Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Bank reserves: A dispute over words and classification

Bank reserves: A dispute over words and classification A prominent philosophical/legal case for requiring 100% bank reserves employs a flawed style of argument. It involves essentialism (criticized by Karl Popper and Joseph Schumpeter), persuasive definitions (identified by Charles L. Stevenson), faulty classification, and the piling up of irrelevant facts and considerations. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Review of Austrian Economics Springer Journals

Bank reserves: A dispute over words and classification

The Review of Austrian Economics , Volume 23 (2) – Dec 23, 2009

Loading next page...
1
 
/lp/springer_journal/bank-reserves-a-dispute-over-words-and-classification-IB7HKOxdg1

References (22)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
Subject
Economics; Public Finance; Political Science; History of Economic Thought/Methodology
ISSN
0889-3047
eISSN
1573-7128
DOI
10.1007/s11138-009-0102-8
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

A prominent philosophical/legal case for requiring 100% bank reserves employs a flawed style of argument. It involves essentialism (criticized by Karl Popper and Joseph Schumpeter), persuasive definitions (identified by Charles L. Stevenson), faulty classification, and the piling up of irrelevant facts and considerations.

Journal

The Review of Austrian EconomicsSpringer Journals

Published: Dec 23, 2009

There are no references for this article.