http://thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/14983-brics-regimes-forge-new-world-bank-call-for-global-currency (http://thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/14983-brics-regimes-forge-new-world-bank-call-for-global-currency)
Here is a challenge, try to spot the non communist :laugh:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthenewamerican.com%2Fmedia%2Fk2%2Fitems%2Fcache%2Ff1079cec8f0c7ace5ecce85fdc63c140_M.jpg&hash=1b8feef5b2389669393a3aa2857b6533922ada32)
Quotewe are committed to exploring new models and approaches towards more equitable development and inclusive global growth."
Of course we all know that the communist countries got the most social mobility and equal class system in the world :rolleyes:
There are many good arguments for the creation of a new international currency, if it was linked to some form of precious metals . In capitalism and freedom Milton Friedman argues for a system of free currencies, while that system would be too chaotic in my opinion I also don't think Gold is the answer, because as seen before in history the price of gold is easily manipulated by bankers such as JP Morgan and Rockefeller did. I think the federal reserve system with transparency and representative oversight with one simple function which would be currency stability would work best.
Why is it that some groups always want to be in control (BRICS). That is part of our problem today. We have so many groups that want control for controls sake and to heck with the people that it effects. Regardless of what value we tie it too they will find a way to profit from it.
The big problem with a global currency, is that it would require global governance. Once global governance is in place, it won't stop at currency; it will move into global "fairness".
Goodbye US constitution, and goodbye national sovereignty for all nations.
Of course, all of this is just a conspiracy theory. I've been told that 100s of times. :rolleyes:
Kid yourselves not. As the US Dollar depreciates in value and Helicopter Ben continues to print and the 0% interest, the foreign countries have no desire to see their money go down the tube. We have been the reserve currency since Tricky Dick Nixon screwed the world on its gold purchases, so now it is payback. They have the commodity, we have a handful of toilet paper. They can buy and sell as they wish and not line the pockets of our bankers, but line their own. When the Dollar goes, so will the hegemony of the US.
Quote from: Shooterman on April 04, 2013, 08:38:26 PM
Kid yourselves not. As the US Dollar depreciates in value and Helicopter Ben continues to print and the 0% interest, the foreign countries have no desire to see their money go down the tube. We have been the reserve currency since Tricky Dick Nixon screwed the world on its gold purchases, so now it is payback. They have the commodity, we have a handful of toilet paper. They can buy and sell as they wish and not line the pockets of our bankers, but line their own. When the Dollar goes, so will the hegemony of the US.
When was the last time there was an audit on the US gold reserves?
Also, many conservative outlets rationally argue for people to invest savings in gold. But what is going to prevent the federal government from expropriating private gold as they did with
"Executive Order 6102" in 1933?
Quote from: Mountainshield on April 05, 2013, 04:36:52 AM
When was the last time there was an audit on the US gold reserves?
Also, many conservative outlets rationally argue for people to invest savings in gold. But what is going to prevent the federal government from expropriating private gold as they did with "Executive Order 6102" in 1933?
Nothing except possibly all the gold is not in banks now. If they can't find it, they can't steal it. The silly bastards will also attempt to steal any funds in the banks ala Cyprus.
May I also suggest this ain't 1933. Most everyone ( to a point ) believed in 1933 that Big Brother was the answer. Some have wised up today and there are considerably more firearms in country than then.
We can always find reasons for 'what ifs', but if you're going to die by government, will it be on your knees begging for 'Massa' to forgive us, we'll be good.
Quote from: Shooterman on April 05, 2013, 05:37:07 AM
We can always find reasons for 'what ifs', but if you're going to die by government, will it be on your knees begging for 'Massa' to forgive us, we'll be good.
As I said in another thread I would rather "Die by the Sword" than bend the knee to a dictator :laugh:
To go off topic, dictators worked very well until Caesar came and reformed the government into tyranny. I feel Dictator is such a bad term for the hitlers, pots and mao's of the world, considering how patriotic and good men the first dictators were.
Quote from: Mountainshield on April 03, 2013, 09:49:18 AM
In capitalism and freedom Milton Friedman argues for a system of free currencies, while that system would be too chaotic in my opinion
How so?
What is chaotic about the market process?
Is not monetary policy chaotic- in terms of injection effects?
Why would a money system based in private and competing monies, be chaotic?
Is money really something best left to a monopolist? Or can competition play a role in the production of money too?
Quote from: TowardLiberty on April 22, 2013, 09:03:11 AM
How so?
What is chaotic about the market process?
Is not monetary policy chaotic- in terms of injection effects?
Why would a money system based in private and competing monies, be chaotic?
Is money really something best left to a monopolist? Or can competition play a role in the production of money too?
Inflation doesn't happen straight away, the people who first get their hands on the money benefits from inflation, so a system of free fiat currencies would need an awesome transparency agency to have total oversight over every bank. If not we would get corruption after corruption case where bankers/organizations benefits from rampant inflation while the "commoners" see their savings dissapear before they could move it to a more stable currency. So even though the value would go down the people at the top have good time to "escape" with their money before the news affect the market value of the currency, so the incentive to keep your currency stable would not exist as it does with normal market activity.
