"He who makes the money - makes the rules"

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
in a free market,

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
with hard currency that is not inflated through fractional reserves,

[/ QUOTE ]

Those two premises are contradictory.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
in a free market,

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
with hard currency that is not inflated through fractional reserves,

[/ QUOTE ]

Those two premises are contradictory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

It's *possible* that a free market could develop that would allow a fractional-reserve currency system. My comment only specified one without a fractional-reserve currency. They certainly aren't mutally exclusive.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps getting Congress to do the controlling is a bad idea - but then who do you suggest does the controlling??

I think it needs to be controlled by the people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, "the people" are going to control it one way or another; whether they do it through a market commodity or through government legislation makes quite a difference. Why not let "the people" decide which currency they want to invest in?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're one of those other "libertarians," aren't you?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a confused libertarian now if that's what you mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant libertarian socialist. I'm told that that's what most Europeans mean when they say "libertarian," and I noticed you advocated things like allocating government funds to overseas poverty rather than just dismantling them. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

[ QUOTE ]
As I see it there are 2 types of inflation - prices go up naturally over time - type1 - and increases in prices caused by the currency losing value - type2.

In a free market it's nigh on impossible to stop type1 inflation - it's much easier to control type2.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brainwashing.

Think about this. There are x amount of market-demanded goods and services in the economy. An increase in x is good, it means that people have more of the things that they want/need. A decrease in x is bad, it means that people have fewer things that they want/need. There is y amount of dollars in circulation. Dollars are inherently worthless.

X naturally increases over time. People in the market are constantly finding newer and better ways to do things, and increasing productivity to compete. If x increases while y stays the same, the prices have to fall, and the purchasing value of the dollar has to go up.

The only way for the dollar's value to fall is if y increases faster than x, which it does.

This has been eliminated under the gold standard before. The late 19th/early 20th century industrial boom saw a steady decrease in prices. It also saw depressions that hit harder than would occur under our current system (at least for now), but blaming that on the gold standard is like blaming rape on the presence of testosterone in males. If fractional reserve banking is eliminated by the market (i.e., people choose not to save their money in a bank that's going to counterfeit it), no business cycles can take place.

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
in a free market,

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
with hard currency that is not inflated through fractional reserves,

[/ QUOTE ]

Those two premises are contradictory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

It's *possible* that a free market could develop that would allow a fractional-reserve currency system. My comment only specified one without a fractional-reserve currency. They certainly aren't mutally exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that the idea is already out there, the only way fractional reserve banks wouldn't exist would be if they are outlawed (no longer a free market), or if full reserve banks resorted to dirty tactics like spreading false rumours to create runs in order to "compete" (a market where fraud is allowed to run rampant without repercussions is arguably also not a free market).

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
interestingly these days there is a lot of terminology being bandied about that was used in the Nazi regime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine that. It's almost like modern fascists are organized.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothings more fascist then concerned libertarians that want to make nonviolent actions that don't hurt others freely. Or those that want to stop the government from taking whatever it pleases and redistributing however it pleases.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Given that the idea is already out there, the only way fractional reserve banks wouldn't exist would be if they are outlawed (no longer a free market),

[/ QUOTE ]

So since the "idea" of counterfieting is "out there", outlawing it would be cause the market for money to no longer be free?

If you print a note that says it's redeemable for something, and you don't have that something, you're committing fraud. Period.

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, "the people" are going to control it one way or another; whether they do it through a market commodity or through government legislation makes quite a difference. Why not let "the people" decide which currency they want to invest in?

[/ QUOTE ]

People can invest in any currency they like presently - they just can't walk into a store and buy stuff over the counter with foreign money.

So you want most/all money issued by whatever country to be legal tender anywhere so that people have absolute freedom to buy what they want with whatever currency?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're one of those other "libertarians," aren't you?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a confused libertarian now if that's what you mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant libertarian socialist. I'm told that that's what most Europeans mean when they say "libertarian," and I noticed you advocated things like allocating government funds to overseas poverty rather than just dismantling them. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if there is a political classification that I fit neatly into.

I think all governments the world over should drop ALL debt to all impoverished nations.

I think all governments should spend more money on helping the world sort the "food air deal" than they spend on "defense"

I think there ought to be a free exchange of technologies and ideas - sort of a global patent office that anyone can look through but the originator of an idea gets the credit/royalties for 20 or so years - so that we can all work towards finding improved energy sources for example that don't use fossil fuels at all.

I think the US should be broken down into states - but a free trade agreement remain so that you could trade freely between states but each one would be sovereign and make it's own laws, the same way the EU should remain seperate and simply have a free trade agreement binding all the countries together.

I think the Federal Reserve ought to be abolished - along with the Bank of England - and all other privately owned central banks.

I'm definitely not into socialism. I'm probably closer to ACism - but I have issues with AC philosophy as well.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
People can invest in any currency they like presently - they just can't walk into a store and buy stuff over the counter with foreign money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Therein lies the rub. People are forced to use dollars.

[ QUOTE ]
So you want most/all money issued by whatever country to be legal tender anywhere so that people have absolute freedom to buy what they want with whatever currency?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to lie, I want a gold standard. However, the reason I want it is because history has shown time and time again that, when trade is free to be conducted through any market commodity medium, people adopt a gold standard. Gold simply has the ideal physical properties for a bartering medium. (And no, it has nothing to do with it being shiny)

[ QUOTE ]
I think all governments the world over should drop ALL debt to all impoverished nations.

[/ QUOTE ]

They really don't care what you think they should do.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the US should be broken down into states - but a free trade agreement remain so that you could trade freely between states but each one would be sovereign and make it's own laws, the same way the EU should remain seperate and simply have a free trade agreement binding all the countries together.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. There is no reason why we need so many governments telling us what we can't do.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the Federal Reserve ought to be abolished - along with the Bank of England - and all other privately owned central banks.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what's the solution? A state owned bank? That's just as bad if not worse.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm definitely not into socialism. I'm probably closer to ACism - but I have issues with AC philosophy as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone does, that's because no one takes the time to realize that a functional AC society has certain prerequisites for its existence that simply don't exist yet. This is why most of the ACers (don't ask me why we use the suffix "-ers," it just stuck for some reason) here favor a transition to anarchy or near-anarchy through minarchy.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why most of the ACers (don't ask me why we use the suffix "-ers," it just stuck for some reason) here favor a transition to anarchy or near-anarchy through minarchy.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll happily settle for a single 4 year period where government grows less than 5%. I'll keep hoping.

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Given that the idea is already out there, the only way fractional reserve banks wouldn't exist would be if they are outlawed (no longer a free market),

[/ QUOTE ]

So since the "idea" of counterfieting is "out there", outlawing it would be cause the market for money to no longer be free?

If you print a note that says it's redeemable for something, and you don't have that something, you're committing fraud. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly where on a dollar bill does it say that it is redeemable for anything? The whole "fractional reserve banking is fraud" line is a load of crap and you know it. Its getting old.