same as military, some things are more efficient by govt. When we had private money we had 2000 curriencies
And we continue to have many thousands of banks each of which issues its own currency. Why the compelling need for government intervention in the market for money?
It's not really the same as the military. The military is what is known in economics as a public good. A public good has two unique qualities: it is non-excludable and it is non-rivalrous. A dollar (fiat or commodity) is not a public good. It is both rivalrous and excludable. So money is in no way economically comparable to the military.
Why is money better managed by government? I thought you were all about liberty and personal freedom, and opposed to libsocialism. Why would you want the government to be able to curtail the liberty of people to use the money they thought was best. Do you know that when FDR made the push to nationalize our money, he actually made it a crime to own what was the market money of the time (gold). Do you think that this violated people's liberty?
Wow, you really don't get it. The govt claim that inflation is 2% means prices will go up 22% in 10 years. The real inflation rate of 5% means prices will go up 63% in 10 years. If a shirt costs $20 today, in 10 years it will cost $32.58, but the govt will say it only costs $24.40 (75% of the actual cost). The artificially low CPI means that in 10 years the cost of living will be 41% higher than the govt claims - and since the govt uses its fake 2% for COLA on social security, military retirement, medicare, etc., all those people will be taking a huge cut in their pay and benefits. Its as if everyone gets a huge pay cut. But its a huge cut in expenses for the govt - and that's exactly why the CPI calculation methodology is constantly "improved" (adjusted to make the CPI lower). <> And what does it do to interest rates? They are artificially low as well. Many bonds interest rate is directly or indirectly tied to the CPI, a CPI of 2% when inflation is really 5% means you lose money. And that is killing retirees who planned on a historical interest rate, but with rates <2% they are having to live off their principle and are going bankrupt. All thanks to your wonderful Fed.
there are winners and losers when you have inflation/deflation. far bigger economic issues are trade with China, capitalism v socialism, another bubble, 30 million illegals, Obamacommiecare.
when we had free market money we had 2000 currencies and no good way to tell relative value. It didn't work well when trade was local, it would be far worse today when trade in national and international.
There was one monetary unit. A dollar was defined at 371.25 grains of pure silver. Are you referring to banknotes? They weren't money. They were money substitutes. It would be a simple matter for people to reliably and accurately trade grams of silver or gold given our technological capabilities. No it wouldn't. If a market-based money emerged in the world market, that would lead to massive efficiency gains.
every banker or money changer had to have a book wherein he could look up the value of 2000 different currencies from other banks before one town could do business with another and often one individual with another. It was horribly inefficient and inaccurate. The Euro was a good idea as would be one world currency. But who cares support for free market money is .0001% so its a total waste to talk about.
That was before the internet and Google, I would guess. Do you think people would have the same problem now? I oppose libsocialism, including monetary libsocialism. I trust society to come up with free market solutions, and I oppose the imposition (at the point of a gun) of government solutions. The free market. You should trust it.
who can say it would be like asking people in 1850 what the modern auto would look like. We don't know what the free market would produce. as I said .00001% support this why waste your time?
it hard to care about an issue that's not on the table except to .000001% Whats your solution to heath care?
I understand that deep critical thought is tough for some so I will make it easy for you to grasp. Without a constant supply of desperately poor people, we cannot fill those jobs. Do you understand now or do I need to draw pictures for you?
The problem with this explanation is that in the net, no new money is created because the fiscal assets created are equal to the liabilities created. Now I'm not saying that this does not have the practical effect of adding money to the economy but from an accounting standpoint, private sector loans do not add new money, I'd call it credit.
Have you ever heard of the law of supply and demand at a high enough wage you can fill any job. Do you understand.
Greater profitability for themselves.? If so why are you so afraid to give us the best example of this
If it added money to the economy to any significant degree we'd have 100% 200% 300% 10thousand percent inflation instead we have about 0% inflation