What is the Objectivist alternative to the Federal Reserve?

[moralist]

Heck, China is a more successful at Capitalism than we are!

Greg

Would you put Chinese drywall in your child's room?

A...

Successful? Not at all.

China is not just drywall...

Almost all of the materials I use in my work are from China. Years ago they used to be a joke, but given time and an extremely steep learning curve, that is no longer the case. The quality of many Chinese products is excellent.

Their path is similar to South Korea. In the 1980's Hyundai made mediocre vehicles. Today they produce some of the very finest quality vehicles on the road. My wife bought a used 1993 Hyundai for $3,400, drove it for 17 years, and sold it in good running condition for $1,700.

Greg

[moralist]

And what is the Achilles Heel that could run through the story that resulted in the collapse?

Knowing nothing about Laissez Faire City, I just finished reading a blog of it's history, and it would make quite a cautionary morality play to be sure.

The name of the rock upon which the Utopian ship dashed itself was:

"No matter where you go, there you are."

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

I've spent some time searching for a .gov website that does not deny but openly acknowledges that the Constitution is merely the velvet glove that conceals the armored fist. So far, no success.

Selective Service https://www.sss.gov/PDFs/MSSA-2003.pdf

IRS http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p17.pdf and http://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/irm_09-001-003.html

Treasury http://www.secretservice.gov/money_law.shtml

FDA http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm

I don't mind you being obtuse about it, but lack imagination why?

First link: no reference to the U.S. Constitution.

Second link: no reference to the U.S. Constitution.

Third link: no reference to the U.S. Constitution.

Fourth link: no reference to the U.S. Constitution.

Fifth link: several references to the Constitution regarding enforcement of legislation, but not about the Constitution being a cloak for tyranny.

Call me obtuse, but I'm just not seeing any government admissions that it doesn't take Constitutional guarantees seriously.

[Francisco Ferrer]

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I have to come up with some incredibly stupid circumstances, but it still could be a mistake.

No, no, no. You don't get it. If all an aboriginal knows is his or her tribal customs and these customs include something like "Indian giving" (I'm not sure that's the right word, then he has committed no theft. If fails to get this and still does it, then he has still not committed any theft.

Doesn't need to be.

I know that, but there are obviously going to be cases of gray where both participants are intoxicated.

Bullshit. That definition agrees with me, not with you. Did you not notice the "exerted" after "constraint".

How would you be unable to use it?

¬∀("force"="unlawful or wrongful action")

Not that they'd be used for your idiotic counter-examples, but there are restraining orders.

My God. You seriously fucking believe this.

No, it's not equivalent to saying either of those, but they don't involve force either.

On the word "Aryan" not meaning what I think it means: Prove it.

On murder: If members of a tribe kill all twin infants at birth, the killers still have deprived those children of their rights to their living bodies (or, if one prefers, "right to life"), despite the tribesmen's beliefs that such killings appease their pagan gods. "People have human rights independently of whether they are found in the practices, morality, or law of their country or culture." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/

Your response, "Doesn't need to be" to my point that property cannot be taken rightfully except through due process supports perfectly my position that government tax collectors are no different than common street thugs, who also act without due process.

On the definition of "exert": Also from Merriam-Webster: "to cause (force, effort, etc.) to have an effect or to be felt." By standing on my property and resisting all entreaties to leave, you have caused a constraint on my ability to use that land as I would had you not been present. Example: For aesthetic reasons alone, I may prefer to see thin air in the space where you stand.

On pollution: Toxic smoke (as a new nuisance) interferes with the property owner's existing right to use his land, if he so chooses, as a place for breathing clean air, which, some say, is good for children and other living things.

On psychological trauma victims being able to use the power of the state to regulate how their neighbors should be dressed: Obviously you are unwilling to follow the logic of your argument to its conclusion. Not surprising given that virtually anything is potentially traumatic. As Rand would say, "Check your premises."

