I did not say whether this was a bad or good thing. I am simply stating a fact, which Martinghoul stated prior, probably without fully understanding the reasons behind it. The economy would change drastically and move toward production rather than paper printing and shuffling.
I stoopid! I get headakes from trying to think! I tryed the hardist becaus I reely wantd to lern I wantid it more even then pepul who are smarter even then me. Anaconda is nice!
Is this statement itself "falsifiable" or "scientific"?? No it is not! In other words the very notion that there are no apriori truths, or that in order for a statement to be true it must be subject to the scientistic positive method, is itself a non falsifiable statement that, using their own logic, cannot say anything true about reality.
Nobody trained in serious mathematics thinks that the "math" that Keynesians do, is anything but low level parlour games with numbers, so don't flatter yourself.
Didn't say stupid but maybe a bit ignorant being that you were not even aware of the full-reserve banking concept and posted that maybe you need to go check it out.
That is most certainly not what I said, if you read carefully. I stated that I am not an expert on Austrian economics (I've found that learning more is not worth my time).
The reason why your "science" is dismal is because you fundamentally reject subjective marginal utility. That's why you have "economists" like Jared Bernstein arguing that higher than market wage controls do not lead to unemployment. He uses your method of "empirical-scientific evidence" to make this ridiculous conclusion. If this is true, then there's no law of demand and no law of marginal utility, and economic science has absolutely nothing to stand on. In addition to this, Keynesians have no capital theory, for them all caital is a unified, homogenous blob. That's why they absurdly pretend that there can be a production function for the whole economy. They also have no interest theory (at least not one that can be taken seriously) they laughably pretend that the natural rate of interest in equilibrium is equal to the marginal productivity of capital. If this weren't enough they also have no theory of money, no idea on how it originates in a market economy, or how any increase in its supply must be non neutral. These people actually believe, following their brain dead master Keynes, that the price of a monetary unit is the rate of interest. The only reason these Keynesians are still around is because "higher education" is a government protected cartel/oligipoly. Year in and year out they consistently embarrass themselves with their forecasts and their "science".
Well right there you already show ignorance. Austrian economics is more of a study of history, rather than theories. You do not have to agree with it to find it interesting to learn about. As for recent implementations of full reserve banking or free market banking, you can look up Scotland in the 1800s. The nation is mostly immune to the panic that underwent in Britain right prior to the implementation of a central bank. Either way, you are correct that modern capitalism cannot function under full reserve banking. The problem is that you think that is OK, while Austrians believe that it is a big problem. But hey, why argue, the near future will simply unveil the answer, in case you do not see that the current system is a time ticking bomb.
I do not believe we can not have a full reserve system. Although such undertaking could take decades to avoid harming the economy. What we can do right now is to increase the reserve %. The lower the reserve requirement, the more dangerous FRL is and vice-versa.