If there was a system to legislate that every currency was tied to i.e type metal then I guess it could work, but that too would require transperency laws and regulation of supply. (For example I think it was Morgan that spread rumours through media agents about gold shipment sinking plummeting the price of gold and then buying it up).
And I said wrong, it was Hayek that advocated free currencies if I remember correctly, sorry about that.
I believe money should be left to a monopolist system, a system that is clearly accountable to electorate through accountable corruption but without the possibility of manipulating inflation rate for political gain, reduction of unemployment or war economy (unless its a total war). A stable predictable inflation rate determined by few economical factors such as simple economical growth statistics and more importantly totally out the hands of politicians.
Edit: my point is that predictability and transparancy are covenant with money supply.
Quote from: Mountainshield on April 22, 2013, 10:00:53 AM
Inflation doesn't happen straight away, the people who first get their hands on the money benefits from inflation, so a system of free fiat currencies would need an awesome transparency agency to have total oversight over every bank.
Yes, these are those injection effects I was speaking of.
But it does not necessitate any central agency.
For true competition has a built in check. If a bank inflated their deposits beyond their reserves, eventually some of this check book money would be deposited at another bank.
So when the Jones Bank receives notes from the Smith Bank, they will attempt to redeem them. If the Smith Bank sends over the money, this represents a contraction in their reserves and will necessitate a further contraction in loans. This reverses the earlier expansion.
Competition ensures sound practices as banks redeem notes from other banks and the inflating banks are punished.
If the Smith Bank cannot redeem its notes then it becomes bankrupt and a bank run will force the bank into foreclosure.
So competition prevents any real inflation of the money supply.
This system would have prevented the panics during the free banking period, in early US history, if the banks then did not enjoy privileged status, associated with their state charter, which let them declare banking holidays and remain in business while failing to pay creditors and live up to their contracts. For money was a contract that was worth so much in some precious metal.
Quote
If not we would get corruption after corruption case where bankers/organizations benefits from rampant inflation while the "commoners" see their savings dissapear before they could move it to a more stable currency. So even though the value would go down the people at the top have good time to "escape" with their money before the news affect the market value of the currency, so the incentive to keep your currency stable would not exist as it does with normal market activity.
What you describe is actually what happens under monopolized forms of money and banking.
If money were a private good people would simply trade in gold and silver if there were no trust worthy paper notes around.
When legal tender laws force fiat money on an economy, you can bet that a continual debasement will be the rule of the day and the commoners will have their savings depleted, just as you say, for the benefit of the connected banks and firms who receive the new money/credit first.
Quote
If there was a system to legislate that every currency was tied to i.e type metal then I guess it could work, but that too would require transperency laws and regulation of supply. (For example I think it was Morgan that spread rumours through media agents about gold shipment sinking plummeting the price of gold and then buying it up).
The problem with that is if money is tied to a type of metal, or a quantity of metal, through legislative fiat, then subsequent legislative fiats can reverse this and alter the situation, as we saw in US history when FDR confiscated privately held gold or later when Nixon closed the gold window.
Quote
And I said wrong, it was Hayek that advocated free currencies if I remember correctly, sorry about that.
Ah yes, Hayek's argument for the denationalization of money.
Rothbard, Salerno, Garrison, Hulsmann and many others have taken the position that 100% reserves is the proper path forward, in terms of demand deposits, to escape being guilty of fraud.
They hold fractional reserve banking to be contrary to common notions of private property.
While others, taking the lead from Hayek, have stressed "free banking," which does not necessarily preclude fractional reserve banking, providing that the deposit holder understands explicitly that his money has been lent out. The holder of the demand deposit would bear some "risk" that their money could be lost. But then it becomes difficult to separate money from lottery tickets.
Quote
I believe money should be left to a monopolist system, a system that is clearly accountable to electorate through accountable corruption but without the possibility of manipulating inflation rate for political gain, reduction of unemployment or war economy (unless its a total war). A stable predictable inflation rate determined by few economical factors such as simple economical growth statistics and more importantly totally out the hands of politicians.
Edit: my point is that predictability and transparancy are covenant with money supply.
It sounds nice but it is a dream. The central bank is a political entity. Its purpose is political. It is to provide a source of free credit to the government, to acquire funds without raising taxes or increasing borrowing costs and at the same time, it is the great tool for centrally planning the economy, in a day and time when soviet style central planning is simply not possible.
And I would suggest that any in depth reading of Hayek, Mises or the other Austrians, proves that the price of money, (interest rates) are like any other market price- best left to be determined by market forces, than by some central board.
For it is through the price system, and interest rates especially, that the economy can coordinate across sectors, and across time.
Putting a price control on interest rates is like any other price control- it puts into motion a re-ordering of the structure of an economy, with all of the concomitant dislocations and disruptions that we associate with price controls in a more specific sense.
@TowardLiberty I agree with almost everything.
