TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The separation of bank and state
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 exactly how does an issuer of private currency profit from this endeavor?

Probably the same way the fed profits from it. The mint/bank would hold deposits (savings) for customers and charge interest on loans.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 You don't think the USPS's distribution channels cause significant economies of scale leading to substantial cost efficiencies?

No, any government agency is rife with waste, almost by definition. Secondly, we already pay for all the services we get. If you add up the cost we pay in subsidies to them (I believe around $1 billion/yr) in addition to what they charge customers for services, I'd be very surprised if a private company couldn't deliver mail at a much cheaper rate per capita.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The Federal Reserve, and only them, are the entrusted authority to inflate and deflate the money supply in order to keep price levels stable.

ah, but have you been watching the news lately krypt? The fed has gone far FAR beyond this mandated role..buying worthless assets and printing trillions in new money to be loaned at near zero cost to companies and banks..taking actions that nearly doubled the national money supply in under 12 months.. This is not maintaining "price stability" krypt. It's a politically-motivated corporate bailout designed to prop up failed enterprises and prevent a natural correction..and it will lead to a huge decline in the purchasing power of the dollar in the coming years (price instability X 1000).

quote:

"Alternative currencies" contribute to price instability.

I don't see how you can say that given that alternate currencies are illegal.

quote:

Businesses can already accept other forms of payment other than the dollar. But no business can reject the dollar as payment. Again, if you don't want the dollar, go with the euro, or buy gold and silver. Try buying gas with silver coins. They'll only take it at face value.

Yes, thank you for making my point. While nothing prevents many point-of-sale transactions today from being carried out in euros or pounds, legal tender laws ensure that Gresham's law, that bad money drives out good, remains in effect. If we repeal legal tender laws and allow alternatives to emerge, things will be reversed and we will have good money driving out bad. Unreliable currencies that don't hold their value will end up in the ash heap of history.

quote:

The US Postal Service operates at a loss. Why would they, in their right mind, lower the price of a stamp?

They wouldn't because they have no incentive to do so.. Like most government institutions, they are a monopoly and can freely ignore the demands of the market. That's why competition is necessary.

ok, I'm tired now. Good debate folks..but I know I'm not changing minds...just making an attempt to answer the original question. Good night yall.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt ah, but have you been watching the news lately krypt? The fed has gone far FAR beyond this mandated role..buying worthless assets and printing trillions in new money to be loaned at near zero cost to companies and banks..taking actions that nearly doubled the national money supply in under 12 months.. This is not maintaining "price stability" krypt. It's a politically-motivated corporate bailout designed to prop up failed enterprises and prevent a natural correction..and it will lead to a huge decline in the purchasing power of the dollar in the coming years (price instability X 1000).

You can't maintain price stability when huge banks with trillions of dollars in assets are dropping like flies, with people losing their deposits, life savings, etc.. They needed to be recapitalized which is exactly what the Fed did. The reason the has lowered the interest rate to almost zero is because liquidity in the market is near zero. No one is lending to each. The logical course of action is lower interest rates to increase lending. Again, this is macroeconomics 101.

quote:

I don't see how you can say that given that alternate currencies are illegal.

I'm talking about if our money supply reverted your system of competing domestic currencies. Price instability would be impossible to maintain and our economy would suffer badly for it.

quote:

Yes, thank you for making my point. While nothing prevents many point-of-sale transactions today from being carried out in euros or pounds, legal tender laws ensure that Gresham's law, that bad money drives out good, remains in effect. If we repeal legal tender laws and allow alternatives to emerge, things will be reversed and we will have good money driving out bad. Unreliable currencies that don't hold their value will end up in the ash heap of history.

As I said before, you can already buy gold, silver, euros, yen, pounds, etc., and convert them back into dollars any time you want. I really don't see what you'r going on about this 'alternative currencies'.

quote:

They wouldn't because they have no incentive to do so.. Like most government institutions, they are a monopoly and can freely ignore the demands of the market. That's why competition is necessary.