On criminal HIV infection: The doctor who knowingly injects contaminated blood into an unsuspecting patient, the HIV-positive man who purposely injects his bodily fluid into an unsuspecting sex partner, the jealous husband who angrily injects a .45 bullet into the brain of his unfaithful wife--all of them have used force by acting in a manner to constrain their victims from enjoying a beating heart and measurable brain activity. That is the initiation of force.

On your response "My God. You seriously fucking believe this?": Other than serving a a revealing demonstration of your mastery of the English language, the outburst does not constitute a logical argument. But, come to think of it, neither does anything else you've contributed to this forum.

[Brant Gaede]

An "Objectivist alternative to the Federal Reserve" is Alan Greenspan.

--Brant

been there; done that; chopped up by the contradiction

[Samson Corwell]

On the word "Aryan" not meaning what I think it means: Prove it.

I was talking about the word "contradiction".

On murder: If members of a tribe kill all twin infants at birth, the killers still have deprived those children of their rights to their living bodies (or, if one prefers, "right to life"), despite the tribesmen's beliefs that such killings appease their pagan gods. "People have human rights independently of whether they are found in the practices, morality, or law of their country or culture." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/

It still effects the degree to which they can be punished.

Your response, "Doesn't need to be" to my point that property cannot be taken rightfully except through due process supports perfectly my position that government tax collectors are no different than common street thugs, who also act without due process.

And I'm sure your imaginary "private defense agencies" would be so much nicer. The British East India Trading Company, drug cartels, Blackwater, Baldwin-Felts, and the Mafia serve, while not great examples, serve as horrible warnings.

You can still challenge tax procedures in court.

On the definition of "exert": Also from Merriam-Webster: "to cause (force, effort, etc.) to have an effect or to be felt." By standing on my property and resisting all entreaties to leave, you have caused a constraint on my ability to use that land as I would had you not been present. Example: For aesthetic reasons alone, I may prefer to see thin air in the space where you stand.

That's stretching it.

On pollution: Toxic smoke (as a new nuisance) interferes with the property owner's existing right to use his land, if he so chooses, as a place for breathing clean air, which, some say, is good for children and other living things.

Now you're just using "violation of property rights" as a catch-all for everything you want to be illegal.

On psychological trauma victims being able to use the power of the state to regulate how their neighbors should be dressed: Obviously you are unwilling to follow the logic of your argument to its conclusion. Not surprising given that virtually anything is potentially traumatic. As Rand would say, "Check your premises."

I'm "unwilling to follow the logic" of my argument to its conclusion? Sure, if by "logic" you mean "a completely idiotic thought process", by "argument" you mean "intellectually dishonest misrepresentation", and by "conclusion" you mean "asinine assertion in search of its own stop gap".

Not surprising given that virtually anything is potentially traumatic.

It wouldn't take much to translate it into "property rights" talk like you do.

On criminal HIV infection: The doctor who knowingly injects contaminated blood into an unsuspecting patient, the HIV-positive man who purposely injects his bodily fluid into an unsuspecting sex partner, the jealous husband who angrily injects a .45 bullet into the brain of his unfaithful wife--all of them have used force by acting in a manner to constrain their victims from enjoying a beating heart and measurable brain activity. That is the initiation of force.

One of these things just doesn't belong here!

On your response "My God. You seriously fucking believe this?": Other than serving a a revealing demonstration of your mastery of the English language, the outburst does not constitute a logical argument. But, come to think of it, neither does anything else you've contributed to this forum.

It's like explaining the difference between red and blue.

[Brant Gaede]

Heck, China is a more successful at Capitalism than we are!

Greg

Would you put Chinese drywall in your child's room?

A...

Successful? Not at all.

China is not just drywall...

Almost all of the materials I use in my work are from China. Years ago they used to be a joke, but given time and an extremely steep learning curve, that is no longer the case. The quality of many Chinese products is excellent.

Their path is similar to South Korea. In the 1980's Hyundai made mediocre vehicles. Today they produce some of the very finest quality vehicles on the road. My wife bought a used 1993 Hyundai for $3,400, drove it for 17 years, and sold it in good running condition for $1,700.

