"Freedom" thread or something

Yup! Zimbabwe's only solution to their unholy hyperinflation was to simply abandon their currency and use others! 

I don't think it's in our future or any western country (or most for that matter) unless they implement a horrible land reform policy, get involved with a war, and run the printing press irresponsibly. A collapse of supply PLUS too much money! Also their lack of many institutions and horrible corruption. Despite what some here may think, I do feel printing money can be a problem of course, just there is some misunderstanding about QE vs tossing buckets out there Especially since we don't have to pay off warlords to keep em loyal or to elites/companies to funnel money to our gov for their blood diamond mining

Well the Eurozone isn't libertarian of course, as you say they have large welfare states, but feel free to correct me: Isn't the Euro kind of like a gold standard? I'm talking just monetary here and forgetting welfare.

All the countries that adopted the Euro are no longer issuers, but users (like US states, companies, households) and thus become bound by the "rules"? Like they have to watch spending, can't use QE (though I am very neutral on that policy) it basically ties your hands, as a gold standard is intended to do. It's weird since it's multi country, and thus causes even bigger problems like having to "deal with" Greece to keep yourself stable, or Greece being forced to accept austerity measures from Germany. Seems to me like tying all our arms together then when slips and falls we all thrash around to stand up awkwardly

Anywho, I thought that was the difference between an issuer and user of currency, policy space. The US or Japan can run bigger deficits and do more in general, our limitation being only inflation/resources. Also there's been no speculative attacks on the US or Japan, interest rates fell and have stayed record low despite theory saying they'd skyrocket. And isn't all this giving up control of your currency, more or less a gold standard? Or pegging to another, it all kind of is the same?

You are right, Central Banks are political despite some, like the Fed, being designed to keep em independent. I also think Friedman was kind of wrong in his views on monetary policy. To be fair I think so are Keynesians who believed in QE or those that think tinkering will work, or there should be a "dual mandate" which the ECB doesn't have. I'd say the Fed should be concerned with: Regulating, as well as maintaining an elastic currency and price stability....zero concern should be had for employment. That can be left to the gov, which is more effective imo. But not more welfare and "leaky bucket" stimuli but smart spending. 

I agree fully, the "recovery" has been pathetic, thanks to the gov's inaction. It's better than austerity though. I saw last month US inflation dipped negative, this is astounding. Despite all the Fed's might and unemployment a good bit below 6% we're barely fighting off deflation. 

Ah I see, well that is fair. I do think the multi national linking does make it all a bit sticky. Yeah recession is when trouble really arises, and if the intention was well off countries would just help out the others, that deff is a poorly thought out plan. Esp since, one could argue, it basically is turning Greece into a debt slave to Germany!

Yeah no doubt about that. Zimbabwe did have a lot of things wrong, but I agree overall. It may sound nutty, I still think I'm fairly moderate. As discussed before it would be more efficient, maybe even cheaper, and more beneficial for sure to directly employ people, and spend on infrastructure, R&D and etc  than more and more welfare. Scaling down the massive military budget wouldn't be a bad idea for sure. 

If these gov buffers were better designed, they could actually stabilize and strengthen the private sector you know.  

Like I said, unrestrained market capitalism led to people abandoning it entirely, along with democracy. Be it socialism, fascism or communism. Market capitalism triumphed, but learned its lesson that it needs to protect people a little bit, to save itself. The nords, Europe and US all chose different routes there's no one answer. None are socialist, not even Sweden. The other alternative is China, and we don't want that right? Well, if these decades of stagnation continue it may look more appealing, I'd rather the gov provide jobs at a decent wage to those who can't find one, spend on R&D, education and health, invest in the US and its people so we don't say "Well sh*t, China has been doing well let's just set up a politburo to guide us" And people will accept lesser degrees of freedom, if they feel they need to. This is not what I want, this is what I think can happen when hope is abandoned about our system. It's happened before. 

Despite strong job growth, and unemployment falling to 5.5% wages are still stagnant. 

Reason being so many have left the labor force, all this job growth isn't even filling the hole left by those who left. Even if robust growth was to continue, people flocking back to work would find lots of applicants for each job, there's lots of "slack" in the market still, so much so there's 0 pressure to increase wages, plenty out there would be willing to look for any work. 

Ever since the temporary, and small, stimulus package there has been nothing...in fact gov deficits have been coming down, unemployment benefits were reduced, I find it hard to say gov has been meddling with the economy. I take this, and longer term trends, as some proof "hands off" is a poor idea. It's like leaving an engine alone, the oil has gotten old and sludgy now the engine is sputtering and weak. We need an overhaul (large gov spending) and long term...just like an engine gotta keep the oil fresh to keep it all running smooth. Instead of more welfare, or these small "stimulus" packages we need something big to get things going, and long term to keep it fresh. If not...real wages have been stagnant or declining for over a decade for most, unemployment is tending up, recoveries weaker, underemployment and part time work really shot up as has long term unemployment. I don't see how these processes are sustainable. 

Well said and agree more or less entirely.  The hard truth is hope and prosperity are the insurance cover that keep democracy from failing.  And that is why it has failed in so many Asian countries.  It would have failed in India too but for the peculiar circumstances in which the nation achieved its independence as well as the passive temperament of the people who accept a lot of suffering quietly.  I remember well the number of times fund managers, 'analysts' would glibly mouth the adage "The market will take care of itself" during 2006 thereabouts when faith in neo liberal policies reached its apex.  Well, the market didn't take care of itself.  It is dishonest to turn around and argue now that state intervention distorted the market.  That is indeed what happened but the idea that was sold during the boom days was that the market would take care of itself no matter what.  If businesses truly believe so fervently in the free market, they ought to also help uphold the system by not indulging in fraud and preferring ethics to a whatever-it-takes mindset.  Fraud and the cost it ultimately imposes on the average low and middle class citizen is the biggest threat to the free market.  If Deutsche Bank were covering their risk with credit default swaps, then they knew the risk inherent in the securitised asset packages they were selling.  So they shouldn't have been selling them to their customers.  That may be driven by profit motive, but it was wrong.  And if they lose some of their god given rights for doing so, fair dinkum.