As Jer said, the mail industry is based on economies of scale. They need a practical monopoly. Fortunately, because the USPS is nationalized, we don't have to worry about the effects of monopoly. Exorbitant prices and bad service. The price to send mail is not expensive at all and the reliability of the service is excellent. No competition needed.

quote:

Good debate folks..but I know I'm not changing minds...just making an attempt to answer the original question.

I'm certainly not trying to change you mind, just righting what I think is wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton You can't maintain price stability when huge banks with trillions of dollars in assets are dropping like flies, with people losing their deposits, life savings, etc.. They needed to be recapitalized which is exactly what the Fed did.

In other words, the fed blew the bubble too big..causing banks to overextend with cheap money. The bubble popped and is now contracting from it's overinflated level..and rather than letting things reach a healthy and sustainable size, the fed is repeating history and blowing the bubble up again on a much larger scale.

quote:

The reason the has lowered the interest rate to almost zero is because liquidity in the market is near zero.

The reason liquidity has dried up is because banks have loads of toxic assets on their balance sheets that haven't been liquidated. They made foolish decisions and are not being allowed to face the consequences of their actions. Once the liquidation takes place, lending will improve dramatically..but this will never happen while the fed/treasury are shooting banks full of painkillers and adrenaline to keep them limping along while carrying these baggages. The baggage needs to be purged and cut away, and the only way to do this properly (without more socialism, debt, and inflation) is with a painful recession and the bankruptcy/restructuring of insolvent firms.

quote:

I'm talking about if our money supply reverted your system of competing domestic currencies. Price instability would be impossible to maintain and our economy would suffer badly for it.

Again, our economy would not revert to anything unless it is superior to what we have now. We are really discussing theory here, and these questions can really be settled only by allowing competition to begin. Market participants always seek out the best of the best. They look for the best possible way of doing things..the most efficient and cost-effective way of doing business. If the dollar remains their choice for commerce, it will remain the standard. But if an alternative can hold it's value better and becomes the new standard, people should be allowed that choice.

quote:

As I said before, you can already buy gold, silver, euros, yen, pounds, etc., and convert them back into dollars any time you want. I really don't see what you'r going on about this 'alternative currencies'.

I'm "going on" about it because I believe economic prosperity will always improve when individuals are given more freedom to decide what is best for them. Yes I know some call these ideas wacko and unrealistic, but everything I've observed tells me that central planners can't manage any aspect of my life better than I can, and they can't manage your personal life better than you can, so whenever possible I say it's best to reduce their power and leave economic decisions in the hands of the people.

quote:

They need a practical monopoly. Fortunately, because the USPS is nationalized, we don't have to worry about the effects of monopoly. Exorbitant prices and bad service. The price to send mail is not expensive at all

The thing is...How do you know? If no one else can deliver the mail � no competition exists � how can you determine if the rate is good, bad, or indifferent?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt No. Yes. I don't think we are ever going to have separation as long as legal tender laws are in place. All I'd like to see is a legalization of competition. Right now it is illegal to offer alternatives to the US dollar as forms of payment. If we legalize competition, it will be a bit ugly and chaotic for a while, but eventually some private currency standard would likely spring up. The most popular, convenient, and trusted forms of currency will eventually rise to the top and become the new standard. If competition had been legalized ten years ago, who knows what we might have today? We could have things like like E-commerce credits, Paypal Dollars, Google money, shopping cards redeemable at any time by mail for gold and silver..or even a universal private currency created by a few banks that is backed by a basket of commodities.. The dollar will always be around, but those who have no faith in it should have the option to conduct business with other free market alternatives that hold their value better. Right now, people don't have that choice.

What about WOW crack gold? Or the stuff they use for second life?

Can't you be accept anything you want in exchange for your goods and/or services?

Check out Putin's speach about getting more than one reserve currency (posted in a new thread).

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Those currencies are also being devalued..but they are legal tender and it's mandated that they be accepted as payment. People should be given the right to refuse them and use alternatives. No need. Good money will drive out the bad. If a new car company sells cars that explode after a few days, they will be out of business in a matter of weeks without any government intervention. Consumers are the ultimate police officers. It wouldn't because it's not their business. This is a matter between buyers and sellers. It isn't being maintained today. All world currencies buy less today than they did 10 years ago. The only difference is the degree of devaluation.

