This should be a good discussion. I hope I don't/didn't come across as condescending. I do thoroughly disagree with almost all of your points so
far, but I'll attempt to do so as respectfully as possible.
Originally posted by ianr5741
Since virtually all money that comes into existence in the United States does so as an interest-bearing loan.
I wouldn't go so far as to say all. Perhaps "much," but keep in mind that new technologies, and thus, new capital, new industries, and new markets
are constantly being created. Further, much of the money being generated is value-added. So not all money equals a net zero sum to the goods behind
it. Much of that value is floating, and thus, very difficult to measure.
Originally posted by ianr5741
...there is more debt out there than there is money. It would take 4 earths of wealth to pay off all the debts owed to banks. Now, I know this
doesn't jive with common sense but this is the result of compound interest.
Not exactly. You're still thinking in terms of Mercantilism. You're imagining "Money" as a finite resource with a definite boundary, like the gold
standard. A better word for what you are thinking of is Hard Currency. If all money were Hard Currency, then, yes, it would take far more wealth than
actually exists to pay off all the debt.
However, in point of fact, we are a Soft Currency system. And just as money is created when debts are lent, money is destroyed as debt becomes repaid.
The why's and wherefores, and how it balloons up to such a monumental amount of floating cash versus real cash is tied up in countless tables as well
as speculation, which is the natural state of a free market.
Originally posted by ianr5741
Yes, there are layers and processes in place to obfuscate the fact that the Federal Reserve is creating money. I'm trying to keep it simple.
In "keeping it simple" though, you're keeping it wrong.
It'd be like me crediting the mayor with running our school system. It's two entirely different institutions with different jobs. A lot of people
who are only marginally familiar with the process like to bag on the Federal Reserve until they really learn about it. The need for it goes back as
far as the Revolutionary War and the Articles of Confederation. Without knowledge of history, and what happened to the country and banks after
Jefferson destroyed the first Bank of the United States, and what happened after Jackson destroyed the second Bank of the United States, you don't
really have a firm grasp as to what happens when you DON'T have a central banking authority setting minimum standards for currency and lending
practices.
I'm not saying the Fed is the end-all be-all, nor am I saying it is without fault. What I am saying is that people who think it needs to be
abolished, without a suitable replacement, just don't have a proper grasp of history and economics. All they're doing is cashing in on a general
resentment of "The Man", of whom the Fed is easily identified with.
One of the first examples of long-term failure in your system is a lack of recognizable universal standard to prevent fraud and counterfeiting.
What's to stop me from selling, say, a single piece of candy, taking the scrip for "1 point" and then going home and, using resourcefulness,
turning that scrip into 10 points, or 100 points? What is to prevent me as the merchant from simply writing up thousands of points worth of scrip and
then, when people come to collect, I simply deny having ever written it, and accuse the scrip of being counterfeit? Who would arbit such a situation?
The Market? Certainly not! Their interests would always be with the merchants, in the mind of the customer. The police? How are they to recognize
legit currency from one store to another if there is no universal standard?
Originally posted by ianr5741
When "currency" is created by producers, not banks, then immediately spent, it makes it much more difficult to manipulate the value of the currency
itself, because there is little time and no middlemen between the buying and selling process.
This is the second example of the long-term failure of your Barter Market Truck System. You wrongfully assume that everyone wants to spend their
currency right away. This is not the case. If I'm a farmer, I live and die by the harvest. If I'm smart, then after I sell all my harvest, I keep
enough savings to see me through the winter till next planting season, when I buy the extra workers, seed, equipment, etc, that I will need to do the
job. What if I get 50,000 points worth of scrip from a store and hold on to it through the winter only to find that, next season, the store has packed
up and left town?
Who will honor my scrip? Since there is no universal standard from store to store, they have no reason to accept my scrip from another store, and in
fact, they'd be nuts to accept it.
Originally posted by ianr5741
When Ben "Helicopter" Bernanke bails out huge banks and investment companies with hundreds of billions of dollars, would you say that has a
potential of upsetting the "careful balance" of supply and demand for money?
Bernanke may not be Greenspan, but he's also not a complete idiot. His policies are different, and he caves more to Bush than he should, but to be
perfectly honest, Chairman of the Fed is one of those jobs the Media doesn't understand, and buzzwords like "Helicopter Bernanke" do little to
invoke any reaction from me.
Further, the bailout of Bear Sternes was an absolute necessity, unless you'd rather millions of people suddenly lose everything in their accounts,
which would cause hundreds, if not thousands of times more damage to the system than a few billion in assumed debt. I'm not happy about the
situation, but I'm not happy about it in the same way I'd not be happy about having to have a lung removed if it was diagnosed with lung cancer. It
sucks, but it was the only way to save the rest of the body.
Originally posted by ianr5741
Letting "economists" use bureaucracy to artificially manipulate the value of a monopoly money forced on the population without choice seems to be
the problem - they abuse this privilege to their advantage, and our loss. (Hasn't history proven that?) What I'm advocating here is choice. The
Fed system is a monopoly on currency creation.
Here we disagree. You somehow, and I believe wrongfully, assume the altruistic motive of the yeoman trader. A Norman Rockwellian world where the
kindly apple-merchant trades a fair sum of an apple for a newspaper. This is absolutely not the case.
Everyone is out for themselves in the
world of trade. If they weren't, they'd be in the business of Charity, not trade.
Originally posted by ianr5741
Exactly. And if the seller of the orange doesn't like it, he walks down to the street to the next store, offering something more agreeable. This is
what free markets are all about. You get what you can get, and so does everybody else, depending on supply and demand. Letting a handful of
egomaniacs at the top of a pyramid system decide for everybody else makes the system unnatural and corrupted.