Greg

And how good is it running for you?

--Brant

a mediocre 1980s vehicle was not a bad vehicle for its date--I think you meant "crummy"--the word "mediocre" is a comparative evaluation while "bad" or "crummy" is absolute, or most cars then were mediocre (average, nothing special) and the Hyundai was worse and a mediocre car today is a much, much better car than one thirty years ago would have been (this is a golden age for passenger vehicles of all types--the variety is incredible and they can easily last 2-3 times longer than the 1960s, but most are foolish to buy one new or on credit)

[moralist]

Heck, China is a more successful at Capitalism than we are!

Greg

Would you put Chinese drywall in your child's room?

A...

Successful? Not at all.

China is not just drywall...

Almost all of the materials I use in my work are from China. Years ago they used to be a joke, but given time and an extremely steep learning curve, that is no longer the case. The quality of many Chinese products is excellent.

Their path is similar to South Korea. In the 1980's Hyundai made mediocre vehicles. Today they produce some of the very finest quality vehicles on the road. My wife bought a used 1993 Hyundai for $3,400, drove it for 17 years, and sold it in good running condition for $1,700.

Greg

And how good is it running for you?

Brant, I think you might have inferred that we have a new Hyundai. We actually both had vehicles (a Hyundai and a Toyota) which we drove for 17 years.

--Brant

a mediocre 1980s vehicle was not a bad vehicle for its date--I think you meant "crummy"--the word "mediocre" is a comparative evaluation while "bad" or "crummy" is absolute, or most cars then were mediocre (average, nothing special) and the Hyundai was worse and a mediocre car today is a much, much better car than one thirty years ago would have been (this is a golden age for passenger vehicles of all types--the variety is incredible and they can easily last 2-3 times longer than the 1960s, but most are foolish to buy one new or on credit)

Well, that all depends on how a vehicle is used...

I bought a 1996 Toyota pickup truck for $9,900 cash out the door, drove it as my work truck for 17 years, and sold it used in good mechanical condition for $4,000 cash. It paid for itself many times over. I then bought a new 2012 Toyota pickup for $19,000 cash out the door. Less what I got for the old one the net cost was $15,000. My wife sold her 19 year old Hyundai for $1,700 cash and we bought a 2012 Toyota passenger car for $16,600 cash out the door. This made the net cost of the new one $14,900. So now we own two new vehicles for $30K, and with the improvements in technology we'll easily drive these two for 20 years.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Heck, China is a more successful at Capitalism than we are!

Greg

Would you put Chinese drywall in your child's room?

A...

Successful? Not at all.

China is not just drywall...

Almost all of the materials I use in my work are from China. Years ago they used to be a joke, but given time and an extremely steep learning curve, that is no longer the case. The quality of many Chinese products is excellent.

Their path is similar to South Korea. In the 1980's Hyundai made mediocre vehicles. Today they produce some of the very finest quality vehicles on the road. My wife bought a used 1993 Hyundai for $3,400, drove it for 17 years, and sold it in good running condition for $1,700.

Greg

And how good is it running for you?

Brant, I think you might have inferred that we have a new Hyundai. We actually both had vehicles (a Hyundai and a Toyota) which we drove for 17 years.

--Brant

a mediocre 1980s vehicle was not a bad vehicle for its date--I think you meant "crummy"--the word "mediocre" is a comparative evaluation while "bad" or "crummy" is absolute, or most cars then were mediocre (average, nothing special) and the Hyundai was worse and a mediocre car today is a much, much better car than one thirty years ago would have been (this is a golden age for passenger vehicles of all types--the variety is incredible and they can easily last 2-3 times longer than the 1960s, but most are foolish to buy one new or on credit)

Well, that all depends on how a vehicle is used...