I don't understand why you seem to think that this doesn't exist already, everyone already has the right to refuse and to accept what ever payment they want.

Don't want US$, selling in the US, put up an add on craigs list saying what you have and what you will trade it for, be they Euro's, pigs, google dollars, or Capitalizt credit.

EDIT: Don't we already do this in the form of Visa and Mastercard dollars?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Again, our economy would not revert to anything unless it is superior to what we have now. We are really discussing theory here, and these questions can really be settled only by allowing competition to begin. Market participants always seek out the best of the best. They look for the best possible way of doing things..the most efficient and cost-effective way of doing business. If the dollar remains their choice for commerce, it will remain the standard. But if an alternative can hold it's value better and becomes the new standard, people should be allowed that choice.

This is not true at all. It is a very well documented fact that civilizations regularily revert to lesser states of organization. In fact the United States is an anomolus period in even recent human history (say the last 2500 years). The only country that has really 'been' for any length of time is China.

The situation you are describing, with multiple stores of value, is infact a reversion to a less efficient form of economics and would likely decrease the standard of living significantly. Once again, see Putin's speach (still haven't posted it yet).

quote:

I'm "going on" about it because I believe economic prosperity will always improve when individuals are given more freedom to decide what is best for them. Yes I know some call these ideas wacko and unrealistic, but everything I've observed tells me that central planners can't manage any aspect of my life better than I can, and they can't manage your personal life better than you can, so whenever possible I say it's best to reduce their power and leave economic decisions in the hands of the people.

This is crazyness, 'Always' is exactly the wrong word because it is far to easy to disprove. Standards have thier place, standards imply less choice, standards are a trade off of choice for efficiency.

What if we had more choice about how we measured things? Or even worse, how we defined measurements (yeah, well in this city a centimeter is six cubits biger then the largest stone that the youngest woman of birthing age can lift.)

Increasing choice in measurements would be a disaster for engineering and chemistry. This is only one case of many that disproves that point.

Case in point, central planners do your life better then you would on your own because they give you the engineered products and other fruits of standardization.

I know this hurts your notion of freedom but you've got to realize that until you are running through the woods on your own you are dependant on organization, which invovles planning, coordination, and other people.

Sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt In other words, the fed blew the bubble too big..causing banks to overextend with cheap money. The bubble popped and is now contracting from it's overinflated level..and rather than letting things reach a healthy and sustainable size, the fed is repeating history and blowing the bubble up again on a much larger scale.

Sorry but the fed had nothing to do with banks securitizing crap mortgages and selling them off to unsuspecting buyers.

quote:

The reason liquidity has dried up is because banks have loads of toxic assets on their balance sheets that haven't been liquidated. They made foolish decisions and are not being allowed to face the consequences of their actions. Once the liquidation takes place, lending will improve dramatically..but this will never happen while the fed/treasury are shooting banks full of painkillers and adrenaline to keep them limping along while carrying these baggages. The baggage needs to be purged and cut away, and the only way to do this properly (without more socialism, debt, and inflation) is with a painful recession and the bankruptcy/restructuring of insolvent firms.

We're not talking about why there is no liquidity, we'r talking about how the Fed is trying to increase liquidity. We all know why there is no liquidity. Your solution, if we can even call it that, is to let the entire system collapse. Isn't it bad enough already for you?

quote:

Again, our economy would not revert to anything unless it is superior to what we have now. We are really discussing theory here, and these questions can really be settled only by allowing competition to begin. Market participants always seek out the best of the best. They look for the best possible way of doing things..the most efficient and cost-effective way of doing business. If the dollar remains their choice for commerce, it will remain the standard. But if an alternative can hold it's value better and becomes the new standard, people should be allowed that choice.

We are reverting back to something which clearly failed. We have had a system of competing currencies. Each state printed its own currency, never mind foreign currencies. Why don't you acknowledge this?

quote:

I'm "going on" about it because I believe economic prosperity will always improve when individuals are given more freedom to decide what is best for them. Yes I know some call these ideas wacko and unrealistic, but everything I've observed tells me that central planners can't manage any aspect of my life better than I can, and they can't manage your personal life better than you can, so whenever possible I say it's best to reduce their power and leave economic decisions in the hands of the people.