One of the point I disagree with you about is the "in built check" to inflated bank currency, it is not adequate enough. I don't see how that "check" will prevent short term inflation that will punish the beneficiaries enough for them not to take that risk. Of course it could never be perfect but I think too many people at the negative end of that system would be hurt too badly for it to be socially and politically sustainable/defendable.
If that system were to be implemented some sort of safety net for depositors would have to be governmentally ensured. Especially if there was no oversight.
QuoteWhat you describe is actually what happens under monopolized forms of money and banking
My argument is that this is happening because the central bank is controlled by politicians who want to inflate to sustain an unsustainable welfare state. If the central bank was based on the
Bank deutscher Länder of independent from legislative and executive branches of government and with only goal of "predictability and stability" then it would be superior to both free market currency and politically controlled central banks.
And it is not just a postulated dream as the germans did it after the war.
As for 100% reserve banking as the ideal as opposed to fractional reserve banking I think would slow economic growth because risk investement capital which is the engine of economical growth would not gain the optimum level of supply. I would grant that it could work if taxes on profits were cut drastically or removed all together, but I think that is as out of the question as is abolishment of central banking.
QuoteFor it is through the price system, and interest rates especially, that the economy can coordinate across sectors, and across time.
I agree, and the reason for this coordination is because price systems and interest rates are variables that offer predictability so that individuals and businesses can make intelligent short and long term decisions. I don't see any contradiction to central banking with this statement as price system and a certain degree of interest rates can be determined by the market and independent private banks even under a central bank.
QuotePutting a price control on interest rates is like any other price control- it puts into motion a re-ordering of the structure of an economy, with all of the concomitant dislocations and disruptions that we associate with price controls in a more specific sense.
I understand you are speaking theoretically and empirically true here, but I think the disadvantages of a Austrian style currency system is more harmful socially and politically than central banking based on predictability, even though it is superior economically.
Edit:
Please explain if you have the time,
QuoteThe problem with that is if money is tied to a type of metal, or a quantity of metal, through legislative fiat, then subsequent legislative fiats can reverse this and alter the situation, as we saw in US history when FDR confiscated privately held gold or later when Nixon closed the gold window.
To use your example, in what legal tender would "Smith Bank" send over their money to "Jones Bank"?
((I'm only an layman. :blushing:))
Quote from: Mountainshield on April 22, 2013, 01:43:08 PM
@TowardLiberty I agree with almost everything.
One of the point I disagree with you about is the "in built check" to inflated bank currency, it is not adequate enough.
First off, thanks for the thoughtful and civil reply.
What could be any better than the redemption check on inflation?
Obviously, we cannot trust a banking cartel, with a legal monopoly, to maintain the soundness of the money.
At least the market has a mechanism to limit inflation!
And the mechanism is pretty adequate. We know the notes of banks will circulate and find their way into the accounts of people who patronize other banks. This will happen quite rapidly, as money circulates.
And then we have the redemption calls, which reverse the inflation process.
So I dont see the inadequacy.
Quote
I don't see how that "check" will prevent short term inflation that will punish the beneficiaries enough for them not to take that risk. Of course it could never be perfect but I think too many people at the negative end of that system would be hurt too badly for it to be socially and politically sustainable/defendable.
Well, let's think it through.
Inflation occurs when a bank loans out money substitutes that are not backed by real money. This is our fractional reserve banking. When the new money is loaned out, it usually goes to pay the creditors and suppliers of a particular business. These other people generally bank at various establishments.
As soon as these individuals get paid they will deposit the money at their bank in order to clear their debts.
The money will be sent in for redemption for the subsequent banks do not want paper notes, they want the actual money.
In this fashion, the newly printed money or created digital bits of money, will have been called in and redeemed before they can circulate and drive up prices.
In order for prices to increase in the wake of money creation, the new money has to circulate.
This process short circulates the circulation of un-backed bank notes.
Quote
If that system were to be implemented some sort of safety net for depositors would have to be governmentally ensured. Especially if there was no oversight.
It couldn't be without introducing
moral hazard.With government insurance other banks and individuals do not have skin in the game. The check on inflation I described disappears and moral hazard leads banks to inflate even more.
Deposit insurance is an enabler of inflationary bank policy.
Quote
My argument is that this is happening because the central bank is controlled by politicians who want to inflate to sustain an unsustainable welfare state. If the central bank was based on the Bank deutscher Länder of independent from legislative and executive branches of government and with only goal of "predictability and stability" then it would be superior to both free market currency and politically controlled central banks.
And it is not just a postulated dream as the germans did it after the war.
I can't agree with that.
While I agree that a non-politicized central bank would be superior to the kind we have today, it would not be superior to a free market in money.
For the central bank still has the knowledge problem that the market does not face. The central bankers do not know what the "correct" equilibrium rate of interest is. Nor can they discover it for it is a moving target and the information can only be generated in the market process, through the interaction of supply and demand.
And price stability is a further chimera.