I bought a 1996 Toyota pickup truck for $9,900 cash out the door, drove it as my work truck for 17 years, and sold it used in good mechanical condition for $4,000 cash. It paid for itself many times over. I then bought a new 2012 Toyota pickup for $19,000 cash out the door. Less what I got for the old one the net cost was $15,000. My wife sold her 19 year old Hyundai for $1,700 cash and we bought a 2012 Toyota passenger car for $16,600 cash out the door. This made the net cost of the new one $14,900. So now we own two new vehicles for $30K, and with the improvements in technology we'll easily drive these two for 20 years.

Greg

It was a little joke I slipped in there--that is, that your wife sold the car to you for $1700.

It's strange. I too purchased a 1996 Toyota pickup new. I paid a little more and it didn't last as long. The problem was the other driver wasn't responsible enough. I also learned the hard way the virtue of buying brand-name gasoline. It comes with cleaning additives.

--Brant

[moralist]

Heck, China is a more successful at Capitalism than we are!

Greg

Would you put Chinese drywall in your child's room?

A...

Successful? Not at all.

China is not just drywall...

Almost all of the materials I use in my work are from China. Years ago they used to be a joke, but given time and an extremely steep learning curve, that is no longer the case. The quality of many Chinese products is excellent.

Their path is similar to South Korea. In the 1980's Hyundai made mediocre vehicles. Today they produce some of the very finest quality vehicles on the road. My wife bought a used 1993 Hyundai for $3,400, drove it for 17 years, and sold it in good running condition for $1,700.

Greg

And how good is it running for you?

Brant, I think you might have inferred that we have a new Hyundai. We actually both had vehicles (a Hyundai and a Toyota) which we drove for 17 years.

--Brant

a mediocre 1980s vehicle was not a bad vehicle for its date--I think you meant "crummy"--the word "mediocre" is a comparative evaluation while "bad" or "crummy" is absolute, or most cars then were mediocre (average, nothing special) and the Hyundai was worse and a mediocre car today is a much, much better car than one thirty years ago would have been (this is a golden age for passenger vehicles of all types--the variety is incredible and they can easily last 2-3 times longer than the 1960s, but most are foolish to buy one new or on credit)

Well, that all depends on how a vehicle is used...

I bought a 1996 Toyota pickup truck for $9,900 cash out the door, drove it as my work truck for 17 years, and sold it used in good mechanical condition for $4,000 cash. It paid for itself many times over. I then bought a new 2012 Toyota pickup for $19,000 cash out the door. Less what I got for the old one the net cost was $15,000. My wife sold her 19 year old Hyundai for $1,700 cash and we bought a 2012 Toyota passenger car for $16,600 cash out the door. This made the net cost of the new one $14,900. So now we own two new vehicles for $30K, and with the improvements in technology we'll easily drive these two for 20 years.

Greg

It was a little joke I slipped in there--that is, that your wife sold the car to you for $1700.

Sorry, Brant... totally missed the levity.

It's strange. I too purchased a 1996 Toyota pickup new. I paid a little more and it didn't last as long. The problem was the other driver wasn't responsible enough. I also learned the hard way the virtue of buying brand-name gasoline. It comes with cleaning additives.

Those were the good ones. Totally built in Japan. In 17 years, it was only down from work one day for front wheel bearings. As it was when I sold it...

The fraternal twin 2012's...

[Brant Gaede]

Mine was white, too. If it were a stick I'd have paid more than you got--sentimental.

--Brant

[moralist]

Mine was white, too. If it were a stick I'd have paid more than you got--sentimental.

--Brant

It was a 5 speed and got a solid 25 mpg. Because it was used for work I kept seat covers on it for all those years. And when I took them off to sell it, the interior looked almost new. Too bad I didn't know your vehicle history until now. You would have loved it.

I put a long tube header on the engine for more low end torque because it was always loaded with tools and materials.

[Francisco Ferrer]

I was talking about the word "contradiction".

It still effects the degree to which they can be punished.

And I'm sure your imaginary "private defense agencies" would be so much nicer. The British East India Trading Company, drug cartels, Blackwater, Baldwin-Felts, and the Mafia serve, while not great examples, serve as horrible warnings.

You can still challenge tax procedures in court.