What if someone or some corporation decides what's best for them is to leverage 1:50 on sub prime mortgages. Are you telling me they shouldn't be stopped? Maybe we should let 9 year olds back into the coal mines? After all, they don't demand higher wages do they, which is the benefit of the mining company...right?

quote:

The thing is...How do you know? If no one else can deliver the mail � no competition exists � how can you determine if the rate is good, bad, or indifferent?

Because I am a consumer who uses this service. If I refused to use it because the price is too high, then I'd figure out why that price was too high, and that would probably lead me to conclude that it's probably because of the monopoly. But because it is a PUBLIC monopoly, not private, they do not exhibit monopolistic behavior such as high price, low quality products/services.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What if someone or some corporation decides what's best for them is to leverage 1:50 on sub prime mortgages. Are you telling me they shouldn't be stopped?

to the extent they can obtain the leverage from willing lenders, they shouldn't be stopped. If their risk tolerance is that high, and their position is fully disclosed, there is no reason to stop that investor. The current problem wasn't solely overleveraging sub prime mortgages, it was a transparency and overleveraging problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Because I am a consumer who uses this service. If I refused to use it because the price is too high, then I'd figure out why that price was too high, and that would probably lead me to conclude that it's probably because of the monopoly. But because it is a PUBLIC monopoly, not private, they do not exhibit monopolistic behavior such as high price, low quality products/services.

Capitalilzt has a point on this one. It is not possible for you to determine whether 42 cents is too much for delivery of mail without either competition or a thorough study completed by an independent third party (which would likely result in some inaccuracies because of key assumptions needed to make the prediction about a fair price). You would be basing your idea of 'fair price' on what you think is fair, not what actually is fair.

I diverge from Capital with respect to whether competition would actually reduce the cost of delivery of first class mail. Mainly because the economies of scale necessary to deliver mail efficiently. If there was competition, the market would be fragmented, and it would cost a private company more to deliver to remote locations. On the other hand, the fact that east-shit-hole wyoming is served exclusively by the USPS means that the cost of delivering each parcal is spread over a greater number of parcals because they are required to be funneled throug the USPS.

In any event, anyone is capable of sending anything by using either FedEx or UPS. Nothing stops people from sending regular mail through those companies, except cost. That fact seems to indicate that their distribution networks can't achieve the same cost reductions, and thus result in higher costs.

quote:

What if someone or some corporation decides what's best for them is to leverage 1:50 on sub prime mortgages. Are you telling me they shouldn't be stopped? Maybe we should let 9 year olds back into the coal mines? After all, they don't demand higher wages do they, which is the benefit of the mining company...right?

I have no problem with child labor laws and other basic protections like that..but as far as corporations leveraging up, no they shouldn't be stopped.. Firstly, under a private standard, the fractional reserve system which permits them to create so much money wouldn't exist (or else it would be greatly restricted) which makes it much more difficult to create investment vehicles like that, but even if they manage to do extreme leverage with financial shenanigans, it wouldn't be a long term problem because they would be forced to face the consequences of their actions. In the absence of government intervention, those who make idiotic financial moves will quickly be put out of business. The only reason it happens today is because major banks have the implicit guarantee from the government (the lender of last resort) that they will not be allowed to fail.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell I don't understand why you seem to think that this doesn't exist already, everyone already has the right to refuse and to accept what ever payment they want. EDIT: Don't we already do this in the form of Visa and Mastercard dollars?

Not really.. The only choice people have is government notes due to legal tender laws. Private notes are illegal, there are many laws against private mintage, and precious metals have high capital gains taxes on them...so there are a number of laws and government barriers that prevent a true alternative from developing.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell What about WOW crack gold? Or the stuff they use for second life? Can't you be accept anything you want in exchange for your goods and/or services?