Prices cannot be stable because the value the markets place on consumer goods, raw materials, capital and so on, is in a continuous flux. The reason the market is a self regulating system is due to the price system- it adjusts to reflect the changing preferences and data on the market.
Price stability freezes this adjustment process and introduces chaos into the market process.
So the non-political central bank is still plagued by the "knowledge problem," so eloquently described by Hayek.
Quote
As for 100% reserve banking as the ideal as opposed to fractional reserve banking I think would slow economic growth because risk investement capital which is the engine of economical growth would not gain the optimum level of supply. I would grant that it could work if taxes on profits were cut drastically or removed all together, but I think that is as out of the question as is abolishment of central banking.
Perhaps this would be a good thing for the economy has been hoping from bubble to bubble, based on too much credit.
A little less credit and a more sustainable pattern of growth could be a good thing.
And if investment capital was really lacking wouldnt that drive up interest rates and incentivize savings?
And this new savings would free up capital for the investments you speak of.
Quote
I agree, and the reason for this coordination is because price systems and interest rates are variables that offer predictability so that individuals and businesses can make intelligent short and long term decisions. I don't see any contradiction to central banking with this statement as price system and a certain degree of interest rates can be determined by the market and independent private banks even under a central bank.
You dont see a contradiction with a system of freely fluctuating market prices and a system where the central bank plans interest rates?
If the return to capital is discounted through time to reflect the time value of money, and if this discount is a manipulated interest rate, then those capitalized returns are manipulated. And if earning are based on those future discounted flows of revenue, and stock prices are calculated from them, then the entire price system in the financial and capital markets is thwarted and unreliable.
Quote
I understand you are speaking theoretically and empirically true here, but I think the disadvantages of a Austrian style currency system is more harmful socially and politically than central banking based on predictability, even though it is superior economically.
If it was superior economically then its predictability in terms of empirical efficiency ought to be higher.
If the argument for central banking is economically weak and empirically weak, and if the argument for free markets is stronger on both grounds, then I fail to see how your statement here follows.
Quote
Edit:
Please explain if you have the time,
Did you want me to explain how price controls on interest rates leads to dislocations and depressions?
Just making sure that is the question..
Quote
To use your example, in what legal tender would "Smith Bank" send over their money to "Jones Bank"? ((I'm only an layman. :blushing:))
Probably gold or silver. But those wouldn't be legal tenders, because that means a money stamped for approval by the state.
It would be whatever people choose to value as money. Gold and silver are suited for the job.
Thanks for the reply, but there are still a few points that I don't understand and want to clarify.
QuoteIt couldn't be without introducing moral hazard.
With government insurance other banks and individuals do not have skin in the game. The check on inflation I described disappears and moral hazard leads banks to inflate even more.
Deposit insurance is an enabler of inflationary bank policy.
I don't see how this would be good for normal depositors who don't have time to follow all bank news and just want a safe long term place to store their savings. In this system from what I understand, every person would need to know wholly the character of the bank they are investing/storing their capital in, and constantly be alert.
QuoteSo the non-political central bank is still plagued by the "knowledge problem," so eloquently described by Hayek.
I totally agree about the price system and the knowledge problem. But still I think the knowledge problem could be sacrificed for a predictable inflation rate, even though that inflation rate is not optimum.
About fractional reserve banking, I agree with you and revoke my earlier statement. When interest rate make savings favorable and wealth taxation/profit taxation are rational then I can see more stable growth is better than maxing risk investment capital.
QuoteIf the return to capital is discounted through time to reflect the time value of money, and if this discount is a manipulated interest rate, then those capitalized returns are manipulated. And if earning are based on those future discounted flows of revenue, and stock prices are calculated from them, then the entire price system in the financial and capital markets is thwarted and unreliable.
I understand you are right, still even if the capital market does not reflect reality 100% I think the predictability and confidence in a set rational interest rate would compensate for this, even if that interest rate has the knowledge problem.
QuoteIf it was superior economically then its predictability in terms of empirical efficiency ought to be higher.
You misunderstood me, I agreed with you that the Austrian model is economically superior.
However when the Austrian model is opening the door for powerful bankers to crash the system and use it for their own gain at the expense of normal wage earners and hurt the entire economy then I don't think it can be sustainable in the long run. It will only create resentment and destroy confidence in free market in the electorate. At least when the system fails under a central bank, you can't blame freedom.
QuoteProbably gold or silver. But those wouldn't be legal tenders, because that means a money stamped for approval by the state.
It would be whatever people choose to value as money. Gold and silver are suited for the job
Well, I can't fully comprehend how that system would work in practice with all the information one would need to constantly be aware of. That I can't comprehend it of course doesn't mean it could work perfectly well.
I guess I would have to experience it first. With all the information technology we have today, central planners and communist argue that this new technology have made possible "good" totalitarian equality economy. Though that argument can be turned around that this technology have made possible free market, with information being democratized and instantly available to everyone.
QuoteDid you want me to explain how price controls on interest rates leads to dislocations and depressions?
