Full Tilt Poker executives should have opened a bank

Business, Finance, Statism
Share

Federal prosecutors have alleged in their amended complaint against Full Tilt Poker that the gambling interest was a “Ponzi scheme,” apparently in part because of the company’s level of cash reserves.

FTP owed approximately $390 million to players around the world, with $150 million owed to U.S. players. FTP only had $60 million on deposit in its bank accounts, however, meaning over $300 million is owed to players worldwide.

This was the result of FTP’s payment processing channels becoming so disrupted that “the company faced increasing difficulty attempting to collect funds from players in the United States. Rather than disclose this fact, Full Tilt Poker simply credited players’ online gambling accounts with money that had never actually been collected from the players’ bank accounts. Full Tilt Poker allowed players to gamble with — and lose to other players — this phantom money that Full Tilt Poker never actually collected or possessed.”

$390 million in liabilities and only $60 million in the bank? That means that FTP had a little more than 15% in cash reserves. According to Wikipedia,

A depository institution’s reserve requirements vary by the dollar amount of net transaction accounts held at that institution. Effective December 30, 2010, institutions with net transactions accounts:

  • Of less than $10.7 million have no minimum reserve requirement;
  • Between $10.7 million and $58.8 million must have a liquidity ratio of 3%;
  • Exceeding $58.8 million must have a liquidity ratio of 10%

So because FTP had 15% in cash reserves, the whole operation is a Ponzi scheme. If only the proprietors had started a bank of the same size, they would have only needed 10% reserves!

Full Tilt Poker executives should have opened a bank Read Post »

On the Austrian Theory of Money, a Reply to David Graeber

(Austrian) Economics, History
Share

David Graeber and Robert Murphy have been debating the validity of the monetary regression theory.  They seem to be talking past one another.  Graeber is assuming that Austrian theory agrees with neo-classical theory in areas where it does not, and Murphy is assuming that Graeber is substantially more familiar with Austrian ideas than he seems to be.  To clear up the confusion, we need to take a step back and start at the beginning.

On the Austrian Theory of Money, a Reply to David Graeber Read Post »

The Market Is Awesome. News At 11.

(Austrian) Economics, Business
Share

Yesterday I found myself on the grocery store parking lot with a dead car battery, a trunk full of perishable and a toddler in the back seat. The following times/events are taken from my phone’s history.

  • 10:03am – Called my wife to come get us.
  • 10:05am – Called roadside to get a jump.
  • 10:24am – Service dispatched. I get a text meesage with contact info for the company coming.
  • 10:40am – Service arrives
  • 10:43am – Battery checked. Totally dead. Car is started.

Then I drive across the street and buy a new battery at an auto parts store. Within seconds of purchase it gets installed. I am back home shortly after.

Too bad trying to get things done within the government system of bureaucracy is nowhere near as pleasant or efficient.

The Market Is Awesome. News At 11. Read Post »

Mises Academy Course: “Libertarian Controversies”

(Austrian) Economics, Anti-Statism, Education, Libertarian Theory, The Basics
Share

Next month I’ll be teaching a new Mises Academy course,”Libertarian Controversies.” This is my fourth Mises Academy course (the previous three are Libertarian Legal Theory, Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics, and The Social Theory of Hoppe), and my fifth time teaching there (I have reprised the IP course once).

From the course page:

Modern libertarianism is a young, developing and vibrant science. Variants includes classical liberalism, minarchism, and, in its most rigorous form, anarcho-Austrian libertarianism. Libertarians of various stripes are influenced by utilitarian, pragmatic and natural law theories, and by thinkers including Ayn Rand, Hayek, Rothbard, Mises, and others. For decades there has been vigorous debate among different camps of libertarians about a host of controversial issues, from the foundation of rights to the nature of government, and about concrete issues such as abortion, strategy and activism, living in an unfree world, anarchy v. minarchy, punishment and restitution, and so on. In this course, libertarian legal theorist Stephan Kinsella will explore a variety of libertarian misconceptions and controversies, from an Austro-libertarian perspective.

In the discussion about misconceptions, Kinsella will identify a number of common libertarian mistakes, confusions, fallacies or flawed reasoning and propose a solution or more consistent approach. Issues to be discussed include: creation as a source of property rights; labor as being owned; unintentional equivocation (harm, authority, hierarchy, etc.); alienability and voluntary slavery; …

Mises Academy Course: “Libertarian Controversies” Read Post »

Kinsella on Intellectual Property and Economic Development

(Austrian) Economics, Anti-Statism, IP Law, Libertarian Theory, Podcasts
Share

My Mises University 2011 lecture, Intellectual Property and Economic Development (July 27, 2011), is now up. The audio may also be downloaded here; the original PowerPoint slides are here. Streaming audio and a googledocs version of the slides are below.

~*~

Kinsella on Intellectual Property and Economic Development Read Post »

Scroll to Top