Good points, Jeff. This kind of idea stems from a belief that you can create wealth by printing paper. They are so mistaken. Thank you for shedding light on this. Upvoted, my friend!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Good points, Jeff. This kind of idea stems from a belief that you can create wealth by printing paper. They are so mistaken. Thank you for shedding light on this. Upvoted, my friend!
I'm all for the dismantling of the fiat/fractional system because the economics are unsustainable but the fiat currency masters created more wealth and better standards of living for more people than any other system in the known universe. This is a fact and I say this as one of their biggest critics. It was one hell of a casino while it lasted!
They did not create wealth. They transferred it from current money holders (us) to new money holders (government and well-connected special interests). With newly created money, they can buy at current prices, enjoying it's full purchasing power, while our money held decreases in value and doesn't go as far.
If I compare the city I live in to how things were in 1300 AD here I could prove without a doubt that enourmous wealth and standard of living have been created ( I could do this by comparative metrics). Why you're dismissing this obvious fact is astonishing and seemingly really fuckin' dumb! If you have a toilet and electricity you live better as far as standards than kings and queens in 1300. This is the wealth I'm talking about and standard of living is a fair synonym.
However, I think you may be talking about the machinations of the fiat/fractional system? A system which was fine in 1900 as the resouces and population could sustain the model; the earth can no longer sustain an economic model premised on unending debt and growth and consumption. You have this naive mindset that 1850 economic ideas (Adam Smith) are in any way relevent to the circumstances today. They are not! They are a death sentence to the planet and your way of outsourcing costs to the future as a way of doing business now should be made criminal! Got it? No, of course you don't because the blind have always loved to lead the blind!
BTW: instead of endless yakking on the internet about how corrupt the guvment is ( something I agree with) why don't you instead create a test town, city, 'state' that is patterned modelled on your political/economic philiosohpy? Typing on the internet is pissing in the wind! Show me the money!
But my best guess on this society: someone will want to run the show and that will take about 5-minutes into the experiment to happen. But again, I'm open to it.....
Yes i was talking about fractional reserve banking, as i though that you were. So much is lost between social interaction and text.
I agree, people should be left to associate and work how they like. I assume then, you have already created a UBI since you were in favor of that, right? How's it going?
And fiat did not create wealth, expansions in production and the ability to keep and reinvest earnings did.
There may be things we agree on? That goverments today have become corrupted by the business class? That governments now serve the fiat masters and their corporations and use govenment to solidify that power?
Now, correct me if I'm wrong: the early founding fathers of america sought to protect the citizen from the corrupting influence of power? But they did that within a government structure? So the issue it would seem to me through logical deduction is not government per se; but rather the corrupting influence of power?
In philosophy the assertion that it's the guvment that's the problem is called a strawman argument. It's imbalanced power relations which are at the heart of corruption in todays systems.
But evolutionary complexity is playing a role, too. The conditions today are no where near the same as 1750 no matter how much you wish that they were so.....
No it Is gubment. Even while small, this organization is the source of corrupting power given that it has a monopoly on law and enforcement in a given territory, by force, mind you. I'm not surprised your liberal professors taught you that disagreeing with the authority of government to rule our lives is a strawman. lol
Why not remove the corrupting and corruptible authority? Which is government.
Just because the founders chose a small government over a big one, does not mean that government is good. It may mean, the less-the better. Best case-zero.