Posts
In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
Monopolies are thus characterised by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
That describes nearly every government "service", including money.
Alleged counterfeiters nabbed in B.C.
Six people have been arrested in a counterfeit ring that allegedly passed about $300,000 in bogus Canadian currency in B.C., Manitoba and Alberta, Vancouver RCMP say.
What is money? In Canada, it is just fancy ink on fancy paper, or fancy pictures on cheap metals. It isn't actually worth anything, it is only worth something because it has been decreed by the Government to be so, it is fiat, it has no intrinsic value.
If anyone else in Canada prints money it is illegal, because the government has decreed that they are the only ones allowed to do so.
In the U.S. there is a movement to have value-backed currency as a competitor to the fiat government currency, but the government protects their monopoly by raiding their competitors and stealing their assets, like in the case of the Liberty Dollar.
Money, another government monopoly.
25 comments:
Not entirely accurate.
While the paper currency we use is indeed controlled by the government, that isn't the only form of currency. Straight trades can still be done between individuals, and this does happen. Currency is merely what the general public has decided is worth trading in. If a company really wanted to, it could conduct business entirely through direct product trade. This is simply not practical, however. A currency makes trade ridiculously simple in comparison to direct trade.
With paper currency, it makes things extremely simple. The currency itself is still only worth what people are willing to work for or pay for. It actually works out rather well, and has proven to be rather stable unless a fiscal liberal messes around with the economy.
With the simplicity and stability of a fiat currency (metal backed currencies fluctuate with the metal, while a fiat currency fluctuates with the overall economy only, much more stable), you can't simply let people have the ability to print out money. It was cause rapid, explosive and ultimately destructive inflation. That's why the American currency has been collapsing. Under Nobama, the Feds have over doubled their currency production, and it is causing the value of their currency to fall very rapidly. So, while an economy is more stable with a fiat currency, that means you must have only a single source of that currency, or else the currency will rapidly inflate and crash the economy.
I really don't see a problem. The currency is only valued at what we as individuals give it value. If enough people decide that a loaf of bread is only worth $0.50, the price of a loaf of bread will eventually go down to $0.50, or it will never get sold. The government is merely there to protect the currency from becoming abused by greed, and causing rapid destructive inflation. The only time the fiat currency actually runs into problems is when people in the government think that printing currency is a solution to a problem.
"that isn't the only form of currency."
That is true, there is barter for example. The point being that the government has a monopoly on legal tender.
"has proven to be rather stable "
I don't think that is the case. Inflation is very real, and comes because of an increase in the money supply since it isn't backed by anything of real value such as a gold standard. What a dollar could buy even 20 years ago is no longer what a dollar can buy today.
"If enough people decide that a loaf of bread is only worth $0.50, the price of a loaf of bread will eventually go down to $0.50, or it will never get sold."
That doesn't really have to do with the currency being used.
"The only time the fiat currency actually runs into problems is when people in the government think that printing currency is a solution to a problem."
Which they do all of the time, for things like bail-out, paying for wars, etc.
Various problems here.
If the government DOESN'T have a monopoly on legal tender, inflation will become uncontrollable, as I've stated.
If the currency is backed by a metal, then the currency fluctuates with the metal, rather than the overall economy. Since the overall economy is more stable than an individual metal, the currency will be in fact less stable. Inflation only says something about stability if the inflation is rapid and/or violent. Since the fiat currency was brought in, neither of these things can be said to be true. Inflation was remained relatively constant, and it hasn't swung wildly up and down, the way it would if it were tacked to a precious metal.
"That doesn't really have to do with the currency being used."
You claimed that money isn't worth anything. This proves that it is. The money is worth what people use it for.
Liberal fiscal policies have to do with domestic spending only, not military spending. In the case of printing money for wars, the idea that eliminating the fiat currency would help with this requires that all governments around the world agree to eliminate their fiat currencies. If all nations in the world except for one warmongering country decided to end fiat currencies, the one with the fiat currency would become all powerful, because it could run endless war, while the other nations wouldn't be able to.
All of your theories on this subject have to do with your idea of how the world should work, rather than how it does work. The fiat currency has been proven to be stable, and much more useful than other currencies.
It seems a bit early to declare that the current fashion in currency has proven to be stable given its youth.
Declaring the fiat currency stable isn't just about evidence, but logic. The fiat currency only fluctuates with the entire overall economy, while a metal backed currency will fluctuate every time the metal fluctuates. The economy as a whole is much more stable than an individual metal. Inflation has remained relatively constant for decades, and only really changes when domestic spending goes up rapidly the way it is under that idiot Obama in the USA right now.
Both systems do have positives and negatives. Neither one has been proven to be greater than the other. The problem with fiat money is who gains control of money supply. If it's government, then you sure as hell better be cautious about inflation and hyperinflation, take for example post war Germany, Zimbabwe, and if the United States doesn`t start to contract the money supply, them too.