Which brings to mind the third failing of your truck system: A lack of coherent universal value to the scrip.
Store A: Deals in Paper Goods (titles, books, diplomas, contracts)
Store B: Deals in Construction (barn raising, house building, repairs)
Store C: Deals in Kitchen Goods (pots, pans, pottery, utensils)
Now, the first problem you run into here is that there's no reason for any of these stores to really interact. The Construction store might
occasionally a book, or maybe a jug for some water from the Kitchen store, but overall, none of them really need or want each other's services except
on a very occasional basis.
This causes immediate economic stagnantion, as no goods are traded between the stores. Howevever, each store will take just about any good or service
in exchange for their store's personal scrip.
Now here's where your bigger problem comes into play. You are a Farmer, with a harvest of Apples. Because Apples are a seasonal item, and there's
almost no-long distance commerce, every apple vendor in town is going to be flooding the market with apples. Store A and B only offer you 1 point per
bushel of apples, because the market is flooded. Store C might offer you 5 points per bushel, but since thost points are only valid at Store C, unless
you need Kitchen Goods, it's pointless to sell to them, when what you really need is a new grain silo to be build by Store B.
Now winter is fast approaching, Store B has more business than they can handle, and are rapidly raising their prices to far more than what you could
make by selling apples to them. Now unless Store B accepts the Scrip from Store C, then you are simply out of luck. You either sell all your apples to
Store B and hope that not only is Store B around next year, but that you make up enough Apple Sales next year to buy that grain silo, or you sell to
Store C, which offers you scrip for stuff you don't want or need.
So let's say B accepts scrip from C. What incentive do they have not to completely screw one another now? After all, they are simply creating
currency out of the clear blue air. So if they know you need a grain silo, and don't want anything from their store, but they could use your apples,
they might now offer you 100p per apple, and write you a nice fat scrip for the lot. Then you go to Store B, and present them with a scrip for enough
to buy that grain silo.
At the end of the day, Store B needs to balance its books, so it goes to Store A to collect the scrip. Store A offers Apples, which it knows Store B
won't want. Store B also doesn't want Kitchen goods, but supposes they'll take some of both and sell them as best they can. Except now Store A
demands 500p per bushel of apples, and ten times their normal amount for kitchen supplies. Store B now either takes a massive loss on their scrip, all
to the benefit of Store A, or they get nothing at all. And to make matters worse, they STILL have to build that grain silo, which is now costing them
far more than they got from the scrip for Store A.
THIS is what the Fed prevents. Granted, they are elitist yobs working for their own self-interest, but they are doing so in a way that keeps the
economy stable and growing. That's not altruism, that's reality. And that's why things like Bear Stearnes DIDN'T completely destroy our economy,
but rather gave it a couple of days news.
Originally posted by ianr5741
Further, the store wouldn't be owned by a company, it would be owned by the customers.
You mean communism then. Let's call an apple an apple. If you aren't talking about private ownership, you're talking about state property. At this
point the currency becomes little more than a requisition form. From each according to their means, to each according to their needs. Right? If so,
we're having two completely different conversations.
Originally posted by ianr5741
Last, there couldn't be economic enslavement going on because anyone and everyone can participate to the degree they want to.
Hahahahah! Right. You can
volunteer to participate in having something to eat. You have have
freedom of choice to obtain fresh water.
You have
liberty to choose to build a house of of building materials. And you have the choice NOT to do any of the above, at the expense of
food, water, and shelter. It gets worse from there.
Originally posted by ianr5741
Farmer's markets already exist. I'm just advocating payment of goods with goods. When "universal money" comes into play, counterfeiters smile
with glee.
Those two sentances demonstrate a decided lack of understanding about either. I frequent our Farmer's Market constantly. The farmers do not drop off
a load of apples to pick up a load of squash. I don't show up with a collection of used books and get a bucket of tomatoes instead. The farmers sell
their produce for MONEY. I give the Farmer's Market MONEY for the fruit and veg I want. The FED ensures that the market is stable enough to
accomodate all three of us in a somewhat fair and reasonable fashion, even if it is not a utopian one.
Further, counterfeiters do not "smile with glee" at universal money. On the contrary, it is orders of magnitude easier to be a counterfeiter when
you are dealing with more than one currency, and it goes up from there. Just ask any bank teller. 90% of the time, the way they catch a counterfeit
U.S. dollar from a real one is by the feel, as they handle the same exact money day in and day out. Now imagine if all 50 states had their own money.
There's no way you could get that kind of professional feel and knowledge about all 50 currencies that you could to the degree you get with one
universal currency.
Still, some counterfeit money gets through, and that's with professionals who do nothing but handle money all day long, and CONSTANT updates and
alerts from messaging systems. Now take it to the scale of Maw and Paw kettle, operating a fruit-stand three months out of the year, dealing with 50
kinds of cash, with their calloused hands, old eyes, and lack of any sort of infrastructure to alert them about money updates like new bills, or fraud
alerts, like duplicate serial numbers.
And THAT'S only on a state level. You're talking about a community, where EVERYONE has their own currency. Good lord! That's a counterfeiters
paradise. No one would ever sell anything, they'd all just sit around writing themselves John Smith scrips and raking in whatever the honest folk got
suckered into trading away for their useless scraps of paper.
And if everyone didn't have their own currency, then you are talking about the same multiple-store interaction I mentioned earlier, and once more
arises the need for a neutral 3rd party to arbitrate the value of scrip and commodities between stores and customers.