"Freedom" thread or something

1. Doesn't prove anything. 

This is not a debate per se just organizing my own thoughts:

"You've just turned banks into a storage unit" was said at one point in that neo gaf madness.
Is that so bad? I guess I must be losing my mind, what's wrong with having a 100% guarantee of safety with your money?
Wouldn't it also end bank runs? If there's no fear of "oh sh*t my money is not gunna be there" then there'd be no runs or at least less brutal ones.

There can still be investment banks as separate entities. Even the "storage banks" can have investment programs or something like that. Seems to me like the whole fed/banking system is self supporting.

Also I've seen the claim that stable inflation is a good thing a few times in that convo as well as real life. Seems to be a bad thing to me, it continually erodes the power of your money and won't that lead to unnatural growth?


Edited by JJLehto - March 28 2012 at 18:28

BTW no to delve into the FB thing too much... that's not the gravest of issues for me.
I just was venting it's kind of horrifying to me they need to know so bad but IRL  I know you can easily decline and leave, or have to accept the measure if you want to take the job. Also yeah my FB is open since I have nothing remotely incriminating anyway, was just venting they can't just let it go as you being an employee, you have to be a slave

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Someone tried to book me for $30 an hour for in-home tutoring 45 minutes from my house without paying for gas. I politely laughed in their face for the insulting offer.

You damn one-percenter this is a call for redistribution. 

Alright Ric! Finally.
Some more info to digest.

edit: sh*t, even more to digest.

Right off the bat I will say "banks are users of government money" and talking about fractional reserve banking seem to imply the system is kind of self supporting?
Really, thanks for all this. I got quite a bit to read.


Edited by JJLehto - March 28 2012 at 18:10

JJLehto wrote: Speaking of price and issues I'm working through: I've largely decided to Fed needs to go (Ric contribute informatively or stfu) but what about the gold standard? Forgive my naivety, but without a Federal Reserve would a gold standard be needed? Also what do you think would be the results of having it? I see the stability and self regulating advantage of it, and how it seems to generally keep inflation down but in 2012 if we switched to it what would happen? I don't believe there's enough gold to back our money supply, what might happen by a switch? Out of curiosity: Would it be worth having a Fed stripped of its  power to regulate the economy? Something like its hands are tied to just gradually increasing the money supply? And/or removing its power to be the lender of last resort to try and force full reserve banking? Or best  to just eliminate it completely?

I have to get to actually doing real work so I'm going to be a bit shorter here before I log-off for the day. I can elaborate tomorrow if nobody else satisfies you fully.

We would not need a Fed on the gold standard, and the elimination of the fed does not mean you need to go on the gold standard. Simply put though, the supposed end goals of the fractional reserve fiat money system sort of make more sense with a body operating as the Fed does in my opinion. However, I just don't agree with the system itself.

Price stability would be a direct consequence. You would see a period of depression as the switch would necessitate a halt of the inflationary policies which are fueling our pseudo-recovery. Aside from stability of prices, the great benefit would be a calming of the boom-bust cycle and the rampant malinvestment which fuels it.

There's plenty of gold to back our money supply because any amount will do. Just take the available stock of gold and divide it into the available supply of money. We then set a conversion at that rate between gold and money. Only a fixed conversion is required, the actual amount of the conversion is immaterial really.

manofmystery wrote: You could create millions of manufacturing jobs tomorrow by outlawing robots but prices would skyrocket and those jobs would only last till the company goes out of business.

Sometimes simplistic is better eh


Pat certainly you've been insightful and informative. You've focused the vague generalities I had.
I certainly see the logic of it and despite the hardships it may cause why ultimately it's the way that we need to go.
Exactly, FTA's are managed trade and also naturally exclusionary since it's between set countries. FTAs and the WTO seem to bring the negatives of it (as well as loss of sovereignty) but not much of the positive.


Edited by JJLehto - March 28 2012 at 17:26

You could create millions of manufacturing jobs tomorrow by outlawing robots but prices would skyrocket and those jobs would only last till the company goes out of business.

^Not a loss of jobs, a transfer to more efficient employers. You're only talking about one particular class of jobs. It's not like all jobs would ship themselves out of the country. Economies develop. We no longer have a need for horse and buggy producers.

You must realize a finite collection of capital exists. Every factor producing shoes in the US represents machines, funds, and land put towards one goal rather than a collection of other goals. The shipping of the company across seas not only brings down the price of the good, but it frees up valuable resources to be put towards an end which the American condition is better suited to achieve. That land may be better suited towards becoming a Walmart .

Overseas production isn''t always cheaper. There's a clear advantage for employing physical labor overseas. Lesser developed countries tend to have this as an advantage. That does not equate to production though. A GlaxoSmithKlein nanotechnologly development lab would not be shipped to Ethiopia. America wins out here because of the availability of highly trained biologists and engineers. Things such as developed transporatation systems, functioning legal systems, protection from mauraders, etc. factor into a country's advantage for production. To focus narrowly on unskilled labor causes a misrepresentation of the situation.

Sure there's justification. Just as we had justification for bailing out the banks. We could justify subsidizing the production of typewriters so that companies producing typwritter ribbon do not go out of business. Just remember what protectionism does, it protects a certain industry from outside forces. It's a transfer of wealth no different than welfare. It does not seek optimization and growth. It brings about wealth for one group and general stagnation.

I think the loss of the cultural aspect of a manufacturing core and self-dependency gets tangled up into the economic situation. I can relate the feelings of cultural alienation as the economy realigns itself causing painful corrections for those of the old guard. I cannot relate to the idea of propping up failing industries at the expense of the general population.

In regards to the FB comment, I fail to understand many things companies do.