—“Millennials today are 19th century Russian serfs, in a gig economy – they don’t own anything, or have any kids … because the public is intentionally economically ignorant … they’ve destroyed the middle class.”— Steve Bannon (today)
Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy
-
“Millennials today are 19th century Russian serfs, in a gig economy – they don’t
-
“Millennials today are 19th century Russian serfs, in a gig economy – they don’t
—“Millennials today are 19th century Russian serfs, in a gig economy – they don’t own anything, or have any kids … because the public is intentionally economically ignorant … they’ve destroyed the middle class.”— Steve Bannon (today)
-
Your Basic Lesson on Money (currency) and 99% of Everything You Ever Need to Kno
Your Basic Lesson on Money (currency) and 99% of Everything You Ever Need to Know https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/your-basic-lesson-on-money-currency-and-99-of-everything-you-ever-need-to-know/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 22:23:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265045816655429632
-
Your Basic Lesson on Money (currency) and 99% of Everything You Ever Need to Know
Jan 15, 2020, 1:04 PM
—“Could you please explain what you mean by “the problem of hard currency”?”—Niklas Wagner
0) Money Proper means Commodity Money (a commodity used for monetary purposes in exchange. It must be light and of limited volume, and indexed (with a measurement), and either scarce by it’s limited existence in the natural world or very difficult to replicate and therefore artificially scarce. 1) A money substitute is anything used in place of money proper. Currency is one of the many types of money substitutes. Currency began as ‘Notes’, which were literally tickets that could be redeemed for money proper. 2) Hard currency means a currency(money substitute) backed by, and redeemable for, commodity money (gold, silver, etc). 3) Soft currency means unbacked by or redeemable for, commodity money (gold, silver, etc), or only partly backed by commodity money, or interests in real property (liens). 5) Shares are a tradable commodity backed only by market demand for them – but granting (fictitious) rights in case of liquidity (bankruptcy or sale). 4) Fiat money is a share in the economy (government really), that is used as a soft currency substitute, that like shares, when printed, decreases the value (purchasing power) of other existing shares. In theory we would produce the same amount of new fiat money as we increased value in the country overall. THEREFORE Hard currency runs short whenever economic velocity increases, and so it appreciates, but it appreciates without contribution to production. Interest on lending to business and industry contributes to production. So appreciation on currency is a form of free riding (rent seeking), where interest in production is not. Fiat currency that prohibits currency appreciation but does not create purchasing power depreciation, prevents free riding on currency appreciation but preserves interest returns that contribute to production. This is, in large part, why the government targets interest rates to judge the money supply. However, they also try to target unemployment. this is the mistake. We can push money from consumers to the banking system for free instead of charging consumers and profiting the banking system. —More by William L. Benge— The Road to Commonwealth, Insurer of Last Resort.
We know that gold and other forms of money were not always controlled by secular authorities as (or, in the manner in which) they presently are.
Since we hold (successfully argue for) that government must (and does) satisfy utility as insurer of last resort, we are forced by the same to acknowledge the legitimacy of what is NATIONAL fiat currency and what is fair finance for domestics. This is not strained reasoning, simply more nuanced.
-
Your Basic Lesson on Money (currency) and 99% of Everything You Ever Need to Know
Jan 15, 2020, 1:04 PM
—“Could you please explain what you mean by “the problem of hard currency”?”—Niklas Wagner
0) Money Proper means Commodity Money (a commodity used for monetary purposes in exchange. It must be light and of limited volume, and indexed (with a measurement), and either scarce by it’s limited existence in the natural world or very difficult to replicate and therefore artificially scarce. 1) A money substitute is anything used in place of money proper. Currency is one of the many types of money substitutes. Currency began as ‘Notes’, which were literally tickets that could be redeemed for money proper. 2) Hard currency means a currency(money substitute) backed by, and redeemable for, commodity money (gold, silver, etc). 3) Soft currency means unbacked by or redeemable for, commodity money (gold, silver, etc), or only partly backed by commodity money, or interests in real property (liens). 5) Shares are a tradable commodity backed only by market demand for them – but granting (fictitious) rights in case of liquidity (bankruptcy or sale). 4) Fiat money is a share in the economy (government really), that is used as a soft currency substitute, that like shares, when printed, decreases the value (purchasing power) of other existing shares. In theory we would produce the same amount of new fiat money as we increased value in the country overall. THEREFORE Hard currency runs short whenever economic velocity increases, and so it appreciates, but it appreciates without contribution to production. Interest on lending to business and industry contributes to production. So appreciation on currency is a form of free riding (rent seeking), where interest in production is not. Fiat currency that prohibits currency appreciation but does not create purchasing power depreciation, prevents free riding on currency appreciation but preserves interest returns that contribute to production. This is, in large part, why the government targets interest rates to judge the money supply. However, they also try to target unemployment. this is the mistake. We can push money from consumers to the banking system for free instead of charging consumers and profiting the banking system. —More by William L. Benge— The Road to Commonwealth, Insurer of Last Resort.
We know that gold and other forms of money were not always controlled by secular authorities as (or, in the manner in which) they presently are.
Since we hold (successfully argue for) that government must (and does) satisfy utility as insurer of last resort, we are forced by the same to acknowledge the legitimacy of what is NATIONAL fiat currency and what is fair finance for domestics. This is not strained reasoning, simply more nuanced.
