Question on the gold standard

[moralist]

The Federal Reserve thinks priming the economy with as much paper money as it can absorb works. It is destroying and damaging the wealth of this country.

--Brant

The Federal Reserve cannot destroy the wealth of American Capitalists who store their wealth in other things besides the Federal Reserve's crappy products... and who also know better than to "invest" (gamble) in the corrupt virtual debt market casinos where the something for nothing suckers get the fleecing they deserve.

Greg

Unfortunately much of our production and distribution is in the hands of the "Cronies".

(shrug...) So what?

If that is true... then it is something over which you have absolutely no control and for which you are not morally accountable. In my opinion, a taxing regulating litigating European liberal socialist bureaucracy has a FAR greater potential for screwing with your life than all of the "cronie" corporations ever could.

Why?

You can choose the corporation from which you buy their products.

You cannot choose what you have to "buy" from the government.

Corporations compete with other corporations for your dollar.

Government has a monopoly on your dollar.

In the light of this situation... my own personal solution is to become an American Capitalist producer who isn't in the hands of the "cronies". By doing business with other American Capitalist producers who share my values, I freely choose to associate with my own kind of "cronies".

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Objectivist Robert Hessen wrote a book years ago entitled "In Defense of the Corporation," but isn't a corporation essentially fascistic? If the proper function of government is the protection of individual rights (from the initiation of force), how does legally chartering corporations fit into the mix? I haven't been able to think this through logically to practical alternatives just as I haven't been able to reconcile this with Objectivism. To adopt Greg's position seems to render the matter out of political philosophy into a kind of pragmatic right-now solution. Maybe that's the way to use individualism--from the bottom up--finding out what works while respecting other's rights in action. Objectivism seems to have a lot of top-downism with, like conservativism, advocating fixing that thing in Washington so it works better--i.e., better wars, for instance. Or, Objectivism is essentially a conservative philosophy, a niche off-shoot with an atheist twist, left over from the culture of the 1960s as it was then. So Rand being nasty to Buckley and vice versa would have been a turf conflict.

--Brant

???

[BaalChatzaf]

Objectivist Robert Hessen wrote a book years ago entitled "In Defense of the Corporation," but isn't a corporation essentially fascistic? If the proper function of government is the protection of individual rights (from the initiation of force), how does legally chartering corporations fit into the mix? I haven't been able to think this through logically to practical alternatives just as I haven't been able to reconcile this with Objectivism. To adopt Greg's position seems to render the matter out of political philosophy into a kind of pragmatic right-now solution. Maybe that's the way to use individualism--from the bottom up--finding out what works while respecting other's rights in action. Objectivism seems to have a lot of top-downism with, like conservativism, advocating fixing that thing in Washington so it works better--i.e., better wars, for instance. Or, Objectivism is essentially a conservative philosophy, a niche off-shoot with an atheist twist, left over from the culture of the 1960s as it was then. So Rand being nasty to Buckley and vice versa would have been a turf conflict.

--Brant

???

Not only is a corporation a Child of the State, but it is organized so its founders are not fully liable for the debt and damages they incur. It is a State chartered free ride.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Objectivist Robert Hessen wrote a book years ago entitled "In Defense of the Corporation"...

Brant,

I just received this book (I found a used copy cheap on Amazon), but I haven't yet read it.

As to corporations, why shouldn't it be legal for people to band together voluntarily to work within the restricted realm of the market?

The problem comes when corporations get in bed with government and make laws favoring each other.

The problem is not capitalism, it's crony capitalism.

Michael

[moralist]

Objectivist Robert Hessen wrote a book years ago entitled "In Defense of the Corporation," but isn't a corporation essentially fascistic? If the proper function of government is the protection of individual rights (from the initiation of force), how does legally chartering corporations fit into the mix?

Corporations cannot extort money through taxation. You freely choose to buy their products and services.

But the government does have the power of initiation of force through taxation.

Now honestly... which posses the greater potential for intruding into your life?

I haven't been able to think this through logically to practical alternatives just as I haven't been able to reconcile this with Objectivism. To adopt Greg's position seems to render the matter out of political philosophy into a kind of pragmatic right-now solution. Maybe that's the way to use individualism--from the bottom up--finding out what works while respecting other's rights in action.

It's just my own pragmatic "Galt's Gulch" response to the fact that, as an individual, I have absolutely no power to set governmental public policy, and am utterly powerless to regulate the how the government relates to corporations. This is because government does not represent me or my values. The government is the creation of unproductive failures who expect someone else to pay their bills.

And since I have no control over the actions of others, I am not held morally accountable for the actions of others. This sets me free to enjoy my right to freedom of association, and to choose to operate within a private sector Capitalist system which does represent me. This is because it is compatible with my values, over which I do exercise control, and for which I am personally responsible.

Bottom line: Fuk 'em.

I simply refuse to participate in that which I do not agree, and am free to make my own way in this world regardless of what others choose to do.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

But why would those people banding together get limited liability?

--Brant

[moralist]

Objectivist Robert Hessen wrote a book years ago entitled "In Defense of the Corporation," but isn't a corporation essentially fascistic? If the proper function of government is the protection of individual rights (from the initiation of force), how does legally chartering corporations fit into the mix? I haven't been able to think this through logically to practical alternatives just as I haven't been able to reconcile this with Objectivism. To adopt Greg's position seems to render the matter out of political philosophy into a kind of pragmatic right-now solution. Maybe that's the way to use individualism--from the bottom up--finding out what works while respecting other's rights in action. Objectivism seems to have a lot of top-downism with, like conservativism, advocating fixing that thing in Washington so it works better--i.e., better wars, for instance. Or, Objectivism is essentially a conservative philosophy, a niche off-shoot with an atheist twist, left over from the culture of the 1960s as it was then. So Rand being nasty to Buckley and vice versa would have been a turf conflict.

--Brant

???

Not only is a corporation a Child of the State, but it is organized so its founders are not fully liable for the debt and damages they incur. It is a State chartered free ride.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ok. you defined a problem.

What are you doing about it?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But why would those people banding together get limited liability?

Brant,

That's just a word game. The group--the reason they are together--most certainly bears full liability.

Their individual liability is restricted to the nature of their participation in the group. They don't live 100% for the group and within the group, so why should they be 100% liable for the group? In other words, why should one member be 100% liable for what other people within the group do?

That is collectivism.

Better to make them liable within the bounds of how they participate--i.e., their agreement with the rest of the group and with the market, and to what they do (for instance, breaking the law).

The group does not own the individual. It's the other way around.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Objectivist Robert Hessen wrote a book years ago entitled "In Defense of the Corporation," but isn't a corporation essentially fascistic? If the proper function of government is the protection of individual rights (from the initiation of force), how does legally chartering corporations fit into the mix? I haven't been able to think this through logically to practical alternatives just as I haven't been able to reconcile this with Objectivism. To adopt Greg's position seems to render the matter out of political philosophy into a kind of pragmatic right-now solution. Maybe that's the way to use individualism--from the bottom up--finding out what works while respecting other's rights in action. Objectivism seems to have a lot of top-downism with, like conservativism, advocating fixing that thing in Washington so it works better--i.e., better wars, for instance. Or, Objectivism is essentially a conservative philosophy, a niche off-shoot with an atheist twist, left over from the culture of the 1960s as it was then. So Rand being nasty to Buckley and vice versa would have been a turf conflict.

--Brant

???

Not only is a corporation a Child of the State, but it is organized so its founders are not fully liable for the debt and damages they incur. It is a State chartered free ride.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ok. you defined a problem.

What are you doing about it?

What are you doing about it? Some of what you buy is made by chartered corporations, either directly or indirectly.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

Objectivist Robert Hessen wrote a book years ago entitled "In Defense of the Corporation," but isn't a corporation essentially fascistic? If the proper function of government is the protection of individual rights (from the initiation of force), how does legally chartering corporations fit into the mix? I haven't been able to think this through logically to practical alternatives just as I haven't been able to reconcile this with Objectivism. To adopt Greg's position seems to render the matter out of political philosophy into a kind of pragmatic right-now solution. Maybe that's the way to use individualism--from the bottom up--finding out what works while respecting other's rights in action. Objectivism seems to have a lot of top-downism with, like conservativism, advocating fixing that thing in Washington so it works better--i.e., better wars, for instance. Or, Objectivism is essentially a conservative philosophy, a niche off-shoot with an atheist twist, left over from the culture of the 1960s as it was then. So Rand being nasty to Buckley and vice versa would have been a turf conflict.