Hell no...If I could choose, I would only accept something that is widely accepted as a store of value. Stuff like WOW money would be practically worthless (and hence not chosen) by most people, so it would quickly die out.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell The situation you are describing, with multiple stores of value, is infact a reversion to a less efficient form of economics and would likely decrease the standard of living significantly. Once again, see Putin's speach (still haven't posted it yet).

I really don't think so.. Markets tend to be extremely efficient in determining things when left well enough alone.. Waste and inefficiencies tend to drop away while the most effective solutions to rise to the top. Central planning by a group of folks who are far removed from microeconomic decisions can only hinder this process.

quote:

What if we had more choice about how we measured things? Or even worse, how we defined measurements (yeah, well in this city a centimeter is six cubits biger then the largest stone that the youngest woman of birthing age can lift.)

You don't need a government to legislate standards like this. The spontaneous order of the market is what standardizes most things. Just look at the IEEE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instit...onics_Engineers <--f*cking AMAZING!! This is a completely non-profit, non government organization..It has thousands of members from hundreds of different industries, all with competing interests and ideas, yet due to rational self interest and the spontaneous order of the market, they have managed to come together and standardize virtually every aspect of modern technology. This group was formed voluntarily by market participants. It was not created because a benevolent government decided to impose standards..but because it is already in the interest of every market participant to have standards to work with. If we abolished the "official" metric system today, it would continue to be used indefinitely because it is the most efficient system that has yet been devised by mankind. When left alone, markets will seek out and embrace the best solutions. The idea that government needs to impose them is nonsense.

quote:

until you are running through the woods on your own you are dependant on organization, which invovles planning, coordination, and other people.

Individuals can plan, coordinate, and cooperate perfectly fine without central planning. They were doing it long before organizations like the U.S. Government came into existence.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 That fact seems to indicate that their distribution networks can't achieve the same cost reductions, and thus result in higher costs.

Ah, but once the government monopoly on the service is eliminated, the Fed-Ex/UPS economies of scale will rise won't they? We won't know if they can achieve the necessary cost reductions until competition is legalized.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 to the extent they can obtain the leverage from willing lenders, they shouldn't be stopped. If their risk tolerance is that high, and their position is fully disclosed, there is no reason to stop that investor. The current problem wasn't solely overleveraging sub prime mortgages, it was a transparency and overleveraging problem.

I'm more referring to money managers leveraging other people's money, for example, the hedge funds and perhaps some pension funds.

quote:

Capitalilzt has a point on this one. It is not possible for you to determine whether 42 cents is too much for delivery of mail without either competition or a thorough study completed by an independent third party (which would likely result in some inaccuracies because of key assumptions needed to make the prediction about a fair price). You would be basing your idea of 'fair price' on what you think is fair, not what actually is fair.

I don't know a single person who has stated, "I don't send mail because it's too expensive." USPS customers can at any time not use the mail delivery service. [/QUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Not really.. The only choice people have is government notes due to legal tender laws. Private notes are illegal, there are many laws against private mintage, and precious metals have high capital gains taxes on them...so there are a number of laws and government barriers that prevent a true alternative from developing.

I'm thinking that these laws might be something interesting to know about. Any links? Any links to similar laws in other countries? (yeah, that last one's a streatch..)

quote:

Hell no...If I could choose, I would only accept something that is widely accepted as a store of value. Stuff like WOW money would be practically worthless (and hence not chosen) by most people, so it would quickly die out.

Of course you are only interested in things that are widely accepted as a store of value, we all are. My recomendations would be to get a feild, a distilery, and to begin making booze. In the Russian collapse of the 90's vodka and gas were the main stores of value.

I'm personally very interested in the notion of electronic currency and the implications it has on money supply. WOW has 10 million players and gold is redeamable for money (as far as I understand), so as long as there are WOW addicts it will have some value. A friend of mine briliantly pointed out how Blizzard got gold value drastically wrong in Diablo as it became worthless because of over supply. In that case everyone switched to using rings as currency.

quote:

I really don't think so.. Markets tend to be extremely efficient in determining things when left well enough alone.. Waste and inefficiencies tend to drop away while the most effective solutions to rise to the top. Central planning by a group of folks who are far removed from microeconomic decisions can only hinder this process.

