Reply to: Is the US rapidly becoming a failed state due to its free market policies?

[Robinho]

I thought you were going to stop talking to me?

[doodab]

Thanks for being so charitable. You're right, i am wasting my life talking to morons like you.

Yeah, you should stick to morons who can't read then you might have a chance.

[Robinho]

TBH I'm going to stop replying to you now cos life is too short to waste arguing with people who haven't got a clue what they are talking about.

Thanks for being so charitable. You're right, i am wasting my life talking to morons like you.

[xoggoth]

I think also that the inequalities you speak of have always existed, indeed, been far greater than they are now. Parts of the Southern states, particularly the black areas, have been pretty third world but the nation as a whole performed well.

Various studies have indicated that extremes of inequality are damaging and there is a case for trying to bring the lower achievers up provided you can succeed. If you can't, you are just damaging the incentive of the performers to no purpose. Maybe if people really have the capacity to succeed then they will do it without execssive subsidy from others.

[doodab]

Yes but they key is that money enforced by the state could not be created. I don't believe you're allowed to create private currencies in the UK, but there are loopholes

You believe wrong. People are free to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or not. There are dozens of alternative local currencies in the UK and the only thing stopping you from setting one up is that it needs to compete in a free market where people tend to prefer money backed by the state.

TBH I'm going to stop replying to you now cos life is too short to waste arguing with people who haven't got a clue what they are talking about.

[xoggoth]

Germany, a country with less than a quarter of its population

That point is silly. A country with a much larger area and population obviously has more capacity for production and a greater internal market and does not need to imort/export as much. After all, the world as a whole has a far greater population than the US and exports nothing.

[Robinho]

And that is exactly what happened. Each bank (or goldsmith) created it's own gold backed paper money. There is in fact nothing to stop people doing the same thing now, in fact there is a roaring trade in "virtual" gold.

Yes but they key is that money enforced by the state could not be created. I don't believe you're allowed to create private currencies in the UK, but there are loopholes.

But the power isn't "granted", it's earned, and it can be earned by anyone with the wherewithal to apply for a banking license.

And it is still not a free market principal.

[doodab]

It is free market if you let banks create their own currencies.

And that is exactly what happened. Each bank (or goldsmith) created it's own gold backed paper money. There is in fact nothing to stop people doing the same thing now, in fact there is a roaring trade in "virtual" gold.

They do have special powers, they are the only line of business that can create money. That is a pretty special power.

But the power isn't "granted", it's earned, and it can be earned by anyone with the wherewithal to apply for a banking license.

[Robinho]

It didn't start out like that. It evolved from a free market system based on gold as the medium of exchange. If your "sound money system" was instigated then the only way to prevent fractional reserve banking from evolving again would be government intervention to stop it.

It is free market if you let banks create their own currencies. But if you say, a bank must use this currency and only it is allowed to create it, then that is government intervention pure and simple.

BTW the government doesn't "grant special powers to banks" so much as vet the organisations allowed to operate as one,

They do have special powers, they are the only line of business that can create money. That is a pretty special power.

for the simple reason that if you let any tom dick and harry have a go you'd have an even bigger shambles than you have now.

That's a great justification. We can only allow these people to create money, so we can only have a massive shambles as supposed to an enormous shambles.

[ZARDOZ]

But it's not unfettered capitalism because the government has granted the banks a special privilege to create money, and thus they can wildly over-leverage themselves. That is crony capitalism.

You can't prevent greed, and it is hard to know what needs to or doesn't need to be regulated before the world goes to hell, so i don't really accept this solution.

If the fundamentals of the system are sound the market will regulate itself, but that is not the case at the minute.

Only a VERY simple system would be able to self regualte satisfactorily. We don't have anything like that in the modern western world. We need laws to avoid chaos when it comes to law and order. Similarly we need to regulate/allow for the human factor as proven time and time again.

[Ignis Fatuus]

What cap'n Bob seems to overlook is that fractional reserve banking is exactly the sort of innovation that the free market produces and it's widespread adoption a brilliant example of competition at work. If full reserve banking resulted in a more efficient allocation of resources then it would be widely adopted.

No. If it resulted in more profit for those doing it, it would be widely adopted.

[doodab]

No it isn't. It is government enforced. The government has a monopoly on money, and it grants special powers to banks. How is that free market?

It didn't start out like that. It evolved from a free market system based on gold as the medium of exchange. If your "sound money system" was instigated then the only way to prevent fractional reserve banking from evolving again would be government intervention to stop it.

BTW the government doesn't "grant special powers to banks" so much as vet the organisations allowed to operate as one, for the simple reason that if you let any tom dick and harry have a go you'd have an even bigger shambles than you have now. You can, if you wish, set up a bank and operate a full reserve system, you can also if you wish introduce your own alternative currency backed by gold. You won't last very long because you'll be outcompeted by organisations that are free to operate differently, in fact the only way you'd survive is if the government made sure the banking market was very unfree indeed.

[Robinho]

We are in debt because of short term emotive thinking which was purely motivated by greed. Short term exceptional profits in exchange for long term catastrophic problems. Banks created Credit Default Swaps in the 90s, goverments left these devices unregualted and unchecked, the economy appeared to be working spiffingly well.

Such things will always happen, hence why unfettered capitalism will never work. But that doesn't matter when the CEOs and senior execs are retired on some Caribean island with several hundred million in the bank while everyone else and their grandchildren pick up the tab. These people are more disgusting than the worst benefit scroungers.

But it's not unfettered capitalism because the government has granted the banks a special privilege to create money, and thus they can wildly over-leverage themselves. That is crony capitalism.

You can't prevent greed, and it is hard to know what needs to or doesn't need to be regulated before the world goes to hell, so i don't really accept this solution.

If the fundamentals of the system are sound the market will regulate itself, but that is not the case at the minute.

[ZARDOZ]

And you wonder if that is why we are 1.X trillion in debt?

We are in debt because of short term emotive thinking which was purely motivated by greed. Short term exceptional profits in exchange for long term catastrophic problems. Banks created Credit Default Swaps in the 90s, goverments left these devices unregualted and unchecked, the economy appeared to be working spiffingly well.

Such things will always happen, hence why unfettered capitalism will never work. But that doesn't matter when the CEOs and senior execs are retired on some Caribean island with several hundred million in the bank while everyone else and their grandchildren pick up the tab. These people are more disgusting than the worst benefit scroungers.

[sasguru]

Your apparent inability to grasp that free markets don't guarantee permanent pre-eminence to any one country in every respect, any more than to one company or even one family.

They certainly don't. That has been my argument all along. Are you on drugs?