Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Time deposits, dimensions, and fraud.William Barnett & Walter E. Block - 2008 - Journal of Business Ethics 88 (4):711-716.
    We stipulate, arguendo, that fractional-reserve-demand deposit banking is per se fraudulent. We ask whether or not time deposit banking can also be illicit, and answer in the positive, if there is a mismatch between the time dimensions of deposits and loans. To wit, if an intermediary borrows short and lends long.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Time Deposits, Dimensions, and Fraud.I. I. Barnett & Walter E. Block - 2008 - Journal of Business Ethics 88 (4):711-716.
    We stipulate, arguendo, that fractional-reserve-demand deposit banking is per se fraudulent. We ask whether or not time deposit banking can also be illicit, and answer in the positive, if there is a mismatch between the time dimensions of deposits and loans. To wit, if an intermediary borrows short and lends long.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Rejoinder to Bagus and Howden on Borrowing Short and Lending Long.I. I. Barnett & Walter E. Block - 2011 - Journal of Business Ethics 100 (2):229-238.
    In Barnett and Block (J Bus Ethics 88(4):711–716, 2009a), the present authors claim that borrowing short and lending long is fraudulent, and thus ought to be prohibited on legal grounds. Bagus and Howden (J Bus Ethics 90(3):399, 2009) take issue with our ethical analysis. The present paper is our response to these authors; it is an attempt to defend Barnett and Block (J Bus Ethics 88(4):711–716, 2009a) against the very interesting and important, although we believe, erroneous, criticisms of Bagus and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Rejoinder to Bagus and Howden on Borrowing Short and Lending Long.William Barnett & Walter E. Block - 2011 - Journal of Business Ethics 100 (2):229-238.
    In Barnett and Block :711–716, 2009a), the present authors claim that borrowing short and lending long is fraudulent, and thus ought to be prohibited on legal grounds. Bagus and Howden :399, 2009) take issue with our ethical analysis. The present paper is our response to these authors; it is an attempt to defend Barnett and Block :711–716, 2009a) against the very interesting and important, although we believe, erroneous, criticisms of Bagus and Howden :399, 2009).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • The Legitimacy of Loan Maturity Mismatching: A Risky, but not Fraudulent, Undertaking.Philipp Bagus & David Howden - 2009 - Journal of Business Ethics 90 (3):399-406.
    Barnett and Block (Journal of Business Ethics, 2009 ) attack the heart of modern banking by claiming that the practice of borrowing short and lending long is illicit. While their claim of illegitimacy concerning fractional reserve banking can be defended, their justification lacks substance. Their claim is herein strengthened by a legal analysis of deposits and loans based on Huerta de Soto (Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles, 2006 ). A combined legal and economic analysis shows that while lending deposits (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations