9 ms·

What is a coercive currency and which economists suggest it?

by Weltan 13y ago

oleganza 13y ago
USD is "legal tender" which is direct coercion (you must accept USD as payment for a debt). Indirect coercion is multitudes of currency controls, capital controls, taxation, banking licenses etc. All the laws and regulations backed by well-oiled guns of SWAT teams that prevent people from easily trading and saving in whatever currency they want. Starting with Keynes and finishing with Krugman, Bernanke and Appelbaum who suggest forcing people to spend more by printing more money and increasing inflation. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/business/economy/in-fed-and-out-many-now-think-inflation-helps.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1383055318-US6B1kqVvYmzzWslTAUFDw http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/business/economy/in-fed-an...
- Weltan 13y ago
  I see, so a coercive currency is just fiat currency (or just currency) with an appended modifier. This modifier itself is then qualified with 'indirect' because the regulations enabling the use of these currencies is backed by government force which, although rarely utilised in the context of the commercial transaction, is ever-present. In relation to this indirect coercion these economists are (directly? or indirectly?) forcing people to spend money through monetary policy. Is that about right in standard parlance?
  - oleganza 13y ago
    Ok, my bad. The currency itself can hardly be called "coercive". Coercion is done by people to people. When I was talking about economic policies, I meant this recipe: 1. Establish a government-issued currency that it can print when it wants. 2. Make people use this currency by creating barriers to other currencies and forcing people to accept it as payment for debts. 3. Print money according to some made up theory on what's better for society and give this money to whoever needs it it more (according to a theory at hand).
pjc50 13y ago
This is the weird libertarian view of "coerciveness" where having to participate in a society with other people is a gross imposition but being fireable instantly at the whim of your employer is not coercive.
- Weltan 13y ago
  I'm aware of the strange views of Libertarians, but I'd never heard a currency itself marked as coercive! I agree: It's a strange view of coercion where getting fired and ending up on the street provided you're fired by a private employer is less a coercive act than having to pay a percentage of your income for social benefit, or, worse yet it seems, having to use a 'coercive currency'.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    Protection from being fired comes with a cost. Less people are willing to open companies and easily hire people to do job if they are afraid that they wouldn't be able to fire inefficient workers. All "unemployment" is government creation due to either "free" stuff like unemployment benefits or to regulations that prohibit some employers from hiring you.
    - Weltan 13y ago
      Are you suggesting that in a society without a government there would be no unemployment? (To clarify, unemployment is the opposite of employment. Unemployment is 'not working'.) On your first point, it's not whether or not it comes with a cost that is the relevant question. The relevant question is: If it does come with a cost, does the cost justify the benefits and/or are we willing to pay the cost?
      - oleganza 13y ago
        Unemployment will always be voluntary. I'm not employed on Sundays, Saturdays and during vacations absolutely voluntarily. I'm employed 16 hours in a row some days absolutely voluntarily. Unemployment is involuntary when there are people who are willing to pay for some work and people who are willing to earn that for that work, but they can't meet together because: 1) wage is below government-approved limit or 2) this type of job is forbidden, or 3) employer cannot fire the person when the job is done or 4) it's damn too expensive to even start filing all papers to hire someone.

What is a coercive currency and which economists suggest it?

by Weltan 13y ago

What is a coercive currency and which economists suggest it?

USD is "legal tender" which is direct coercion (you must accept USD as payment for a debt). Indirect coercion is multitudes of currency controls, capital controls, taxation, banking licenses etc. All the laws and regulations backed by well-oiled guns of SWAT teams that prevent people from easily trading and saving in whatever currency they want. Starting with Keynes and finishing with Krugman, Bernanke and Appelbaum who suggest forcing people to spend more by printing more money and increasing inflation. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/business/economy/in-fed-and-out-many-now-think-inflation-helps.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1383055318-US6B1kqVvYmzzWslTAUFDw http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/business/economy/in-fed-an...

Weltan 13y ago
I see, so a coercive currency is just fiat currency (or just currency) with an appended modifier. This modifier itself is then qualified with 'indirect' because the regulations enabling the use of these currencies is backed by government force which, although rarely utilised in the context of the commercial transaction, is ever-present. In relation to this indirect coercion these economists are (directly? or indirectly?) forcing people to spend money through monetary policy. Is that about right in standard parlance?
- oleganza 13y ago
  Ok, my bad. The currency itself can hardly be called "coercive". Coercion is done by people to people. When I was talking about economic policies, I meant this recipe: 1. Establish a government-issued currency that it can print when it wants. 2. Make people use this currency by creating barriers to other currencies and forcing people to accept it as payment for debts. 3. Print money according to some made up theory on what's better for society and give this money to whoever needs it it more (according to a theory at hand).

pjc50 13y ago

This is the weird libertarian view of "coerciveness" where having to participate in a society with other people is a gross imposition but being fireable instantly at the whim of your employer is not coercive.

Weltan 13y ago
I'm aware of the strange views of Libertarians, but I'd never heard a currency itself marked as coercive! I agree: It's a strange view of coercion where getting fired and ending up on the street provided you're fired by a private employer is less a coercive act than having to pay a percentage of your income for social benefit, or, worse yet it seems, having to use a 'coercive currency'.
- oleganza 13y ago
  Protection from being fired comes with a cost. Less people are willing to open companies and easily hire people to do job if they are afraid that they wouldn't be able to fire inefficient workers. All "unemployment" is government creation due to either "free" stuff like unemployment benefits or to regulations that prohibit some employers from hiring you.
  - Weltan 13y ago
    Are you suggesting that in a society without a government there would be no unemployment? (To clarify, unemployment is the opposite of employment. Unemployment is 'not working'.) On your first point, it's not whether or not it comes with a cost that is the relevant question. The relevant question is: If it does come with a cost, does the cost justify the benefits and/or are we willing to pay the cost?
    - oleganza 13y ago
      Unemployment will always be voluntary. I'm not employed on Sundays, Saturdays and during vacations absolutely voluntarily. I'm employed 16 hours in a row some days absolutely voluntarily. Unemployment is involuntary when there are people who are willing to pay for some work and people who are willing to earn that for that work, but they can't meet together because: 1) wage is below government-approved limit or 2) this type of job is forbidden, or 3) employer cannot fire the person when the job is done or 4) it's damn too expensive to even start filing all papers to hire someone.