3 ms·

Can you elaborate?

by lottin 5y ago

Can you elaborate?

notch656a 5y ago
Command economy of goods/services/financial instruments leads to inefficient markets. In systems where currency is subject to command economy (perhaps because it is in control by a minority of elected or unelected officials, who have a monopoly of control of the entirety of a national currency), it could result in additive inefficiencies to the entire market if the market is predicated on using that currency in trade. In general industries that are both a monopoly and centrally planned by governance yield sub-optimal results. Some people generally realize this when considering other goods, services, and financial instruments but oddly there are a number of those same people who fail to consider applying this also to currency.
- lottin 5y ago
  Thank you. Currency is not subject to a command economy. Governments don't have a monopoly on the issuance currency. Private entities are free to issue currencies.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    I'm compelled to use US currency. Explain how I can trade 100% in another currency without being required acquire US currency to pay taxes on the profits on my trade. > Private entities are free to issue currencies. Yes and no. The government has a monopoly in some areas. For instance, Liberty Dollar was accused for issuing coinage, despite that coinage never representing itself as legal tender issued by Treasury. [ 18 U.S.C. § 486 ] DoJ suggested at the time they closed in on Liberty Dollar that they could interpret their constitutional authority as also going over restricting private notes in general, but I think the coinage was just their easiest route to secure a felony so they never had to resort to other means they believed they had available. The conviction of Liberty Dollar's owner has been interpreted by some as to set the precedent that silver coinage, when used as a currency, is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 486. There's also the fact of (USD) currency being legal tender for debts (public and private), and it certainly has a position of privilege in that regard. I'm not sure if I could refuse USD as payment for a judgement, if say a contract or other case were taken to court. You also may want to view a glimpse into what the apparatus has to say about private issuance of currency [0]: “Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,” U.S. Attorney Tompkins said in announcing the verdict. “While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country,” she added. “We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.” While it may be technically legal, in practice you may be going to bed every night knowing that both the FBI and US Attorneys are going to bed thinking about how you're a 'domestic terrorist' and dreaming up how to make your life hell. In practice if the state apparatus sees what you are doing is wrong they can find a statute with which to destroy you, if they deem it worth their time. [0] https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/charlotte/press-releases/2011/defendant-convicted-of-minting-his-own-currency https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/charlotte/press-releases/2...
    - lottin 5y ago
      Freedom to use a currency doesn't mean that you can force others to accept said currency. Depending on your choice of a currency you may find nobody that will accept it. Yes, this means you'll be compelled to use whatever currency is the generally accepted medium of exchange in the area where you live. No, that doesn't mean that you live in a "command economy". Freedom works both ways.
      - notch656a 5y ago
        I control-f our conversation and the only mention I saw of 'free' or' freedom' was from yourself, not me. Are you debating with yourself? If freedom to use a currency means that you can't force others to transact in it, then by your own definition we don't have freedom. I'm forced to pay taxes in US Currency whether I want to or not, whether I consent to it or not, even if I have no US currency and never once traded in it nor do I consent to any transaction in USD. I'm compelled to obtain USD.
        lottin 5y ago
        So you weren't talking about freedom (or lack thereof) when you were rambling about a "command economy"? Then, sorry, I missed your point.
        notch656a 5y ago
        >freedom [freedom] Is a very nebulous concept, I guess it's up to your interpretation as to whether our topic concerns freedom. But sure, it's probably not unreasonable to bring up the comment of freedom, I just wanted to make clear you were the one that introduced the notion of freedom. I find discuss on word 'freedom' are often incredibly difficult to get anything useful out of, because it's such a difficult word to define and work with. I was talking about command economy of the compelled currency USD, which holds a priveleged legal position in that unlike any other currency in US I have a legal duty and responsibility to transact in it (taxes are the most obvious of these). The combination of the compulsion, plus the central planning performed by a minority of elected and unelected government officials makes it a 'command economy' of USD for which there is no substitute; it is monopolized. It is simply illegal to trade and use a private currency as a full substitute for USD, and doubly so if you mint coinage. I believe this monopolized command economy has yielded sub-optimal results, such as the temptation for governments to deliberately debase currency.