That's stretching it.

Now you're just using "violation of property rights" as a catch-all for everything you want to be illegal.

I'm "unwilling to follow the logic" of my argument to its conclusion? Sure, if by "logic" you mean "a completely idiotic thought process", by "argument" you mean "intellectually dishonest misrepresentation", and by "conclusion" you mean "asinine assertion in search of its own stop gap".

It wouldn't take much to translate it into "property rights" talk like you do.

One of these things just doesn't belong here!

It's like explaining the difference between red and blue.

If, as you claim, "contradiction" means something other than what I think it means, prove it.

As to a person's religion, ideology, lack of morals, or disagreement with the concept of rights affecting the extent of his punishment in a court of law, it certainly had no influence on sentences dealt to Nazis at Nuremberg or to Manson in Los Angeles. Nor should it affect the treatment of any other criminal. If you are bashed in the skull with a lead pipe, should the accused be pardoned or given just a few months in jail because he's a priest in the Exalted Church of Head Bashers?

Due process requires that a person be tried and convicted before he is deprived of property or liberty (freedom of movement). There is no court ruling prior to IRS assessments of income on April 15. In this way the feds bypass a citizen's essential right not to be "seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way . . . except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." You list governments and quasi-governments that are the same or more terrible than the IRS. But that is hardly a defense of tax robbery, any more than saying Nazi Germany was worse than the Old South is a defense of Jim Crow laws. Appeals? Since judges in U.S. courts are the direct beneficiaries of tax revenues, they are incapable of rendering an impartial decision in IRS cases. Nemo iudex in causa sua.

Employing links to reputable online dictionaries, I have used the words "force," "constrain," and "exert" in a manner that is entirely consistent with their widely recognized definitions. You are free to try to prove otherwise, referencing evidence from external reality and not the feelings that reside in your gut. But I rather doubt you'll bother. It's too much work.

Yes, you could say that "property rights" is a catch-all phrase for the proposition that people should be allowed to keep and use those things that they own by original use, creation and free trade. Now all you have to do is show that one is in error to support the proposition. Good luck.

Your typical method of argumentation is to label something you don't like "bizarre," "repulsive," or "idiotic." I could just as easily respond with "silly," "icky," or "yucky." But applying a name to something does not constitute an argument. This is called the nominal fallacy. Now, you object to the idea of a person "traumatized" by her neighbor's yellow house being able to order that house repainted. But you have not shown how that event is fundamentally different from a "traumatized" home owner using the arm of the law to order her neighbor to put on clothes. Both cases involve a person crying "mental distress" in order to legally force a neighbor to comply with the complainant's wishes. Disagree? Using evidence and logic, try to prove otherwise. It's how grown-ups persuade one another.

If you are unable to explain why some unauthorized invasions of one person's body by another are not force, then you really should check your premises. They are probably in error.

[Jules Troy]

I own a 2013 Nissan Titan Pro4X. Love ittttttttt.

(Don't love the gas mileage but mehhhh it's a hell of a truck!)

[Brant Gaede]

Greg, I'd have paid you 6000 and flown to CA to pick it up (in a perfect world).

--Brant

these trucks are all but absent from the used truck market; nobody wants to sell them or they go so quick it's like they were never there

[Brant Gaede]

I own a 2013 Nissan Titan Pro4X. Love ittttttttt.

(Don't love the gas mileage but mehhhh it's a hell of a truck!)

I own a 2023 Wombat 12. Go ahead; beat that without looking the fool!

--Brant

social metaphysician deluxe and prime (I gotta be me, who else can I be, but who I am? [Apologies to Sammy Davis jr.])

"I can't help myself!"--apologies to Danny (Koker), aka "The Count" at Count's Kustoms Las Vegas, NV of Counting Cars

[moralist]

Greg, I'd have paid you 6000 and flown to CA to pick it up (in a perfect world).

--Brant

these trucks are all but absent from the used truck market; nobody wants to sell them or they go so quick it's like they were never there

They're the best little trucks ever made. Just ask the jihadis...