No I understand that, I have read Commanding Heights, Free to choose and capitalism and freedom. Though that's about it for pure economical books. Read Thomas Friedman too, but damn that was like reading a child school assignment compared to these giants. As I said, I'm only a layman.
The thing I still don't understand is how depositors money would be protected from inflation when stored in one bank's specific currency in a Austrian style system. Or maybe there is no such thing as a protected deposit.
Quote from: Mountainshield on April 23, 2013, 01:03:35 PM
Thanks for the reply, but there are still a few points that I don't understand and want to clarify.
You bet, thanks for the thoughtful discussion.
Quote
I don't see how this would be good for normal depositors who don't have time to follow all bank news and just want a safe long term place to store their savings. In this system from what I understand, every person would need to know wholly the character of the bank they are investing/storing their capital in, and constantly be alert.
It seems that way but it is not so. The market transmits the knowledge of relative bank strength and soundness through the exchange rate on competing bank notes.
Bank notes would exchange for other notes/ gold on a market, and a discount would arise between notes of various banks, and this would reflect the markets collective knowledge regarding the risk of different notes, and by virtue, the soundness of the banks, just as prices on the market reflect the collective wisdom of market participants.
That is the beauty of the price system- the way it communicates otherwise tacit and private knowledge, in a public manner.
Quote
I totally agree about the price system and the knowledge problem. But still I think the knowledge problem could be sacrificed for a predictable inflation rate, even though that inflation rate is not optimum.
Ah but when we talk about a predictable inflation rate, it implies the notion of price stability.
But as we know from the economics of supply and demand, the various factors that impinge on the price system are in a constant flux. No price stability is possible.
So by targeting a given rate of inflation, we implicitly also target a particular equilibrium price level.
And in that regard we are centrally planning the economy to an extent that reduces rather than enhances the markets capacity to generate and communicate important information.
And just how do we meaningfully measure the rate of inflation in order to target a stable and predictable rate?
I ask this question because price indexes measure inflation by a rate of change from some base year. But why should we suppose that all change from the base year is indicative of inflation?
How do we know it is not simply capturing the movement of consumer preference and therefore misdiagnosing change as inflation?
I would suggest these theoretical problems undermine the Chicago School's emphasis on monetary rules.
Quote
About fractional reserve banking, I agree with you and revoke my earlier statement. When interest rate make savings favorable and wealth taxation/profit taxation are rational then I can see more stable growth is better than maxing risk investment capital.
Glad I could help steer you in this direction! If you want to watch an interesting video lecture by a top Austrian economist, on this very issue, check out Roger Garrison, an Auburn monetary theorist.
Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle | Roger W. Garrison (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFqtTj7TeO0#ws)
Quote
I understand you are right, still even if the capital market does not reflect reality 100% I think the predictability and confidence in a set rational interest rate would compensate for this, even if that interest rate has the knowledge problem.
Well, I guess I can't imagine a "rational" interest that was not market born. And by that I mean, one connected to and coordinated with, the preferences of various sectors of the economy.
This is that knowledge problem.
If interest rates are simply rates of discount that are used to equate future streams of money to present, and if this discount is to be coordinated with the preferences for consumption and savings, as reflected by the aggregated spending and savings decisions of market participants, then this rate has to be market determined or it will fail to convey this essential information.
And then it will foment discoordination between the plans of entrepreneurs and the preferences of consumers.
And that is also the mechanism underlying the boom/bust cycle, if we take the Austrian view.
Quote
You misunderstood me, I agreed with you that the Austrian model is economically superior.
However when the Austrian model is opening the door for powerful bankers to crash the system and use it for their own gain at the expense of normal wage earners and hurt the entire economy then I don't think it can be sustainable in the long run. It will only create resentment and destroy confidence in free market in the electorate. At least when the system fails under a central bank, you can't blame freedom.
Well, I would agree with you, if that were indeed the case.
But think about it.
If there is no deposit insurance then an inflating bank does not profit from crashing the system.
It wipes out its own capital and then finds itself out of business. The business model of predatory capitalism only makes sense in a too big too fail environment.
Otherwise, banking becomes like any other profit driven enterprise, namely, focused on prudently meeting consumer demand.
Quote
Well, I can't fully comprehend how that system would work in practice with all the information one would need to constantly be aware of. That I can't comprehend it of course doesn't mean it could work perfectly well.
I hope I have answered the question regarding the necessity for everyone to monitor the banks, with the explanation regarding exchange rates between bank notes. This is also something that occurred historically, through the Suffolk bank, which acted as a private clearinghouse between the various state chartered banks of the "free banking era." The notes of the wild cat banks traded at a discount, for obvious reasons. And the information was thereby made public regarding which bank was trustworthy and which was not.
Quote
I guess I would have to experience it first. With all the information technology we have today, central planners and communist argue that this new technology have made possible "good" totalitarian equality economy. Though that argument can be turned around that this technology have made possible free market, with information being democratized and instantly available to everyone.
Exactly.
If that technology exists then why not employ it in a decentralized fashion and avoid the great knowledge problem that has plagued central planners since Mises penned the argument..?
