4 ms·

> Credit becomes scarce. Growth slows. Prices fall. You got one of those right, Mr. Money Expert. I'll let you try and figure out which one. > If a few rich v

> Credit becomes scarce. Growth slows. Prices fall. You got one of those right, Mr. Money Expert. I'll let you try and figure out which one. > If a few rich veins are discovered, and gold pours onto the market, you effectively have an excessively loose monetary "policy." The thing is, there's no need for a monetary "policy", and effecting one requires coercion. People will use whatever is the most suitable for a medium of exchange. It needs to be durable, easily divisible, valuable, and something that can't be just conjured up in massive quantities. Gold was used because it has these characteristics. Other than that, you just leave people alone, and let them produce real wealth. > your nation could be forced into an ugly monetary situation because you have put money supply outside your control No, that would be a beautiful monetary situation, and "YOU" here can only be the government - some kind of central monopoly on violence that can force people to use its currency instead of whatever had emerged as a reliable medium of exchange. You're still spewing bullshit. In a way, I hope you actually are a government shill whore puppet, instead of someone who wasted several years of his life on a completely clueless economics education.

hapless 13y ago
You have a de facto monetary policy imposed on you whether you like it or not. It is "coercion" only in the sense that it is outside your personal control. This can be the blind "coercion" of a computer algorithm, the unintentional "coercion" of precious metals mining, or it can be the careful determination of a council of bureaucrats and businessmen. Removing people from the equation is an option, but it doesn't remove the market forces.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  > You have a de facto monetary policy imposed on you whether you like it or not. It is "coercion" only in the sense that it is outside your personal control. No, it's coercion because I'm forced to pay taxes in a fiat currency of the government's choosing, and alternative currencies are shut down (by force, of course): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar > This can be the blind "coercion" of a computer algorithm, the unintentional "coercion" of precious metals mining See above. Not that you're being sincere. > Removing people from the equation is an option, but it doesn't remove the market forces. I haven't talked about removing people from the equation. It wouldn't make sense either, because "market forces" consist of people's actions in the market. What else could it be? It's very simple once you grasp even the very basics of how money and economies work.
  - hapless 13y ago
    If you rely on precious metals as money, they make a perfectly good medium of exchange. Unfortunately, the money supply will still change. Imposing a fixed amount of money on the world does not somehow imply that there is a fixed supply of money. This was a central problem in European economies for thousands of years. You hate the central banks. Great. What's your solution? Chaining your economy to precious metals or a computer algorithm is an unpleasant alternative. (An interesting historical option: rather than precious metals, Chinese accounts were historically backed by the productive capacity of the land. i.e. capital was defined in terms of rice. This had its own ugly side-effects. Still, it was, in many ways, less ugly than relying on precious metals, since money supply was at least somewhat correlated with economic activity)

hapless 13y ago

You have a de facto monetary policy imposed on you whether you like it or not. It is "coercion" only in the sense that it is outside your personal control. This can be the blind "coercion" of a computer algorithm, the unintentional "coercion" of precious metals mining, or it can be the careful determination of a council of bureaucrats and businessmen. Removing people from the equation is an option, but it doesn't remove the market forces.

whatevsbro 13y ago
> You have a de facto monetary policy imposed on you whether you like it or not. It is "coercion" only in the sense that it is outside your personal control. No, it's coercion because I'm forced to pay taxes in a fiat currency of the government's choosing, and alternative currencies are shut down (by force, of course): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar > This can be the blind "coercion" of a computer algorithm, the unintentional "coercion" of precious metals mining See above. Not that you're being sincere. > Removing people from the equation is an option, but it doesn't remove the market forces. I haven't talked about removing people from the equation. It wouldn't make sense either, because "market forces" consist of people's actions in the market. What else could it be? It's very simple once you grasp even the very basics of how money and economies work.
- hapless 13y ago
  If you rely on precious metals as money, they make a perfectly good medium of exchange. Unfortunately, the money supply will still change. Imposing a fixed amount of money on the world does not somehow imply that there is a fixed supply of money. This was a central problem in European economies for thousands of years. You hate the central banks. Great. What's your solution? Chaining your economy to precious metals or a computer algorithm is an unpleasant alternative. (An interesting historical option: rather than precious metals, Chinese accounts were historically backed by the productive capacity of the land. i.e. capital was defined in terms of rice. This had its own ugly side-effects. Still, it was, in many ways, less ugly than relying on precious metals, since money supply was at least somewhat correlated with economic activity)