As countries become more industrialized and the realiance on technology gains for all humanity, money that is set to a standard like gold or silver, will not allocate those resources as efficiently as they can be, either because the value of your dollar will drop or the cost of goods will rise based upon the resources needed from those metals.
Fiat money, I would think, is a slightly better way to incite trade because it doesn`t draw away from certain resources, plus it is more closely associated with the economy.
Ideally, what would be best, is to have competing currencies. Have money associated with private banks that hand out tender that will only be backed by their specific performance. Yes, there are many problems associated with that as well, but money will be much more accountable and will retain value in the long run.
``one with the fiat currency would become all powerful, because it could run endless war, while the other nations wouldn't be able to.`
That`s just silly. The value of that money would be reduced to nothing if there was infinite supply.
Only if that supply was used irresponsibly. With the war bringing in resources and riches from captured territory, the money supply wouldn't hyper-inflate, but the government would still have an infinite supply.
The competing currencies would simply make business too difficult. Businesses would pay employees in a single currency, and then... well, what if the grocery store uses a different one? Then you have to go and have the currency exchanged. Businesses simply wouldn't be able to hold enough cash on hand to use every currency available, and the constant currency competition would make it nearly impossible for a small business to keep track of the values of the currencies.
A single fiat currency is, in my opinion, the best system. The fact that every single nation in the world uses it (as far as I know, I could be wrong) seems to show its worth to me.
The only time violent inflation happens with the fiat currency is when idiots go out and elect people left of center on the spectrum (assuming that far left is total dictatorship and far right is total anarchy, which actually goes rather well with our current left-right spectrum).
I also did some research into the Liberty Dollar, and discovered that you are terribly inaccurate in this article, and indeed, potentially an outright liar. I implore you to fix the mistake I have found.
You claim that the government in the USA protects its "monopoly" of currency by raiding competitors. Yet, the only so-called "competitor" raided has been Liberty dollar, despite there being around 100 private currencies in the USA. The only company you site as being targeted is Liberty Dollar, despite these numerous other private companies. Perhaps those criminal charges have something to them, and your idea that this is the big scary American government pushing around the little guy is nothing more than a fantasy?
Actually doing more research into a subject brought to you by: anti-idealism. The political theory based on the scientific method.
"The political theory based on the scientific method."
What method?? You mostly just ramble on and use points based upon your thoughts of what you think works and doesn't work.
You're not as smart as you think you are.
And yet, Gustav, you have failed to win an argument against me. I go and look at the evidence, then come to a conclusion. You have a conclusion, and then try to find the evidence. It is called idealism, and has no place in politics.
No, I'm pretty sure you don't, as much as you'd like to think you do.
Go back and review all your statements. You state your opinion and then come back and say that you have found evidence.
Anyway, I'm just pointing it out.
I think you're a little confused, Gustav. The only thing I commented on where I didn't have evidence first was with the Liberty Dollar not being the only private currency.
No, wait, that isn't true. I only commented on that AFTER I found out that it wasn't the only currency.
I do my research and find a conclusion that fits the evidence, and I ask further questions. Every piece of my argument here has come after I did research, not before. Same with the speed limit argument for city speed limits (the only thing I was arguing). I don't argue what I haven't researched, except with friends for fun. I'm not here for fun, I'm here to make sure truth over fiction.
As a good scientist and researcher, you should have no problem citing your sources or research then, so to save some time in the future, why don't you do so, or even now!
Since Google searches seem to be so difficult for you, I will do my best to help you find things. But you also have to understand that much of my argument comes from simple logic. An overall economy is more stable than a single metal. That is just plain logical, and impossible to logically refute.
"Since Google searches seem to be so difficult for you, I will do my best to help you find things. But you also have to understand that much of my argument comes from simple logic."
The fact that you argue your opinion is not a big deal, but your lack of "scientific method" makes you full of crap.
"An overall economy is more stable than a single metal. That is just plain logical, and impossible to logically refute."
What about gold?
My "opinion" as you call it (more of a logical conclusion to a scientific problem) comes only after I look through the evidence, see where it was tested, and find the outcomes. Thus, gun control and drug laws don't work. On the other hand, tax deductions for charitable contributions and speed limits within cities do work.
As for gold be stable, it isn't. Its value has increased rapidly in recent years. With the big gold mines that are currently under construction around the world, there is a possibility of the gold plummeting in value.
http://www.goldprice.org/gold-price-history.html
These charts show how gold has risen and fallen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States
Some of those charts (not many good ones, I need to do more looking) show that the American economy is overall relatively stable in comparison to gold. An economy based currency (which is what fiat currencies will fluctuate with) are simply more stable than metal backed currencies.
So please cite your sources for charitable donations and speed limits.
