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...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Springer
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) |
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 |