-
On Fiat Currency and Bank Bail-Outs
On Fiat Currency and Bank Bail-Outs https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/on-fiat-currency-and-bank-bail-outs/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 22:22:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265045643397136385
-
On Fiat Currency and Bank Bail-Outs
Jan 15, 2020, 1:25 PM
—“Thank you! I guess I have to unlearn the libertarian notion that fiat currencies are always some kind of fraud or manipulation game. Would there be bailouts for banks under the propertarian government?”— Niklas Wagner
Great question. 1) Fiat currencies are an exception innovation in monetary technology as is digital (electronic) transfer of interests rather than physical currency or money. However, with that graet innovation comes (and came) great opportunity for hideous corruption. The federal reserve (like the bank of England) is incompatible with fiat money, and incompatible with electronic money. In other words, all that interest should be accumulating in the hands of the INSURER (the treasury). And worse, there is no reason to use the banking system and interest to distribute money (increase the money supply). Imagine the government putting out a trillion dollars, and the banks offering you 5x on that money so that they could lend it out at 6-15x to commercial institutions? You see. I think sh-t thru. 😉 This would make a very awesome economic system. 2) As for ‘bailouts’…. We would still have the treasury take over banks. Taking over a bank and liquidating the creditors and shareholders is not ‘bailing it out’. Most banks were not bailed out – they were taken over. Only the big banks were bailed out. We only ‘bailed out’ the big banks because the treasury does not own the cash distribution network (ATM’s etc) This would have lead to world economic collapse. We did not however punish anyone and liquidate shareholders. That should have been done. Furthermore we did not do as I recommended, and Galbraith recommended and a few others timidly, which was simply to pay down everyone’s mortgage by as much as 200k, which would have f—ked the financial sector by externality and ended the crisis immediately. It also would have corrected housing prices. It was an obvious solution. But no. Politicians were involved and the financial sector was involved. Instead of saving the middle class we burned the middle class. Thankfully it’s reversible. Under P-constitution banks would be commercial not consumer entities. This would collapse much of the banking sector. And it would isolate bad bank behavior somewhat to commercial banks – which would benefit consumers when it happened.
-
On Fiat Currency and Bank Bail-Outs
Jan 15, 2020, 1:25 PM
—“Thank you! I guess I have to unlearn the libertarian notion that fiat currencies are always some kind of fraud or manipulation game. Would there be bailouts for banks under the propertarian government?”— Niklas Wagner
Great question. 1) Fiat currencies are an exception innovation in monetary technology as is digital (electronic) transfer of interests rather than physical currency or money. However, with that graet innovation comes (and came) great opportunity for hideous corruption. The federal reserve (like the bank of England) is incompatible with fiat money, and incompatible with electronic money. In other words, all that interest should be accumulating in the hands of the INSURER (the treasury). And worse, there is no reason to use the banking system and interest to distribute money (increase the money supply). Imagine the government putting out a trillion dollars, and the banks offering you 5x on that money so that they could lend it out at 6-15x to commercial institutions? You see. I think sh-t thru. 😉 This would make a very awesome economic system. 2) As for ‘bailouts’…. We would still have the treasury take over banks. Taking over a bank and liquidating the creditors and shareholders is not ‘bailing it out’. Most banks were not bailed out – they were taken over. Only the big banks were bailed out. We only ‘bailed out’ the big banks because the treasury does not own the cash distribution network (ATM’s etc) This would have lead to world economic collapse. We did not however punish anyone and liquidate shareholders. That should have been done. Furthermore we did not do as I recommended, and Galbraith recommended and a few others timidly, which was simply to pay down everyone’s mortgage by as much as 200k, which would have f—ked the financial sector by externality and ended the crisis immediately. It also would have corrected housing prices. It was an obvious solution. But no. Politicians were involved and the financial sector was involved. Instead of saving the middle class we burned the middle class. Thankfully it’s reversible. Under P-constitution banks would be commercial not consumer entities. This would collapse much of the banking sector. And it would isolate bad bank behavior somewhat to commercial banks – which would benefit consumers when it happened.
-
Are Consumers Sovereign?
Are Consumers Sovereign? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/are-consumers-sovereign/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 22:21:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265045355361701888
-
Are Consumers Sovereign?
Jan 15, 2020, 3:06 PM No. Because with large corporations we need via-negativa in courts to be able to correct bad behavior. And the state (politicians) are too easily (and frequently) bought. Furthermore they are too economically illiterate to comprehend the choices, and left-economists too dominant as consultants. (Obama only asked left wing jewish economists: Krugman Stiglitz etc). P-Constitution restores the courts as a market for defense of the commons. P-economics restores the financial assets made possible by fiat currency to the state (people), while still permitting bankers, thereby splitting the consumer credit economy, the medium term economy, and the long term economy, to the consumer, business banks, and actors on behalf of the treasury, so that commissions are possible but profits more so, and vast sums can be put to work in the world. As such we WEAPONIZE THE AMERICAN ECONOMY. This is important. P-constitution weaponizes the economy for american (western) interests as have the Chinese at the cost of the major banks (JPM, GS, Citi, HSBC etc). If the People insure the investment then the people obtain the rewards of their risk. For big thinkers this means that we can drive the investment chain further into the future with heavier capital investment using the state, the financial sector can industrialize the application of whatever opportunities those technologies and benefits that can arise. The consumer sector can (interest free) seize the gains. And the proceeds can be directed to commons, so that the work week can be reduced and the working mother population reduced to produce more offspring. (one of the investments needs to be artificial wombs it seems.)