And the decentralized route gets around those sticky ethical issues that central planners get bogged down in, silly notions like "individual liberty."
I am not directing this sarcasm at you, but at those who advocate for planning, just to be clear!
Quote
No I understand that, I have read Commanding Heights, Free to choose and capitalism and freedom. Though that's about it for pure economical books. Read Thomas Friedman too, but damn that was like reading a child school assignment compared to these giants. As I said, I'm only a layman.
The thing I still don't understand is how depositors money would be protected from inflation when stored in one bank's specific currency in a Austrian style system. Or maybe there is no such thing as a protected deposit.
I would recommend Rothbard- and by that I mean everything the man has written. You won't be sorry.
But in terms of this issue and as a good jumping off point to these sorts of studies, I would check out his, "What Has Government Done To Our Money?"
http://mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf (http://mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf)
I concede this topic to you as I have no more arguments left, personally I remain unsure but hopefully people will read your post and comprehend the issue better.
Thanks.
QuoteUnderlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
In a last defense of the Chicago school, this statement can be applied too Austrian economy too. As my own reservations against a Austrian currency is a lack of trust in the electorate and also my own ability to take personal responsibility for banking as a more active depositor, investor and watchman.
Quote from: Mountainshield on April 24, 2013, 02:51:51 AM
I concede this topic to you as I have no more arguments left, personally I remain unsure but hopefully people will read your post and comprehend the issue better.
Thanks.
Well, thanks for the thoughtful debate.
But there is no need to approach these issues in a strict argument form, where one takes a position opposite the other.
If you are interested in discussing this stuff further, I am too. I especially would like to hear you thoughts on the business cycle after watching that Garrison video.
Quote
In a last defense of the Chicago school, this statement can be applied too Austrian economy too. As my own reservations against a Austrian currency is a lack of trust in the electorate and also my own ability to take personal responsibility for banking as a more active depositor, investor and watchman.
Ah but Friedman is not conceding this as an argument against freedom. He is saying that arguments against the free market involve or imply a lack of belief in freedom itself.
It is only through a better understanding of freedom that we can answer the critics of the market.
Regarding your reservations about competing monies, I have to ask, what electorate are we talking about here? A political body?
If money is a private good and legal tender laws do not exist, then I do not see much of a political role here. So no trust is necessary of a given political body, as it regards a functioning banking system.
And in terms of investors/ depositors taking on the role of watchmen, I would suggest that they do not need to, as the market does it for them.
Just as the spread on CDS contracts signal the perceived risk of various securities, the discount bank notes would receive relative to gold/silver (or other trusted bank notes) would signal depositors information about the relative riskiness of particular banks.
QuoteBut there is no need to approach these issues in a strict argument form, where one takes a position opposite the other.
If you are interested in discussing this stuff further, I am too. I especially would like to hear you thoughts on the business cycle after watching that Garrison video.
That's true, but I don't really have much to say. I watched the lecture and it was good except I was painting while watching it and some of the sound effects startled me :tounge: The conclusion is that savings gives better economic growth long term than inflation though it will be interesting to watch China in this regard with their style of monatery policy.
QuoteRegarding your reservations about competing monies, I have to ask, what electorate are we talking about here? A political body?
Yes, the electorate that votes in legislative representatives. My fear is that under a competing system of currency there will be many voters that will be hurt due to the mismanagement of their deposits in certain banks which will lead to politicians that are anti market being elected. Even though that bank is punished through the market, the depositors who knew nothing of the mismanagement lost their savings due to the inflation of that bank and have to reedem their deposit at a much lower or even a small fraction of their original value in another bank.
I understand from that video that austrian economics detests bringing psychology into the equation because that was Keynes fallacy in the business cycle, but I feel the austrian economists forget that politics are economical, and all the sociological models that make up political science are built on psychology of identification in economic matters as well as social ones.
And if a huge enough percentage of the population is hurt by this then they are going to vote in politicians that will do more than just attack the competing currencies, they will attack every aspect of the free market as we see today.
To use an example of how they then attack the market from my country, politicians regulate the market to such an extent that the market can not operate effectively, best example is employment. Politicians argue against free market because they claim it does not provide jobs for enough people, at the same time they regulate every aspect of a business that just managing one employee is a full time job in itself keeping up with the regulation in addition to enacting employer taxes that taxes an employer for hiring an employee even if the company does not have any revenue, minimum wage laws and all kinds of different gender, race etc policies. When the market then can't function optimally under this form of corperatism/socialism the politicians say "See, we said the market was bad and doesn't work! The answer to this problem is more regulation, stimulus and public sector jobs, because the superiority of the market is just a right wing myth".
So there are many aspects of economic freedom, but I think that free currencies is not sustainable politically in a democracy.
And I can sacrafice monetary freedom for a predictable central bank with only stability as its goal if it means that other sectors of the market will be left free.
Quote from: Mountainshield on April 28, 2013, 12:25:16 AM
That's true, but I don't really have much to say. I watched the lecture and it was good except I was painting while watching it and some of the sound effects startled me :tounge: The conclusion is that savings gives better economic growth long term than inflation though it will be interesting to watch China in this regard with their style of monatery policy.