And that's exactly what has happened over and over again. Currency, being an intangible anything that stores value, has been getting more and more centralized throughout history, not less. Markets got rid of the Frank, the Deutchmark, the Lira (italian?) and these notions were defeated in the early US stores of wealth.

quote:

You don't need a government to legislate standards like this. The spontaneous order of the market is what standardizes most things. Just look at the IEEE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instit...onics_Engineers <--f*cking AMAZING!! This is a completely non-profit, non government organization..It has thousands of members from hundreds of different industries, all with competing interests and ideas, yet due to rational self interest and the spontaneous order of the market, they have managed to come together and standardize virtually every aspect of modern technology. This group was formed voluntarily by market participants. It was not created because a benevolent government decided to impose standards..but because it is already in the interest of every market participant to have standards to work with. If we abolished the "official" metric system today, it would continue to be used indefinitely because it is the most efficient system that has yet been devised by mankind. When left alone, markets will seek out and embrace the best solutions. The idea that government needs to impose them is nonsense.

But it is still a single standard that opperates without competition and, as you pointed out, operates very well without competition. Not to mention this is even bigger then a government, it is a single international GLOBAL body.

... But I thought: Central planning by a group of folks who are far removed from microeconomic decisions can only hinder this process.

The IEEE is a governing body, and it's not even democratic. (in fact I'd call it authoritarian)

quote:

Individuals can plan, coordinate, and cooperate perfectly fine without central planning. They were doing it long before organizations like the U.S. Government came into existence.

Yes, and they decided that damn, wouldn't it be easier if we just had one body that could do this? I bet people would live longer and better if we didn't have competeing fire departments and police forces, not to mention sewer systems and bus companies.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'm more referring to money managers leveraging other people's money, for example, the hedge funds and perhaps some pension funds.

investors have their choice of hedge funds in which to invest. If they don't like the leverage, they could choose a different fund. Pension funds are different, but I'm pretty sure ERISA imposes restrictions on debt ratios of certain pension funds.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I don't know a single person who has stated, "I don't send mail because it's too expensive." USPS customers can at any time not use the mail delivery service.

because relative to disposible income, 42 cents is nothing. However, if another service provider could deliver mail for 30 cents a parcal, 42 cents is considerably more expensive.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell I'm thinking that these laws might be something interesting to know about. Any links? Any links to similar laws in other countries? (yeah, that last one's a streatch..)

Well a quick search on my favorite site turned up a few articles about it. I haven't read these cover to cover but they should answer some questions..

http://mises.org/books/denationalisation.pdf <--excellent (but very wordy) analysis competing currencies
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff223.html
http://mises.org/journals/jls/18_3/18_3_3.pdf
http://mises.org/humanaction/chap31sec2.asp
http://mises.org/money/3s5.asp
http://www.lewrockwell.com/huff/huff24.html <--less economics and more pissed off philisophical argument, lol

If you search around wikipedia, they will probably have more details on the various legal tender laws and regulations against private currencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar

quote:

Of course you are only interested in things that are widely accepted as a store of value, we all are. My recomendations would be to get a feild, a distilery, and to begin making booze. In the Russian collapse of the 90's vodka and gas were the main stores of value.

Nothing wrong with that! If the people chose to use vodka instead of paper, then vodka was the superior currency at that time.

quote:

I'm personally very interested in the notion of electronic currency and the implications it has on money supply. WOW has 10 million players and gold is redeamable for money (as far as I understand), so as long as there are WOW addicts it will have some value. A friend of mine briliantly pointed out how Blizzard got gold value drastically wrong in Diablo as it became worthless because of over supply. In that case everyone switched to using rings as currency.

at, I have no idea about blizard money (gold, rings etc) so I can't comment on that...but from your other statements, it sounds like you are itching for the idea of one global currency. Given that the recent trend has been to consolidate currencies (the Euro etc), do you think a single currency would be the most efficient system?

quote:

And that's exactly what has happened over and over again. Currency, being an intangible anything that stores value, has been getting more and more centralized throughout history, not less. Markets got rid of the Frank, the Deutchmark, the Lira (italian?) and these notions were defeated in the early US stores of wealth.