--Brant

???

Not only is a corporation a Child of the State, but it is organized so its founders are not fully liable for the debt and damages they incur. It is a State chartered free ride.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ok. you defined a problem.

What are you doing about it?

What are you doing about it? Some of what you buy is made by chartered corporations, either directly or indirectly.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Hey Baal,

I know you responded without reading for I had already stated above exactly what I'm doing about this issue, and I also stated exactly why I'm doing what I'm doing... while you have not. It's one thing to complain, and something else entirely to actually act to resolve the issue for yourself. I don't have the power to resolve issues like this for others, nor do I have the power as an individual to set government public policy. Those things are totally outside of my personal sphere of influence, so I bear no moral responsibility for them. I only have the power to act to resolve issues like this just for myself and my family.

And that's why whenever I describe a problem, instead of impotently complaining about it, I always offer a positive constructive personal solution that has worked for me, and which might just work for others should they wish to actually do something about it.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

But why would those people banding together get limited liability?

Brant,

That's just a word game. The group--the reason they are together--most certainly bears full liability.

Their individual liability is restricted to the nature of their participation in the group. They don't live 100% for the group and within the group, so why should they be 100% liable for the group? In other words, why should one member be 100% liable for what other people within the group do?

That is collectivism.

Better to make them liable within the bounds of how they participate--i.e., their agreement with the rest of the group and with the market, and to what they do (for instance, breaking the law).

The group does not own the individual. It's the other way around.

Michael,

All well and good--especially if you believe in "group" rights--but my question is how does state corporation chartering reconcile with the only purpose of the government is protecting individual rights (limiting individual liability)? I'm not saying it cannot be done without the state through contracts, then in disputes the state is protecting property rights if it comes in by invitation in lieu of private courts and/or arbitration. Marriage too--why is the state involved? Etc. I'm more leaning to philosophical inadequacy than state malfeasance.

In regard to this republic of ours, once it was set up everyone went back to their proclivities, never mind the Constitution so much. I wonder if James Madison was a real statist back then, for he did so much to set the American state up ("The Father of the Constitution") and Hamilton was happy with the result while Jefferson was forced out of Washington's cabinet. My grandfather was criticized for quoting Madison in support of his hero's New Deal in Congressional testimony, so it helped motivate him to write his biography.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Chartering by the government is another issue. I agree that's a leaky moral sieve.

The only justification for the government to do that I can think of is tax categories. But then, tax is a leaky moral sieve, too.

Michael

[Derek McGowan]

found out recently (report on NPR) that while US federal gold reserves amount to roughly 450 billion, Private ownership of gold in India is estimated to be around 800 billion. So if the world did go on a pure gold standard, we know who the new financial elites of the world will be....

Not that I have a problem with our new Indian overlords : )

[Brant Gaede]

You first need to distinguish between gold and deliverable gold and paper gold.

--Brant

then we can chatter--for instance, how much deliverable gold does the United States have? India?

[Derek McGowan]

Maybe I don't know the difference, but I'm talking physical 24 karat bars, or pieces of gold. Gold I mentioned that the federal reserve has is in bars in fort Knox or elsewhere. Gold that Indians have (mostly women) is in the form or pure jewel. Indian tradition has women given gold for many, many life milestones such as weddings, birth, first tooth and such. And they have a sort of intrinsic belief in the right for women to own thousands in jewelry such that it would be the last thing to be robbed from someone. They don't look at the gold as a currency in the everyday since but as a hedge against future calamities, so that the wealth accumulates over generations as all of a mother's stash is passed down to the daughter and then compound ed with her gifts over years

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe I don't know the difference, but I'm talking physical 24 karat bars, or pieces of gold. Gold I mentioned that the federal reserve has is in bars in fort Knox or elsewhere. Gold that Indians have (mostly women) is in the form or pure jewel. Indian tradition has women given gold for many, many life milestones such as weddings, birth, first tooth and such. And they have a sort of intrinsic belief in the right for women to own thousands in jewelry such that it would be the last thing to be robbed from someone. They don't look at the gold as a currency in the everyday since but as a hedge against future calamities, so that the wealth accumulates over generations as all of a mother's stash is passed down to the daughter and then compound ed with her gifts over years

We cannot assume gold in Ft Knox is deliverable. This would make it worthless in futures markets and in foreign exchange between governments. We do not know if that gold has or has not any liens on it. Consumed gold as in jewelry is no good for that. We may have paper currencies that go belly up but they will be replaced by new paper currencies. Central bankers will never give up their powers by embracing a gold standard.

