Banking Debate Woes (Part I) — Brian Romanchuk

Summary:
This article was triggered by some discussions I ran into on Twitter. My belief is that the economics literature on banking (with some exceptions) is a failure. From the perspective of advancing knowledge, the best course of action would be to ritually burn the literature, and start over from scratch.(Note: due to the length of this discussion, I am breaking it into (at least) two parts. This first part gives an overview, then turns to the analysis of individual banks.)The core of the problem is that the economics fraternity started from the wrong place, and the incorrect description of banking was enshrined in Economics 101 textbooks. The heterodox literature then responded to the incorrect theory, which then has the unfortunate effect of making the whole discussion even harder to

Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:

Robert Vienneau writes Austrian Capital Theory And Triple-Switching In The Corn-Tractor Model

Mike Norman writes The Accursed Tariffs — NeilW

Mike Norman writes IRS has agreed to share migrants’ tax information with ICE

Mike Norman writes Trump’s “Liberation Day”: Another PR Gag, or Global Reorientation Turning Point? — Simplicius