Yes the market made those decisions and the competition between currencies is still going on today. The US dollar loses value against some and gains against others. All currencies float up and down against each other on world markets. This has served us relatively well, and despite the 100+ different currencies that compete every day, commerce around the world is flourishing. Competing currencies on a global scale have not led to inefficiencies and mass confusion and I see no reason why things would be different if we traded them on a much smaller scale. Private currencies could easily be traded against each other in a currency market just as the different national currencies are today. They need not necessarily be convertible into gold or any underlying commodity, but would trade entirely on the word of the issuing bank that it would not debauch its money. As in everything else in a free society, people would make choices on what they believe is best for them and the cream would rise to the top...The most reliable product would win and the garbage would go extinct. The dollar may win the battle and it may not..but I think it should be left to the people to decide.

quote:

But it is still a single standard that opperates without competition and, as you pointed out, operates very well without competition. Not to mention this is even bigger then a government, it is a single international GLOBAL body. The IEEE is a governing body, and it's not even democratic.

Ah but there is a huge distinction. It is a *voluntary* body with *voluntary* membership. The do not have the coercive power of government and can't legally point a gun to your head and demand compliance. People are free to ignore the imposed standards if they wish, but by offering products that don't comply with established standards (voltage requirements in wall outlets, etc) they will be acting against their own best interests because few people will be interested in things that don't work universally.. It is true the IEEE isn't completely democratic and it is by no means perfect..but when your alternative is the coercive power of the state, they are certainly the lesser of two evils. You also need to bear in mind that organizations like the IEEE are created by people on the ground..by people who know what they are talking about...those with intimate knowledge of the technology involved and who understand the principles of standardization. They are infinitely more qualified to create these standards than a few elected officials on a senate subcommittee.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Probably the same way the fed profits from it. The mint/bank would hold deposits (savings) for customers and charge interest on loans.

humour me- what exactly does the fed charge interest on? and who pays it?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN humour me- what exactly does the fed charge interest on? and who pays it?

loans.
banks.

The discount rate is charged directly to banks who borrow from them..but most of the fed's influence comes from their intervention in the treasury markets where they manipulate rates on a much larger scale. What are you getting at pk? I'm sure you knew the answer before asking.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Well a quick search on my favorite site turned up a few articles about it. I haven't read these cover to cover but they should answer some questions.. http://mises.org/books/denationalisation.pdf <--excellent (but very wordy) analysis competing currencies http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff223.html http://mises.org/journals/jls/18_3/18_3_3.pdf http://mises.org/humanaction/chap31sec2.asp http://mises.org/money/3s5.asp http://www.lewrockwell.com/huff/huff24.html <--less economics and more pissed off philisophical argument, lol If you search around wikipedia, they will probably have more details on the various legal tender laws and regulations against private currencies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar

This is great!

Thanks for putting it up. I don't have the time to read it right now but I will for sure.

quote:

Nothing wrong with that! If the people chose to use vodka instead of paper, then vodka was the superior currency at that time.

Not at all! Makeing something from resources that are readily available will be a good choice to resist almost any problems. That's why I think investing in tangible assets is the best way to go, especially if you like the product (micro brew, micro brew)

quote:

at, I have no idea about blizard money (gold, rings etc) so I can't comment on that...but from your other statements, it sounds like you are itching for the idea of one global currency. Given that the recent trend has been to consolidate currencies (the Euro etc), do you think a single currency would be the most efficient system?

Not really pushing one way or another, mostly interested in 'Money' in general. At the end of the day the better I know where things are going the better I can make choices, pushing is almost always useless.

...

