Why are many libertarians so brainwashed?

What do you mean "those who do all the work"? Your comments are proof positive that you are a hapless, clueless victim of Libertarian/Conservative propaganda.

 

This is what I mean. These statements are horribly uneducated assessments of our economy. Letting the banking system fail would literally destroy our economy. And you'll never know why because you don't care to know how our monetary system works. It's all just a philosophical thing to you, has no factual basis whatsoever.

These statements are not helping your case. That's not the purpose of the Fed at all.

You haven't explained what your system is or how it works. Which libertarians never do because they don't know how their system would actually work efficiently.

 

A) Yes unfortunately it has been constructed in such a way that if it does fail it will destroy the lives of many, many people and many other businesses. However, the only way to be free of it is to let it collapse, and thus be rid of it.

B) Not anymore it isn't. Unfortunately.

C) Well, what do you want to know? How I'd structure the government? What I would still keep under government control? What I would privatize? The fact is libertarianism is more about the philosophy of the role of the government rather than a blueprint for how it should operate, so you'd get different opinions from different people on what governmental system they'd want to see employed. For instance, though many libertarians thump the US Constitution, I prefer a Parliament for democratic representation.

 

Hong Kong's central bank clearing house system is what libertarians generally want here.

 

Yes, you do. You do not have the right to not be offended, but something that has a direct effect on a person's life is different. Someone driving drunk can potentially cause harm or directly effect another person's life.
And I have already said that laws should be changed to reflect that blood content is not enough to determine impairment.

 

Hong Kong is a small country. Small countries can have different types of systems that would not work in a country like ours. We have the most problems to worry about because of our size. Hong Kong would have to change up their system if they got 300,000,000 more people in their country.

Just like China has been succeeding more with our system and the European Union will one day either break up or develop one bonding agent and one fiscal agent to develop a system exactly like ours.

We have the most advanced and complex monetary system in the history of mankind, which is targeted to continually grow and evolve. The Libertarians have yet to explain how their system would actually continue to grow our massive system. One thing that would not work is using Hong Kong's clearinghouse system.

 

So why just DUI? Why not put the old lady in prison who is a danger on the road but refuses to stop driving? Why not the person who, after a 16 hour shift, drives home and is continuously falling asleep at the wheel? Either of these are as dangerous as most drunks, but you would put the drunk in prison for a year or more. What is the difference? It's not malice. It's not lack of judgment, since all three display that lack.

 

Sure it would work. What is the difference In a couple of zeros? You act like our fed doesnt cause trouble, and is t as stable and reliable as theirs.

Friedman had a good idea for the reserve as well, run it by computer and take out influencing. His work with reserve policy and inflation was workable for sure, dozens of countries fixed their goverment caused hyperinflation with it.

 

They should. If you are unfit to drive, and refuse to stop, putting others in danger, you SHOULD be charged with a crime.

 

Do you also think such systems wouldn't work on a State level?

 

A) The banking system is the lifeblood of our monetary system. You can't just "get rid of it". And your solution would cause a massive depression where real humans would be unable to afford the basic necessities of life and face starvation. This is why no one takes your solutions seriously.

B) It never was intended just for that

C) You can't have a "blanket philosophy". That's why your guys system is not even considered, because you guys don't address specific problems and how to solve them. It's more of a "this wouldn't happen in our system because our system is magical" or a more survival of the fittest approach. Like when people were clapping when Ron Paul said that someone who did not have healthcare should die if they can't afford it. There's nothing wrong with that ideology if that's what you believe, but the majority of Americans would not tolerate letting people die. So the rest of us have to find solutions to keep people alive. You call it being "big government" or whatever other term you want to call it. We call it common sense and reality.

Your philosophy has no real world solutions, it's really just "things will work out because we will make it work with out government". Sorry Kimosabe, that doesn't actually work in the real world.

 

I think states handling their own monetary systems would be an absolute disaster. Our system is evolutionary. Countries all over the world are adopting our system because it works. You guys are the only ones that think it is actually not working.

 

Well whatever the Fed has been doing, it seems to be working...

 

A) I'm not saying get rid of banks, I'm saying let the banks that (*)(*)(*)(*) up fail. They do not deserve to keep their business and their money. I'm sorry, but the only way to get rid of this corrupted banking monstrosity is to let it fail. And I highly doubt people would have absolutely no money - remember that if the bank fails, the government is supposed to give you your money so the bank can't take it with them when they die. However, the strategy now is to give that money to the bank, keeping them in business (a bailout), rather than directly to the depositors. If you don't think getting rid of our current banking system and getting a better one in the future is worth the short-term pain, then have fun forking over more tax money that goes right into the bankers' pockets.

B) Looking it up again, I am mistaken that this was the only original function of the fed; however, other than issuing new currency, that is all it should do; printing infinite amounts of money should not be allowed.