...they all use Toyota pickups!

Buying new vehicles outright for cash and taking good care of them for a long time is actually very economical.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Greg, I'd have paid you 6000 and flown to CA to pick it up (in a perfect world).

--Brant

these trucks are all but absent from the used truck market; nobody wants to sell them or they go so quick it's like they were never there

They're the best little trucks ever made. Just ask the jihadis... they all drive Toyota pickups! :laugh.

Greg

Thx for the tip. I'm off to Iraq to get one!

--Brant

watch for the video!

[Wolf DeVoon]

Oh, what a feeling... all we can afford is a Toyota

[moralist]

North America sales

I wouldn't touch a Government Motors vehicle with a ten foot pole.

[Wolf DeVoon]

I wouldn't touch a Government Motors vehicle with a ten foot pole.

Depends how much 4WD power and comfort you need

-- 180,000 miles on my 96, no problems

[Derek McGowan]

Wolf, I remember it wasn't too long ago that you could buy a Hyundai accent, brand new, for 5000. Say what you want about that vehicle, but you can't get a new vehicle , no matter who the maker is, for less than 20,000 nowadays

[moralist]

Wolf, I remember it wasn't too long ago that you could buy a Hyundai accent, brand new, for 5000. Say what you want about that vehicle, but you can't get a new vehicle , no matter who the maker is, for less than 20,000 nowadays

I bought two new 2012's both for well under 20 each. It took a while to find them but they're out there if you look hard enough.

Greg

[deanwins]

Derek,

"What is the reality based practical alternative to the Fed, taking into consideration that the de facto standard and the consolidation of power (majority of market share) is a desired outcome of the big banks?

"In my mind, either we have the Federally backed private reserve that controls the supply of Dollars (not the other currencies as Wolf has pointed out) or we have the Privately backed private reserve that controls the supply of Dollars. Whats the difference?

Free market alternative:

First, let me state the primary purposes of a bank in the free market:
1. To facilitate trasfer of money. Basically, if you carried a lot of money on you to perform large trades, then you'd be at risk of theft the whole time you had the money and traveled with it. For international and long distance trade, banks can settle with eachother over a longer timespan with other transactions, facilitating quick transfers of money for long distance trades.
2. To securely store money. Holding money on your person or your own property has risk. "Don't keep all your eggs in one basket."
3. To provide loans for people who want stuff now rather than later but can't or don't want to pay for the entire market price immediately. Banks charge interest to cover risk of default and profit (the profit component is limited by competition with other lenders).
4. To provide money market accounts and CDs for people who are willing to allow their deposits to be loaned out to others for longer periods of time... given that such people exist who would rather earn the interest offered by the bank than spend their money now.

In the free market, depositors could look for third party insurance for their deposits. So if their bank defaults, they could lose everything (no government bailout), unless they had insurance with a good insurance company.

The fear that a bank might be corrupt and spend the depositor money in secret or make too many bad loans is what causes people to open up bank accounts with different private banks. This is the primary reason why banks wouldn't attain monopoly status in the free market. Individuals would also choose different banks to work with due to locality, loan policies, fee schedules, etc. But there are incentives to join the same bank as other people, for example, if you transfer money to someone at the same bank, the transaction is instantaneous (no intra-bank settling of reserves).

The free market might have 100% gold backed accounts... but surely that would result in larger fees. I'm not against there being unallocated or fractional reserve accounts, so long as the bank is honest about what the fractional reserve is and what kind of loan policy they have.

Bitcoin doesn't require banks for feature #1 and #2 above. #3 and #4 would require banks.

Storing gold is a security concern, even for banks. Governments, thieves, and mobs have proven in history to plunder both foriegn and domestic banks.

=========

I think I've answered your first question (what is the alternative, and what would cause there to be a diversity of banks (decentralized) instead of there being a monopoly in the free market)

Now for your second question, whats the difference between decentralized issuence of money and central?