Can you elaborate?

by lottin 5y ago

Can you elaborate?

Command economy of goods/services/financial instruments leads to inefficient markets. In systems where currency is subject to command economy (perhaps because it is in control by a minority of elected or unelected officials, who have a monopoly of control of the entirety of a national currency), it could result in additive inefficiencies to the entire market if the market is predicated on using that currency in trade. In general industries that are both a monopoly and centrally planned by governance yield sub-optimal results. Some people generally realize this when considering other goods, services, and financial instruments but oddly there are a number of those same people who fail to consider applying this also to currency.

lottin 5y ago
Thank you. Currency is not subject to a command economy. Governments don't have a monopoly on the issuance currency. Private entities are free to issue currencies.
- notch656a 5y ago
  I'm compelled to use US currency. Explain how I can trade 100% in another currency without being required acquire US currency to pay taxes on the profits on my trade. > Private entities are free to issue currencies. Yes and no. The government has a monopoly in some areas. For instance, Liberty Dollar was accused for issuing coinage, despite that coinage never representing itself as legal tender issued by Treasury. [ 18 U.S.C. § 486 ] DoJ suggested at the time they closed in on Liberty Dollar that they could interpret their constitutional authority as also going over restricting private notes in general, but I think the coinage was just their easiest route to secure a felony so they never had to resort to other means they believed they had available. The conviction of Liberty Dollar's owner has been interpreted by some as to set the precedent that silver coinage, when used as a currency, is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 486. There's also the fact of (USD) currency being legal tender for debts (public and private), and it certainly has a position of privilege in that regard. I'm not sure if I could refuse USD as payment for a judgement, if say a contract or other case were taken to court. You also may want to view a glimpse into what the apparatus has to say about private issuance of currency [0]: “Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,” U.S. Attorney Tompkins said in announcing the verdict. “While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country,” she added. “We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.” While it may be technically legal, in practice you may be going to bed every night knowing that both the FBI and US Attorneys are going to bed thinking about how you're a 'domestic terrorist' and dreaming up how to make your life hell. In practice if the state apparatus sees what you are doing is wrong they can find a statute with which to destroy you, if they deem it worth their time. [0] https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/charlotte/press-releases/2011/defendant-convicted-of-minting-his-own-currency https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/charlotte/press-releases/2...
  - lottin 5y ago
    Freedom to use a currency doesn't mean that you can force others to accept said currency. Depending on your choice of a currency you may find nobody that will accept it. Yes, this means you'll be compelled to use whatever currency is the generally accepted medium of exchange in the area where you live. No, that doesn't mean that you live in a "command economy". Freedom works both ways.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      I control-f our conversation and the only mention I saw of 'free' or' freedom' was from yourself, not me. Are you debating with yourself? If freedom to use a currency means that you can't force others to transact in it, then by your own definition we don't have freedom. I'm forced to pay taxes in US Currency whether I want to or not, whether I consent to it or not, even if I have no US currency and never once traded in it nor do I consent to any transaction in USD. I'm compelled to obtain USD.
      - lottin 5y ago
        So you weren't talking about freedom (or lack thereof) when you were rambling about a "command economy"? Then, sorry, I missed your point.
        notch656a 5y ago
        >freedom [freedom] Is a very nebulous concept, I guess it's up to your interpretation as to whether our topic concerns freedom. But sure, it's probably not unreasonable to bring up the comment of freedom, I just wanted to make clear you were the one that introduced the notion of freedom. I find discuss on word 'freedom' are often incredibly difficult to get anything useful out of, because it's such a difficult word to define and work with. I was talking about command economy of the compelled currency USD, which holds a priveleged legal position in that unlike any other currency in US I have a legal duty and responsibility to transact in it (taxes are the most obvious of these). The combination of the compulsion, plus the central planning performed by a minority of elected and unelected government officials makes it a 'command economy' of USD for which there is no substitute; it is monopolized. It is simply illegal to trade and use a private currency as a full substitute for USD, and doubly so if you mint coinage. I believe this monopolized command economy has yielded sub-optimal results, such as the temptation for governments to deliberately debase currency.