C) What the hell are you talking about? That's a completely false statement. Give me a specific problem and I will tell you how I'd approach it.

 

What exactly do you want from the Libertarians? Seems to me you're frustrated because you don't understand, but it's like you're trying to argue from a fixed position where you assume everyone thinks along the same lines as you do about politics, whether people agree or disagree, still within the same boundaries of thought. It's like, to compare politics with religion, okay so you have Catholics and Protestants, and they will debate on whether or not the Pope is infallible, but it's still within the same framework of Christianity. Well, if you can think of Democrats and Republicans like they are Catholics and Protestants, the Libertarians are like the Jews, it's very similar in many respects, but on the whole, is distinct from Christianity altogether. From the Libertarian's perspective, the Democrats and Republicans are barbaric genocidal maniacs hellbent on taxing us all to death so they can afford to go burning down one country after another to satisfy a psychotic lust for blood, and the Libertarian's frustration is in that Libertarians are not allowed to take up arms or use force to against the people in order to exact some plan or agenda, they're only allowed to attempt some persuasion, try to reason with the Democrats and Republicans, try to talk some sense into them, explain it to them. Don't be surprised then when they seem to be off their rocker trying to explain their economic theories and such, it comes across as nonsense because they're trying to communicate with imbecilic people so often it makes them loopy. Like the saying goes, the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result each time. What happens is, they lose hope, then finally just give in and go join the Republicans, and then the GOP tells them they should compromise on their stance against use of force, next thing you know you've got conspiracy nuts marching on the Capitol with loaded guns crabby about their 2nd Amendment rights. It's very sad.

 

A) You are applying your libertarian economic logic to the banking system. I'm letting you know from a perspective of someone well versed in our monetary system, just like everyone who said it when it happened... if you let the banks fail it will cause a massive depression. That isn't fear mongering, it isn't some ploy to push central planning on everyone for some weird conspiratorial reason... it literally means we would have been in a depression and it would have caused starvation and panic. If you understand the banking system you would understand why, if you don't, you will continue to believe in the "invisible hand" that would just magically cure the economy.

B) The Fed doesn't issue new currency. The Fed converts reserves (which is money) in to currency, it creates reserves, and banks create deposits. The Fed does not create money for you and I to have. That is one reason why you Libertarians have a very hard time understanding our system and why we haven't had Weirmar Republic hyperinflation yet.

C) Deflation. How do you approach deflation.

 

I'm not frustrated with Libertarians. I find you guys incredibly amusing because of your conviction and confidence that you guys have the right answers to everything. I mean you even give the insanity quote like it actually applies here. You guys have axioms that don't exist in reality, which causes you to have all sorts of crazy conclusions. Like the conclusion that our system isn't currently working. The data shows that you guys are absolutely wrong about our system not working and you are wrong that our system hasn't been working since the Fed was created.

You guys get 1% of the vote for a reason. No one is losing hope except you guys. You can go march on Capitol hill with your loaded guns. There will be more people stopping you than there are marching. That's how little force you guys have. The majority of the country does not share your same beliefs and you guys have yet to realize it.

 

Why?

All nonliving systems, like cars, computers, or even solar systems, tend to run down with time rather than improving. So saying that a system is "evolutionary" isn't a sign that it has been improving.

Of course, these are physical systems I mentioned. Perhaps a fairer comparison would be to consider the way religions evolve, since they are systems (of belief) which host organisms may take up, modify, or abandon as they will. Unfortunately, I see little sign that religions are becoming "better" in a sense that most objective commentators would agree on - over the last few thousand years, the most competitive and fastest growing forms have been the most monotheistic, the most absolutist, and the most fundamentalist.

Sir, you ascribe to me not only knowledge but an opinion when I am innocent of both. You interest me, so I wanted to know what you think.

 

The complexities would be disastrous to national commerce. Are they all gonna create their own currencies? Like how would their individual monetary systems work?

What? This makes no sense in regards to economics.

Religions are a faith based beliefs. There are operational realities to our monetary system. It isn't magic.

You guys first have to understand how our system actually works before you say your system would work better. Libertarians simply seem like philosophers rather than scientists. Not saying economists are scientists but they definitely put more effort in to understanding how our monetary system actually works.

 

Guys, just be aware that akphidelt2007 is deliberately ignorant and obtuse.

No one can truly be as ignorant as this fellow, so he is obviously a flamebaiter, or a paid hack by some leftist group who trolls the internet and harrasses being concerned about their liberty, or he is a member of a communist cell, or - maybe he really is that dumb.

At the end of the day - his purpose is to get you to chase your tail, and waste your time.

 

It's funny people say this stuff when I advocate what the country actually does. I don't even mention some kind of crazy alternative. I literally just say, the Fed does this, the banks do that, the Government does this and I agree with what they are doing.

