"Freedom" thread or something

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Negoba wrote: First of all, I know you know more about economics than I do. But I'm just going to give my opinion of what I know and what I remember. Did I call you economic ignorant? That wasn't my intention if you've gotten that impression. I wasn't trying to say anything about your knowledge on the subject. No, not at all, I just realized reading back on my own stuff that I sounded like I thought I knew what I was talking about in some studied way. I'm just a guy reading stuff on the side trying to figure some things out. Negoba wrote:   When I started asking my friends in business, they quickly started talking about credit. At first I didn't get the difference, and felt that credit was bad in general. But I'm starting to figure out that all money is credit. Hard currency is just a credit for a specific amount of gold or whatever. No one ever goes to get the gold. Few would have any use for it even if they did. The only reason that it feels better is because of the shared perception of its ability to retain value. If my gold is buried in the back yard and I write notes on it, and no one ever claims it, it doesn't matter if it's there or not. Having notes tied to a reserve of bullion limits the inflationary possibilities of a bank. It particularly makes it difficult, absent a central body such as a regional governmental bank, to inflate in the face of robust competition.   Well it may help some, but as long as fractional reserves are allowed, it's hard to call the currency truly "hard." What we have now is various governments, via their central banks, acting as the hard backing rather than gold. The trust in the solvency, trust in the IOUs written by what is perceived to be a solid institution.     Negoba wrote: So again back to my original issue. Money is a social construct. A story or narrative that directs behavior. The problem for me is that the narrative of the exact same term (one dollar) means vastly different things for different members of the populace, mainly based on financial savvy. The explicit narrative is that a dollar has a specific value. This is a lie. A dollar is an agreement and that agreement is extremely malleable. I watch vulnerable people getting hurt almost weekly because they believe this lie. I agree with this only when talking about a particular monetary system. Money fully has a physical reality, but people seem to lose sight of that sometimes.   What physical reality? Other than the fact that real exchanges occur? I could fix your roof for you because of a cultural construct called money, I could do it because I'm a nice guy. I could do it because I have confidence you're going to come help me harvest my crop later this summer. The paper or even shiny hard stuff we exchange to seal the deal are just tokens of a social agreement.

Negoba wrote:   Well it may help some, but as long as fractional reserves are allowed, it's hard to call the currency truly "hard." What we have now is various governments, via their central banks, acting as the hard backing rather than gold. The trust in the solvency, trust in the IOUs written by what is perceived to be a solid institution.

Just to randomly inject myself:

I don't like the idea of FRB but I really don't see it happening naturally. I expect it would need to be dictated by law and isn't that a bit anti libertarian?

I do like a more free banking system like Canada had. With a FRB system, and without a central bank, they avoided most of the issues of the 1800s and made it through the Great Depression very well.
If we are stuck with a FRB system, (which I can't imagine going away, especially on it's own) seems like a more stable way to live with it.

You guys know about this blog FOFOA?
It talks about a lot of sh*t, but mainly the theory of "freegold" which this guy claims trumps all, even more important than FRB.
I mentioned it previously, freegold. Intriguing theory.

That's all for me :P


Edited by JJLehto - May 11 2012 at 15:38

You're probably right MoM, what happened....

I really don't get why Paul is maintaining his "I've always been a Republican" stance. The GOP is a joke and while he has some overlap with Republicans, he's really running from a different platform. Clearly they don't have the same respect for him.

JJLehto wrote: Just to randomly inject myself: I don't like the idea of FRB but I really don't see it happening naturally. I expect it would need to be dictated by law and isn't that a bit anti libertarian?

Not really. If we have a hard currency, any inflation of notes upon that currency would essentially be fraud and could be handled as such. The idea of a bank note under a gold standard would be to serve as an IOU for a certain weight of specie. Handing out more IOUs than you hold in specie would just be a default.

JJLetho wrote: You guys know about this blog FOFOA? It talks about a lot of sh*t, but mainly the theory of "freegold" which this guy claims trumps all, even more important than FRB. I mentioned it previously, freegold. Intriguing theory. That's all for me :P

Nope. Maybe I'll look at it.

We've gone over this at length here.  Third party runs are DOA and he knows that from personal experience.  Remaking the republican party from within is what must be done to move the needle in this country.

It's a shame he's not 30 years younger. 

I'll pass on both of them. 

^ I wrote a response earlier but the site crapped out when I tried to post.  It's an frustrating day.  This is amateur hour from a campaign team that has supposedly matured since 08'.  It's statement that didn't need to be made and does nothing but give hacks like Drudge room to run wild with stories of the campaign's demise.  The statement effectively changed nothing (the delegate strategy remains the same) except for squashing spirits within the grassroots.  With the recent grassroots success at state conventions this statement's release is mind boggling.  Silence is golden, Jesse Benton.  Perhaps this should be his last day on the job.