 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
have some public way of putting liquidity into the economy and stop giving banks free money
Another quote from HERE
I can offer more than 2 examples of that which Paul Jay speaks with his words "some public way of putting liquidity into the economy", but 2 will do.
Historical Example A
Quote from A:
The most important lesson, however, is that a depressed community in an apparently hopeless situation found a way of ending the seemingly insoluble problems of unemployment, local decline and lack of a reliable tax base, symbiotically through the use of community-owned currency.
Current Example B
Quote from B:
Josh Freeman of North Fork, CA sure took President Obama’s talk about providing help to “Main Street, not Wall Street” seriously. The tiny town of 2,400 people, located near Yosemite National Park, sits in a county with a staggering 15.7 percent unemployment rate. Seeing his town struggle, Freeman did what any red-blooded American would do: create his own currency. North Fork Shares, emblazoned with pictures of a butterflies and hummingbirds, are worth $12 per share, and are available in half and quarter shares.
This idea actually isn’t new; Ithaca, NY has its own currency, Ithaca Hours, which it launched way back in 1991. There are plenty of other local currencies around the United States: BerkShares in Massachusetts, the Plenty in Pittsboro, N.C., etc. The idea is to keep money in the community by encouraging spending only at local vendors who accept the money, like Disney Dollars, except less evil. Freeman explains his motivations to the L.A. Times, stating that ”In a small town, you tend to look out for each other …. With the changes in economy, the more we support each other in positive ways, the better the quality of life is for everyone.”
I will return to the REAL NEWS report to see how the answer to Paul Jay's question is handled by the political economy authority person.
Well...
The supposed authority dodged the question. Paul Jay's question was essentially exposing the monopoly power to the possibility of using the force of competition as a means of forcing any producer of money to produce higher quality money at a lower cost.
Not only did the supposed authority on political economy dodge the question, not only that, but Paul Jay didn't press the question, and I've seen Paul Jay's interviews enough now to know that Paul Jay is fully capable of pressing a question so as to actually get an answer. So far, the answer is no answer, which is an answer.
Competition is against the law.
Law is crime.
Look at those links above, and know what happens when competition threatens a monopoly banking power.
If a competitor gains currency, gains market share, begins to grow powerful enough to threaten the banking monopoly power, what do you think will happen?
What has happened in the past?
I see a serious need to quote from Paul Jay now, as he moves to the subject of interest rates supposedly voiced from a libertarian perspective. I ran for congress in my district as a libertarian in 1996.
Now, one of the arguments you hear from the sort of libertarian economists is that interest rates are simply artificially low. That's part of the cause of the problem, that the Fed's, you know, loaning money to banks practically at zero interest. But if there was a more market-established interest rate, banks wouldn't be getting this free money. What do you make of that?
Paul Jay is referring to Austrian Economic Dogma, such as the dogma that is spoken by Ron Paul, who is a Republican, and once a Libertarian.
The essential part of the dogma isn't the measure of the rate of interest being low or high, the essential part of the dogma is the force by which the interest rate is determined.
If the force by which the interest rate is determined is competition, then the interest rate will be X.
If the force by which the interest rate is determined is a National police or military force, or political force driving a national police or military force, then the interest rate will be whatever that political power declares the interest rate to be - by fiat - by declaration and the force required to enforce the declaration.
The term artificial is then meant to discriminate between a supposed "free market" interest rate and everything else; whereby everything else is "artificial".
The problem with Ron Paul's dogma, and the Austrian Economics Dogma, involve a significant split in "the party"; whereby one faction supports involuntary government intervention within the free market of currency (or money) and the other does not support, or sanction, any involuntary intervention whatsoever.
That split is clearly delineated by Gary North: HERE
One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises' suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.
Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard's solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?
Gold as money is one thing. Gold as currency is another thing.
Voluntary associations are one thing, an agreement over time. Involuntary associations are another thing, some call it slavery, not typically the slavers, more typically the slaves. Slavers prefer euphemisms, as do criminals.
Criminals don't call up their victims and agree upon an appointment.
"Hi, what time sounds good to you for me to stop by and take what I want from you?"
I am going to return to the REAL NEWS report and see what the political economy authority has to say about artificial interest rates, and note that the Worgl competitive currency historical example amounts to a negative interest rate.
So the problem isn't that we should just let the market establish the interest rate; the problem is that when you have a massive unemployment situation where the basic mechanisms of the economy are no longer working, you have to have much more directed investment.
The problem there is that the speaker of those words either dodges the facts or is unaware of the facts. The fact is that the "market" in question is competition, not some nebulous fantasy, and competition will drive quality up and competition will drive prices down, unless competition is eliminated by some other force.
A. BANK 1 - high quality money at -10 percent interest rate.
B. BANK 2 - high quality money at +10 percent interest rate.
C. BANK 3 - low quality money but money that is required for the payment of taxes or the tax non-payer goes to jail.
The political economy professor ignores A and B as if no such thing can exist, and the only thing in view is C, on purpose, for some reason.
What is the reason for ignoring, dodging, and not speaking about questions concerning the force of competition as the force of competition causes money to be forced high and higher in quality and as competition forces money (or currency if you prefer) to lower and lower prices (interest rates)?
What is the incentive, the reason, the cause, the rationale, the excuse, or the thinking behind avoiding a discussion about competition as a force in competition with the force that enforces banking monopolies?
Ignorance?
I don't think so, Paul Jay asked the question once.
Here it is again:
have some public way of putting liquidity into the economy and stop giving banks free money
I've got to get back to work so this may be the end of this session.