The Hubris of Hybrids
In the pages of this journal, a fruitful debate has evolved on the ethical legitimacy of fractional-reserve banking. In this article, we respond to the new arguments raised by Evans (J Bus Ethics, 2014) as we clarify our (Bagus et al. in J Bus Ethics 128:197–206, 2015a) position on the unethical and...
| Authors: | ; ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Springer
2017
|
| In: |
Journal of business ethics
Year: 2017, Volume: 145, Issue: 2, Pages: 373-382 |
| Further subjects: | B
Banking
B 100 % reserve requirement B Fractional-reserve banking B Demand deposits B Fraud |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | In the pages of this journal, a fruitful debate has evolved on the ethical legitimacy of fractional-reserve banking. In this article, we respond to the new arguments raised by Evans (J Bus Ethics, 2014) as we clarify our (Bagus et al. in J Bus Ethics 128:197–206, 2015a) position on the unethical and illegitimate nature of fractional-reserve banking. Fractional-reserve banking is not a recent financial innovation (unlike, e.g., money market mutual funds) but represents a long-standing legal aberration. The co-mingling of two mutually exclusive financial contracts, deposit and loan, confounds the contracting parties’ purposes, intents, rights, and obligations. As a result, it creates unsolvable legal difficulties and ethical dilemmas. While these problems are most evident in the case of a bank run, they also arise when trying to answer the simple question of “who owns a deposit?” |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1573-0697 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of business ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2884-x |