Yea, those sound effects are kind of lame.
And yes, you have the conclusion, but do you understand the importance of accurate interest rates in order to achieve inter-temporal coordination of the various stages of production, aka the "production structure?"
Quote
Yes, the electorate that votes in legislative representatives. My fear is that under a competing system of currency there will be many voters that will be hurt due to the mismanagement of their deposits in certain banks which will lead to politicians that are anti market being elected. Even though that bank is punished through the market, the depositors who knew nothing of the mismanagement lost their savings due to the inflation of that bank and have to reedem their deposit at a much lower or even a small fraction of their original value in another bank.
There is a risk in that.
But we also have to consider the possibility that self interest would lead to prudent management of bank finances. With the ever present risk of bank runs, bankruptcy and lawsuits that would follow from inflating bank credit, there just might be too much on the line for bankers to focus merely on the short term, without due consideration for long run solvency. Especially without the protection of deposit insurance or implicit too big to fail status.
Though I do not suggest that your fears are misguided.
I only suggest that it is not a foregone conclusion that the competitive banking system would burn some depositors.
Recall the information transmitted by the private clearinghouse, via the spread on bank notes of various "trustworthiness," and the role this information will play in advising people where to put their money.
Quote
I understand from that video that austrian economics detests bringing psychology into the equation because that was Keynes fallacy in the business cycle, but I feel the austrian economists forget that politics are economical, and all the sociological models that make up political science are built on psychology of identification in economic matters as well as social ones.
Well, psychology really is not too important for economics.
It is not important to explain the underlying processes at work in the formation of individual preferences.
Economics takes the preferences as a given, as it's starting point and then traces out their implications.
We can leave the formation of belief, preference and value to the other science.
Though, I would agree that there is a good deal of economics going on in the motivations of individuals actors, including those on the political scene. Every human acts to achieve some goal, even those in politics.
Quote
And if a huge enough percentage of the population is hurt by this then they are going to vote in politicians that will do more than just attack the competing currencies, they will attack every aspect of the free market as we see today.
Sure.
But why would we think the market would fail in such a spectacular way?
In fact, I would suggest that what you are saying already happened, albeit in a slightly different manner. In the period of free banking, in the US, the various state chartered banks won political privileges that ended up hampering the market mechanism that regulated bank credit inflation. So banks inflated, as they were now free to do.
The end result was a series of panics and bank runs that led to a clamor for government intervention.
Step by step, the market was dismantled, until the project was complete, in 1933, with the great gold confiscation.
And each step was cheered on by the hapless citizenry, as they had already seen how competition had failed.
Or so they thought.
Quote
To use an example of how they then attack the market from my country, politicians regulate the market to such an extent that the market can not operate effectively, best example is employment. Politicians argue against free market because they claim it does not provide jobs for enough people, at the same time they regulate every aspect of a business that just managing one employee is a full time job in itself keeping up with the regulation in addition to enacting employer taxes that taxes an employer for hiring an employee even if the company does not have any revenue, minimum wage laws and all kinds of different gender, race etc policies. When the market then can't function optimally under this form of corperatism/socialism the politicians say "See, we said the market was bad and doesn't work! The answer to this problem is more regulation, stimulus and public sector jobs, because the superiority of the market is just a right wing myth".
No doubt.
And this same argument is made about public goods in general.
I completely agree with what you say here and would apply the same analysis to money and banking, as well as the provision of roads, defense and law and order.
Quote
So there are many aspects of economic freedom, but I think that free currencies is not sustainable politically in a democracy.
To your point, about its sustainability, even if competition in money worked economically, there would still be the bankers looking to cartelize and monopolize the production of money, in order to squeeze out these small upstarts and grab market share, not to mention to inflate credit while receiving implicit bailout protections.
Politics as an interest group phenomenon strikes me as a more cogent reason to doubt the sustainability of such a program.
Which suggests to me that democracy and the political process generally is holding society back.
Quote
And I can sacrafice monetary freedom for a predictable central bank with only stability as its goal if it means that other sectors of the market will be left free.
Well, I think that sounds like a rational choice what about the incompatibility with price stability and dynamic change?
Why not favor a growth of credit rule?
I don't fully understand the importance of needing 100% accurate interest rates, I understand it is good long term for real growth as jobs and true capital, but I don't understand it everything with regards to the business cycle, I need to watch some more lectures on it or read some more articles.
Hmm yes I see you are right that my assumption about banking corruption is more based on government interference than the real practical application of free banking with regards to US monetary history.
I agree with the other statements you make and especially about democratic political process holing us back. I think we all agree that representative government is the best, but the notions that all laws are not timeless and should be changed whenever if the society needs it is destructive. It truly destroys predictability about the future because it can change every 4 years with new regime.
If the constitution would set forth a total free market framework with predetermined necessary regulations that were timeless and protected by the judicial branch of government then I agree free currency would be sustainable politically and allow society to prosper without the business cycles, inflation crisis or deflation crisis.