--Brant

physical gold is personal insurance, not an investment or speculation

[Derek McGowan]

I don't think they will either, this was a speculative discussion

[moralist]

Derek writes:

Private ownership of gold in India is estimated to be around 800 billion.

They have the right idea.

Each individual should be their own treasury

as well as their own bank.

Greg

[Nerian]

"what would keep the top 5-10% of individuals or businesses from pulling large amounts of currency out of circulation."

Absolutely nothing, and you would hope they would! That would help you greatly and would be a very nice favour!

[Brant Gaede]

There are not large amounts of currency in circulation to be pulled out, much less by those folk. The gigantic sums are controled by governments and government controlled and heavily influenced banks. For private parties taxes also play a big role. The biggest sums are actually debts and they lack easy early repayment for the money is not in the hands of the debtors to simply retire them except over the term of the debts.

--Brant

[moralist]

Brant writes:

The biggest sums are actually debts...

Indeed.

That fact alone is the Achilles heel of the boom/bust model of the US economy. It is based upon debt instead of capital. So it's wise to avoid financial contamination from the debt infested sectors, and instead operate in the healthy capital based ones.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Brant writes:

The biggest sums are actually debts...

Indeed.

That fact alone is the Achilles heel of the boom/bust model of the US economy. It is based upon debt instead of capital. So it's wise to avoid financial contamination from the debt infested sectors, and instead operate in the healthy capital based ones.

Greg

It has to be debt for that's the heart of central banking which controls the banking industry. A real (paper) dollar is constitutionally x amount of silver on demand. Proper debt wouild be the bank lending you silver with that paper aka capital. You'll need more than "good" credit. You'll be paying back more silver than you borrow. You won't borrow except to increase that capital stock beyond what you pay back. Most times you won't borrow just to consume. Borrowing to buy a set of tires to get to work could qualify.

--Brant

[moralist]

Brant writes:

It has to be debt for that's the heart of central banking which controls the banking industry.

That's why I avoid that corrupted sector like it was the ebola virus... it's financially toxic.

A real (paper) dollar is constitutionally x amount of silver on demand. Proper debt wouild be the bank lending you silver with that paper aka capital. You'll need more than "good" credit. You'll be paying back more silver than you borrow. You won't borrow except to increase that capital stock beyond what you pay back. Most times you won't borrow just to consume. Borrowing to buy a set of tires to get to work could qualify.

Same with the debt based economy. By learning how not to become contaminated by it, I keep a safe distance so as to avoid becoming collateral damage from the bursting bubbles. And whenever I want to start a new project, I borrow money from myself to fund it.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

Brant writes:

The biggest sums are actually debts...

Indeed.

That fact alone is the Achilles heel of the boom/bust model of the US economy. It is based upon debt instead of capital. So it's wise to avoid financial contamination from the debt infested sectors, and instead operate in the healthy capital based ones.

Greg

It has to be debt for that's the heart of central banking which controls the banking industry. A real (paper) dollar is constitutionally x amount of silver on demand. Proper debt wouild be the bank lending you silver with that paper aka capital. You'll need more than "good" credit. You'll be paying back more silver than you borrow. You won't borrow except to increase that capital stock beyond what you pay back. Most times you won't borrow just to consume. Borrowing to buy a set of tires to get to work could qualify.

--Brant

The only way to pay back more silver than you borrowed is to increase the velocity of silver flow through economic transactions.

Real money is money stock in motion. If all the coin and ingot ended up being buried underground it would be worth zilch economical. Money at its best is an economic catalyst . It actual value is how well and efficiently it increase the production and trade of goods and services. It is the goods and services that are the True Reality of economics. Money is the catalyst that makes the production of goods and services actually happen. Ultimately, the only real economic values are use-values of goods and services. On a desert island an ingot of .999 gold just just a heavy object.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I'm just assuming, Bob, that you don't think you're correcting me, for you're not.

--Brant