doctorates in both philosophy and theology. He has a YouTube channel and has debated numerous prominent atheists over the years. He’s quite formidable.
Lol on the god stuff, it does sound kinda nutty, no offense 😉
Not the Theodicy issues, there’s at least a debate to be had.
But to an atheist, born and raised, it seems that you just experimented with atheism in college. Then you went back to a slightly different form of what you grew up with.
I mean if there was ANY indication whatsoever that existed outside of a voice in your head? How come god can easily reveal himself to people, but never does to the skeptics? I’m sure there’s some kind of explanation/rationalization for that, but it’s mighty convenient, isn’t it?
Are you making a No-true-Scotsman argument? https://www.the-star.co.ke/sasa/entertainment/2021-05-30-atheists-in-kenya-secretary-resigns-finds-jesus-christ/
I recommend listening to William Lane Craig who has doctorates in both philosophy and theology. He has a YouTube channel and has debated numerous prominent atheists over the years. He’s quite formidable.
There are plenty of former skeptics who have coverted, just as there are religious people who have lost their faith. And I’ve got to dismiss that explanations as “convenient” is illogical and silly. That is what an explanation does, it explains why an apparent issue isn’t one. Trying to suggest that is somehow wrong because it explains why your pet problems aren’t actually problems is just fallacious thinking.