This being the largest economy in the history of mankind I would imagine that you guys would want to know a little bit more of how it actually works. Yet people who advocate the people who control the most robust economy ever are "trolls" and "flamebaiters". Very interesting logic. You are the one that thinks we are going to become Nazis and the economy is crumbling. That is being "ignorant".

 

This was recognized by Aristotle, and even earlier by Egyptian slaves and "workers" toiling over the pyramids. Unfortunately, the age of Aristotle was them blighted by the Dark Ages by authoritarian government such as we have today, and by those revered by akphidelt2007.

Folks don't realize that it was called "The Age of Enlightenment" for a reason- it challenged successfully the type of traditional authoritarian politics that people such as akphidelt2007 revere. His beliefs are based in failed logic, and systems already shown to fail (MMT, authoritarianism, The Social Contract, etc.These are perpetrated myths). Like all of their predecessors, it is propped up by false assertion and propaganda of those remaining in power and garrotted by the uneducated or simply corrupt . We simply are NOT more free than we have ever been. It is reflected in our amount of income taken from us without justification, the now massive list of restrictions of movements and associations.

Since it is relatively recent and I think the age of enlightenment still persists, yet is evolving from the forn in which the founders involved themselves. It isn't over, and the danger to the authoritarians is that with the onset of the internet it will spread among the populous, uncontrolled.

 

Truly I don't know. But in my admitted naivete, I do wonder why you think it would be such a problem for the states to have their own currencies. The Euro hasn't been an unambiguous improvement over separate national currencies in Europe, and indeed it has been reported that, ", now that people’s faith in the euro has been eroding, the Deutschmark has become more popular". Can you explain to me why separate state currencies would be so disastrous?

Neither does the term "evolution," which you used in regards to economics. Co-opting the language of biology to argue a point in another discipline will not work unless the analogy one draws is appropriate. It was not. "Evolution" does not give rise to better organisms with more desirable traits; it only optimizes their fitness.

Good! Then you should be able to explain it to a simple fellow like myself without recourse to inappropriate terminology.

A compelling point! Since I present no economic system I believe would work better, I am asking if you would enlighten me regarding this issue.

It's always the risk I run.

 

A) Has it not occurred to you yet that I UNDERSTAND the implications of letting it fail? What you don't like is that I don't CARE - it's better in the long run if the terrible banks with their corrupt leaders, bad business practices and government cronyism fail, and the banks with more conservative and responsible practices stay in business because they aren't gambling on Wall Street with their loans. It's better for the depositors to have banks that are responsible and won't fail them or topple the economy.

B) I'm using the oft-used term "printing money" to refer to the Feb creating currency; I'm aware the Mint creates the physical money, the Fed creates its value.

C) I don't profess to be an expert on economics, however I tend to agree with Milton Friedman and the Chicago School on many things to do with monetary policy; deflation, caused by a reduction in the money supply, can be countered, obviously, by not allowing such a decrease (ie, if a bank fails or something taking its money supply with it, you make up that loss by replacing it); in effect this "preserves" the economic growth you've had before. But the government should not then create more money than there was before as a stimulus - those have proven not to work, they corrupt the relationship between business and government, they cost way too much and they can result in the opposite problem (inflation).

With regards to deflation caused by free-market-derived price reductions, no intervention there, let that sort itself out. That's rarely remotely as serious as money supply deflation anyway.

 

They created the Euro to compete with the USD. By having one currency you create a larger base of goods and services which reduces the costs. The reason the Euro is in disarray is because they don't have "states", they have countries that all have their own politics. There is no unified body that makes fiscal and monetary decisions.

Having competing currencies creates unnecessary competition amongst resources which drives up costs. What one currency does is it allows a vast amount of goods and services to be represented by one single currency which greatly reduces costs.

Having state run currencies is not even a realistic option amongst the real world economic community.

I'm simply stating economics evolves just like medicine evolves, knowledge evolves, etc. What worked in 1776 might not work in 2013 just like the medicine in 2013 is far more sophisticated and efficient than the medicine in 1776.

I can explain any operational reality of our monetary system that you want. Just ask.

It's a complex system that involves different entities that play different roles that create the magic.

1) Congress - Sets the budget/tax rates/other laws and regulations
2) Treasury - The countries bank
3) Federal Reserve - The bank of banks including the Treasury
4) Primary Dealers - System of banks the Fed has set up to control our govt bond market
5) Banks - The core of our system that directly connects money to the private sector
6) Private Sector - The users of the currency

It is such a complex system that you have to ask specific questions or have a running dialogue to explain how money comes from point A and gets in to your hands. Through this understanding you will realize that Government debt is not a huge deal, we will never run out of money, we aren't in danger of hyperinflation, there is no chance we will run out of buyers of our debt, etc. It is an amazing system once you understand it.