1. When a decentralized bank defaults, only the depositors of that bank suffer. Responsibility and losses are all directly risked by the willing customers. When the central bank defaults everyone who uses the fiat money suffers due to the loss in purchasing power of their inflated money. Increasing the money supply ("quantatative easing" and devaluation (when gold backed)) is a fractional default.
2. With decentralization, you have competition, where banks compete to offer the best interest rates and lowest fees. Interest rates are determined by free market preference of needing consumer goods now versus investing in longer term producer capital. With centralization, there is much less incentive to improve efficiency, offer different kinds of services, or offer better service.

More on interest rates: Right now for example, we are all stuck with one option of being able to take really big loans at a low interest rate (which is nice), but low interest rates are coming package dealt with 10% annual inflation and no chance of earning much interest on money market accounts, CDs, and bonds. Basically this is causing the evaporation of savings and longer term producer capital.

Why is there little manufacturing jobs in the US? Why do we buy cheap stuff at walmart instead of more durable goods? Because the interest rate is forced too low on us by the Federal Reserve's monopoly on money, which is enforced by their paid off buddies in the Federal Government.

Centralization of banking gives the government (or government privilaged monopoly) waaaaaay too much power. Basically you are giving the owners of the centralized bank the power to fabricate as much money as they want to buy whatever they want, including buy out the few elected officials in the government. Minor point here: if we had more heads/seat count in the House of Representatives and Congress, it would be much more costly for the bankers and corrupt businesses to lobby.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild said, "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." He was no dimwit. His legacy is, no question, using their ability to fabricate money to rule the world.

"brant, you can make your own money now and trade it among others who make their own money now (as shown by my example of local currencies) So why don't you? I'm thinking because it is simpler to use the standard dollar knowing that it will be excepted by nearly everyone and it has an agreed upon value. That won't change (that I see) if we don't have a Fed. You think it will?

See E-Gold and NORFED. If you try to compete then you will be prosecuted for money laundering and/or "counterfieting" and get all of your gold/silver taken from you.

"you said that when governments make the standard unit they tend to over or underestimate the amount of money in circulation. First of all, the Fed is not being run by the government. Its a private bank that does its own thing and hardly reveals its reasons to the public. Second, while that still leads to inflation, are you saying that we wouldn't have those problems if there wasn't a government backed standard unit? I made this thread because I'm not seeing who we would avoid the exact same policies

Correct, the Fed isnot being run by the government. Its the other way around: The government is being run by the Fed. Yes, private banks might inflate their money supply, no problem, as long as they don't default (or fractionally default). And even if they do default, its a local problem for their customers. Customers of other banks don't get screwed. If one bank goes down and this causes a chian reaction of defaults... still, this is better than FDIC where everyone who holds dollars is forced to pay for a bank's default (through bailout->inflation).

[Brant Gaede]

The US economy and the world's is built off the central banking model and they will not suffer radical revision without a deflationary-depressionary implosion even if done "right." The additional problem of no one knowing how to do it "right" would only make things worse. Central banks and their countries will never give up their monetary power. The immediate problem is the euro which should never have come into being. The euro is only the old German currency benefiting Germany at the others' expense. All the other euro currency countries have given up their monetary-economic autonomy. Each country should have its own currency and issue debt or acquire debt only in its own currency. When the relative value of one currency gets out of whack relative to the others that country would have to adjust the loseness or tightness of it or suffer in its trade. All currencies are "fiat." That does not mean they are valueless. They are all valued by somebody. Gold is not a currency for it is not used in trade nor can it be rationally priced as a currency even if one big and rich country tried to go on a gold standard via the central banking model. The gold would be either sucked in or sucked out. The debt model of economic functioning would collapse and international trade an unsolvable mess. There is not enough gold in the world considering population and general level of wealth for it to go world-wide as an intrinsic assert. Other commodities and assets would need to be put into a "basket." Etc., even if myriad countries had any to do that--most don't. Gold is insurance, that's all. (Let it be priced in multiples of cost of production and you'll have an environmental mining catastrophe.)

--Brant