Charitable donations are just outright logic. The tax benefits of giving to charity make giving less cumbersome to one's finances, so giving is easier. Americans (used to) pay less taxes, and give more to charity than Canadians despite Canadians believing that they aren't a greedy people.
http://www.envision.ca/pdf/news/FraserInstitute.pdf
Could there be other reasons for the increased charity from Americans? Certainly. But, it is logical to assume that a person will give more to charity if that charitable giving makes less of an impact on their finances.
As for speed limits, that was a little more difficult to get your evidence, but I'll just point you to India, a place where, if you look into it, has rather uncontrolled city roads. It has the highest road death rates in the world, and it is mostly due to human error, especially speed.
From the article:
""Speed is the main reason behind accidents. An increase in average speed is directly related to both the likelihood of a crash occurring and to the severity of crash consequences. A 5% increase in average speed leads to an approximately 10% increase in crashes that cause injuries and a 20% increase in fatal crashes. Zones of 30 kmph can reduce crash risk and injury severity and are recommended in areas where vulnerable road users are particularly at risk," the report said."
As I've stated, long, straight and wide highways don't need speed limits. But, when you have twists, turns, distractions and many other cars, speed limits save lives, because no human is anywhere near as responsible as they think they are. City speed limits decrease fatalities, especially when properly enforced. In nations where speed limits don't exist or aren't properly enforced, such as India, speed related deaths increase dramatically.
Even on the Autobahn (from my understanding, I don't have first-hand experience), they have different lanes for going different speeds.
People simply are not responsible, and city speed limits protect people from each other. The more responsible you think you are, the less responsible you actually are, in my personal experience. City speed limits, protecting people from each other, is a responsible and legitimate use of government.
Two sources??? And one is a newspaper article.
Some research.
It's not bothersome that you have an opinion on something, nor for the fact that your ego won't let you accept other ideas at the risk of sounding stupid.
What's really bothersome is your claim to a "scientific method" which really doesn't exist at all.
I got you your sources you ignorant and stubborn prick. There are numerous others, all of which back up what I've stated, you are just to lazy, stubborn, ignorant and stupid to do your own research. You have absolutely NOTHING, especially NO LOGIC to back up ANY of your idiotic and moronic arguments. If you're too ignorant and lazy to actually do research, it isn't my problem. I've stated fact, and you've managed to do nothing but state fiction, so get your head out of your ass and actually do some real work.
Congratulations, Scott, your followers are people who are incapable of reason and logic. When you actually provide them with evidence, they just dismiss it.
Putting down one source for each, which is hardly scientific at all. if the sources are as easy to find as you say they are, then you should have no problem posting them up here. I question your actual knowledge as to how science really works, otherwise you wouldn't be calling me stupid and lazy for doing the research that you should be posting.
If you have to resort to calling someone moronic, idiotic and telling them to pull their head out their ass to prove your argument, then you are the intellectually lazy one with no substance.
I will also make a note as to your intellectually laziness by pointing out that it is just myself that is calling you out for your lack of insight and no other readers of this blog. Had you been insightful and logical you would have called me out alone and not this entire group of readers.
It truly shows that you are the only zealot here.
In your first paragraph, you basically say that I have to show you absolutely all the research I've ever done over my lifetime on these subjects. Good luck with that. I've already searched for plenty of information, done plenty of research, and I'm letting an ignorant moron like you know the conclusion, and I even provided you with evidence, which you completely ignored.
In your second paragraph, you make the claim that my argument is about name-calling. I called you an idiot because you are one, because I made the argument, provided some evidence, and left you to use your brain, which unfortunately you don't. I wasn't saying your argument was invalid because you're an idiot. I'm just pointing out how absolutely stupid and incapable you are.
The second post I placed may have been a bit much, but you in no way "called me out". You haven't provided a single shred of evidence to prove in any way that anything I have said and provided evidence for is wrong in any way, shape or form. You don't argue the point, you merely argue against me personally. You are incapable of actually holding any form of logical argument. The fact that you think you can is just sad.
And like I've said, if you have the research, feel free to post it. Citing one article can hardly be considered evidence, nor research.
Since you can't keep up with the conversation, I am going after your "scientific method", and lack of understanding of science itself.
I am going to stop posting after this, but feel free to call me a moron anyway and you can think you've won something.
What's really funny is you think you've won. My research has been done over years, and I can't be expected to provide every shred of evidence to you that I went through. And yet, despite me not providing all the evidence I've gone through, you're incapable of actually arguing the point. I'm sorry you can't keep up with the real conversation, but arguing against me personally makes you wrong. Feel free to stop posting, it only proves that you can't actually refute my points. You still refuse to refute them, and now you've only admitted that you can't refute them. The reason being, you're know you're wrong and you don't want to admit it.
Gotta love the idealist. Too ignorant to actually argue a point. When proven wrong, they attack the process or the person, instead of the conclusion, just as you do.
And yes, idealist is a dirty word.
Post a Comment