QuoteWell, I think that sounds like a rational choice what about the incompatibility with price stability and dynamic change?
Why not favor a growth of credit rule?
In the system we have today I think we just have to live with that incompatibility, we could work continuously to dismantle the federal reserve and do it gradually so that the ideal situation could be possible in the future when people can see for themselves that it works and not be scared off by leftist propaganda.
Please explain the growth of credit rule when you have the time, maybe create a new thread as we have gone quite off topic :smile:
Quote from: Mountainshield on April 30, 2013, 06:50:08 AM
I don't fully understand the importance of needing 100% accurate interest rates, I understand it is good long term for real growth as jobs and true capital, but I don't understand it everything with regards to the business cycle, I need to watch some more lectures on it or read some more articles.
Well, I definitely encourage you to do that!
If I were to attempt a quick explanation I would point to the fact that the various stages of production, from raw materials extraction to capital investment, to intermediate and semi-finished goods, all the way to the final product of a finished consumer good, requires coordination in some fashion.
For example, it would not make sense for an early stage of production to expand if there is not demand for these goods in the later stages, or not sufficient demand.
The interest rate cannot signal what the particular demands of consumers will be for finished goods and services. That is up to entrepreneurial judgment.
The interest rate itself is not necessarily what is driving entrepreneurial decision making.
Rather, it is the prices for inputs and the expected price for their outputs, that drives production decisions. So an entrepreneur will add up the cost of capital, raw materials, labor, rent, etc and then estimate what he thinks the price of his good will sell for, once it is produced. If there is a spread or margin between these "relative" prices then we have profit, or perhaps loss!
Interest rates play a role in this by being the rate of discount that is used to calculate factor prices. The price of capital will change with the rate of interest, for the capitalized value of a capital good is nothing but the expected future streams of income discounted by a rate of interest.
A lower rate of interest creates a smaller discount on those future streams and the capital value of the asset increases. Entrepreneurs very well may act just on this information, if they are naive.
And the opposite is true. A higher rate of interest is a larger discount on those future streams of income, which reduces the capitalized value of an asset, discouraging its production.
So we see that interest rates play a big role in economic decision making through their role as a discounting mechanism on future streams of income. They affect the price paid today for capital and if these changes are temporary and policy driven, rather than long term and market based, then entrepreneurs are apt to invest in ways that will prove to be wasteful and these investments will have to be unwound, potentially leading to a recession.
Quote
Hmm yes I see you are right that my assumption about banking corruption is more based on government interference than the real practical application of free banking with regards to US monetary history.
I am actually reading a book about this very issue and the same story played out in Hellenistic Greece. A 10 year banking holiday was granted to three privileged banks. They inflated and broke their contractual promises to hold 100% reserves, and the result was a boom and bust cycle. Ultimately our privileged banks went bankrupt.
Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycle by Jesus Huerta De Soto is an excellent book on the mechanics of money and banking.
Quote
I agree with the other statements you make and especially about democratic political process holing us back. I think we all agree that representative government is the best, but the notions that all laws are not timeless and should be changed whenever if the society needs it is destructive. It truly destroys predictability about the future because it can change every 4 years with new regime.
Cant argue with that.
Not only is predictability lost but the essence of the law is lost too. I am referring back to Bastiat's argument about the "rule of law" being different than the mere "rule by men."
Quote
If the constitution would set forth a total free market framework with predetermined necessary regulations that were timeless and protected by the judicial branch of government then I agree free currency would be sustainable politically and allow society to prosper without the business cycles, inflation crisis or deflation crisis.
That would be nice.
Something along the lines of, "only gold and silver shall be legal tender." Though this clause is in the US constitution. But like the rest of that document, it is roundly ignored and largely irrelevant.
The Roman's had it figured out. They made it illegal to appropriate the deposits of another without keeping an equal amount of money available at all times. This equal amount of money was known as the "tantundem," under Roman law.
Quote
In the system we have today I think we just have to live with that incompatibility, we could work continuously to dismantle the federal reserve and do it gradually so that the ideal situation could be possible in the future when people can see for themselves that it works and not be scared off by leftist propaganda.
It seems that we do have to live with it.
But the governments of the world are actively working to destroy the value of their respective currencies and most people seem to be aware of this.
I would suggest it is forgone conclusion that some new monetary arrangement will be necessary in the next 10-20 years- a second Bretton Woods. This gives us some time to spread the word about the benefits of freedom and the costs of intervention.
Quote
Please explain the growth of credit rule when you have the time, maybe create a new thread as we have gone quite off topic :smile:
Well I will be brief!
The idea behind Friedman's K-percent rule is that the FED would increase the money supply based some predetermined target for specific price level or rate of inflation.
A growth of credit rule would not target a price level or a rate of inflation, it would target a particular "supply" of credit in the system.
The suggestion being that the growth of credit has effects for risk taking and economic cyclicality.
I personally do not support any monetary rules and would rather focus on applying more strident legal standards to banking.