I'm going to get back to this later.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt loans. banks. The discount rate is charged directly to banks who borrow from them..but most of the fed's influence comes from their intervention in the treasury markets where they manipulate rates on a much larger scale. What are you getting at pk? I'm sure you knew the answer before asking.

well, let's see a break down shall we?

quote:

Interest income Interest on U.S. government securities $28,216 Interest on foreign securities 225 Interest on loans to depository institutions 11 Other income 688 ------- Total operating income 29,140 Operating expenses Salaries and benefits 1,446 Occupancy expense 189 Assessments by Board of Governors 699 Equipment expense 242 Other 302 ------- Total operating expenses 2,878 Net Income Prior to Distribution $26,262 Distribution of Net Income Dividends paid to member banks 374 Transferred to surplus 479 Payments to U.S. Treasury 25,409 ------- Total distribution 26,262 Source: 86th Annual Report of the Board of Governors, p.335.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Mon...ire/private.htm

Now, call me an accounting noob, but to me this looks like 90% of the fed's funds come from the interest on bonds, and we both know that money is returned to the treasury. So your comments regarding the fed making a profit because they are the currency "makers" are completely misplaced.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 investors have their choice of hedge funds in which to invest. If they don't like the leverage, they could choose a different fund. Pension funds are different, but I'm pretty sure ERISA imposes restrictions on debt ratios of certain pension funds.

Ok, hedge are a bad example. Yea they failed, but their investors are supposed to know what they'r doing.

The thing I'm getting at is a market let loose will inevitably crash and burn. Who gets hurt? Almost always the working class. What did the CEO of Lehman Brothers care if they went bust. The man is probably a millionaire many times over.

quote:

because relative to disposible income, 42 cents is nothing. However, if another service provider could deliver mail for 30 cents a parcal, 42 cents is considerably more expensive.

Who, in there right mind, would even put down venture capital to start a postal service is beyond me.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well, let's see a break down shall we? http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Mon...ire/private.htm Now, call me an accounting noob, but to me this looks like 90% of the fed's funds come from the interest on bonds, and we both know that money is returned to the treasury. So your comments regarding the fed making a profit because they are the currency "makers" are completely misplaced.

Expect this to be repeated over and over and over again.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Ok, hedge are a bad example. Yea they failed, but their investors are supposed to know what they'r doing. The thing I'm getting at is a market let loose will inevitably crash and burn. Who gets hurt? Almost always the working class. What did the CEO of Lehman Brothers care if they went bust. The man is probably a millionaire many times over.

i guess i would rather put the burden on investors to research their investments. With that said, transparency is key. I don't advocate a repeat of what has happened because there was no transparency, and investors didn't understand the risk profile of their investments because they were deceived (in a way).

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Who, in there right mind, would even put down venture capital to start a postal service is beyond me.

i don't know either, but venture capital went into Fed Ex and UPS. So, it is not unfathomable.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i don't know either, but venture capital went into Fed Ex and UPS. So, it is not unfathomable.

UPS was founded before industrial scale postal service took over the market. Fedex was the first to pioneer large scale, overnight delivery service. The market is already saturated by giants. No investor in their right mind would put money down on a new postal service. Then again, many entrepreneurs gained success by being out of their minds. Even so, 99% of them fail.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and we both know that money is returned to the treasury. So your comments regarding the fed making a profit because they are the currency "makers" are completely misplaced.

hmm...yes, I know the fed doesn't make a real profit and I've never said it does.

You must be confusing me with trancer-x pk..

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt hmm...yes, I know the fed doesn't make a profit and I've never said it does.

really? so what did you mean here:

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 exactly how does an issuer of private currency profit from this endeavor?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Probably the same way the fed profits from it. The mint/bank would hold deposits (savings) for customers and charge interest on loans.

oh snap! Nice try pk, but come on..I assumed we were all on the same page here. You are trying to take this argument out of context and into a completely different area. We've been having these discussions for a while now and I don't remember EVER going to the never-never-land conspiracy zone of claiming that the fed is a private for-profit organization of bankers intent on world domination. I've known for years that they return every penny of excess reserves to the government, which makes them merely another arm of the federal government in my view.

As far as their "profits"...If you look at their books they DO INDEED have profits and losses like any other corporation. This can't be denied. They make gains from interest but this isn't the same as a true profit in the private sector which is returned to shareholders via dividends or a rising stock price.

I don't see how a historical failure of multiple domestic currencies could ever be successful. Our economy needs a standardized system of money.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.