Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis discusses the legitimacy of fractional-reserve banking under the title-transfer theory of contract. Fractional-reserve banking is the practice of banks lending out some of the money that is deposited with them. This can be contrasted to a 100% reserve system in which all deposited funds are held by the bank at all times. The title-transfer theory of contract posits that all contracts are the exchange of title to some piece of property and that all title to a particular piece of property can only be held by one individual at a time. Fractional-reserve banking appears to create a problem for the title-transfer theory of contract since it seems that both the depositor of money and those who borrow money from the bank have title to the money that was originally deposited. This is what is known as the double-title to property problem. \n \nEssentially, this thesis dissolves the double-title to property problem by offering a conceptual understanding of bank deposits as a form of call loan in which bank depositors give up title to money they deposit thus never creating an instance in which two titles to the same piece of property arises in the practice of fractional-reserve banking. This conceptual understanding of bank deposits describes fractional-reserve banking in a way which is ultimately different from how some who oppose fractional-reserve banking have described it. The call loan understanding views banks as debtors and depositors as their creditors who hold debt which is callable at any time. This understanding can be contrasted to the view that banks offers warehouse services that protect deposited money and bank depositors are people who seek to have their money protected and safeguarded by the bank. \n \nThis thesis then explores some of the practical implications of conceptualizing bank deposits as call loans. While some have argued that banks must be bound by different rules when it comes to treasury management, bankruptcy, and contract formation, this thesis explores how banks can operate just like any other business that must practice debt management while dealing with uncertainty. This analysis engages with existing criticisms which posit that business practices for fractional-reserve banks must be different from other businesses in order to protect creditors from conditions which critics claim do not appear in other industries. This thesis argues that any such concerns regarding the treatment of creditors by fractional-reserve banks can already be addressed by existing business ethics literature that applies generally to all industries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".