quoted from Earthcitizen7
If everything is controlled by the markets then why bother have a government at all? Is it ok to have a government that controlls only the little guy, or is it preferable to have a government that controls everything? Mind you I am not talking about having the illuminati/bilderbergers in key positions, because these people belong in jail for extortion, genocide, racketering, usury, etc.

The government derives from the need of an army to protect from outside threats, all else was tacked on opportunistically over the centuries. Do we still need a government? Maybe not. At least, the government should be considered as the last resort and kept as smalll as possible.

Secondly why should the value of money fluctuate at all? Why not assign a steady value to it and let ONLY the value of goods and services fluctuate? If there is an abundance of x merchandise then the value of x merchandise drops. Conversely if there is a shortage of x merchandise then the value of x merchandise will go up.

I agree with your idea. Prices of all present goods and services should go down over time as productivity increases. Cutting edge technology starts as expensive and over time becomes cheaper.

Setting the value of money could be attempted in three ways.

1) Freezing the amount of money--no new money printed except for replacement of damaged specimens.
This would increase the value of money over time as more stuff exsisted for the same amount of money. Over time the mundane things would be purchased with smaller and smaller denominations of currency as prices decreased.

2) Designating the value of money as equivalent to some good or service forever.
a)Like the gold standard. The money supply would probably grow as more of the good was produced or discovered. This is essentially freezing the amount of money to the total amount of the good in question.
b)Designate a dollar as a fixed ratio of GNP like 1 ten trillionth of the Gross National Product or 1 50 trillionth of the entire value of everything in the United States. This would be subject to the body that determines the value of the total wealth.

3) Treat money as a commodity and let the market determine its amount and buying power. Money would be from your bank or banks. The banks would keep the value of their money as high as they could so that any consumer would prefer to use their money rather than a different bank.

The problem with money in this capitalist world is that its value fluctuates with complex formulas in relation to many things, primarily debt to GDP ratio and the ratio of exports to imports. First tier nations love this but ask the second and third tier nations what they think. In other words currencies should not be traded on the open markets.

Fluctuation has more to do with central banking and government regulation than capitalism. All of the exploitative powers in our system use the system. If the system had less power they would not be so big or have the abilities that they now have.

As you can see I don't like capitalism because it involves scarcity of money called investment. The mega investors decide which nation should be prosperous and which nations should be poor. I believe in mixed economy socialism where banking and major industry is nationalised.

In my opion, the big investors will always do that in a centrally controlled system. Your villains are real, however they are using goverment regulation to facilitate cartel mechanisms. If there were no big goverment or governance the mega investors would have to finance thier own private armies of occupation everytime.

Nationalisation moves the power to choose father and farther away from the individual. Without the big mega investors determining the price of everything artificially from their present unnatural position, the market assigns real and normal prices to everything by the democratic means of voluntary buying and selling

Oh wow! All these people commenting have no idea how the Fed works or have never studied economics. Sure you have studied Austrian economics, but thats a joke and is not taken seriously by any real economist.

She is on Facebook, Feel free to message your opinions of her to her in person. I did

Originally posted by gorgi
Oh wow! All these people commenting have no idea how the Fed works or have never studied economics. Sure you have studied Austrian economics, but thats a joke and is not taken seriously by any real economist.

Now there ladies and gentlemen is a HUGE "I embrace ignorance" post.....with the added spice of I know the truth, the rest of you are morons...but I have to hand it to the Keynesian crowd to actually think you can spend your way out of a fiscal crisis.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

The government derives from the need of an army to protect from outside threats, all else was tacked on opportunistically over the centuries. Do we still need a government? Maybe not. At least, the government should be considered as the last resort and kept as smalll as possible.

Well, it seems you have "middle ages european" view of government basically resembling monarchies. Every government I know of has a judicial, executive and legislative branch. By small I guess you mean a military only government, which is typical of conservative minded individuals. I am not making fun of you, I just disagree that is what we need.

I agree with your idea. Prices of all present goods and services should go down over time as productivity increases. Cutting edge technology starts as expensive and over time becomes cheaper.

Increasing productivity is one way to bring prices down but at the same time creates unemployment. Quality of merchandise is another factor in determining prices.

Setting the value of money could be attempted in three ways.

The easiest way is to freeze the exchange rates of all currencies indefinitely aka fixing the rates. Or they can be adjusted up and down artificially by beaurocrats and then frozen.

1) Freezing the amount of money--no new money printed except for replacement of damaged specimens.
This would increase the value of money over time as more stuff exsisted for the same amount of money. Over time the mundane things would be purchased with smaller and smaller denominations of currency as prices decreased.

When the economy expands there is a demand for more money, conversely when it shrinks money should be taken away to prevent inflation. When it stagnates keep the current supply. An important factor to consider would be population size; the greater the population the greater the supply of money.
.

Fluctuation has more to do with central banking and government regulation than capitalism. All of the exploitative powers in our system use the system. If the system had less power they would not be so big or have the abilities that they now have.

I believe that central banks are needed as well as government regulations to a reasonable extent. It is all about who runs the show and for who. I am suprised people cannot comprehend the difference between a public central bank and a private central bank. The reason we have so many problems now is precisely because the bankers are above the government, supposedly to prevent corruption of the economy, despite the fact that is exactly what they are doing. Do you see the irony? I sure can!

In my opion, the big investors will always do that in a centrally controlled system. Your villains are real, however they are using goverment regulation to facilitate cartel mechanisms. If there were no big goverment or governance the mega investors would have to finance thier own private armies of occupation everytime.

There should be no big investors in the first place. The fact some people have trillions of dollars like the rockefellers and rothschilds tells the whole story. These people accumulated the money from laissez faire capitalism and lack of anti-trust legislation enforcement. Your methods are precisely what enables such enormous criminal rackets to develop.

Nationalisation moves the power to choose father and farther away from the individual. Without the big mega investors determining the price of everything artificially from their present unnatural position, the market assigns real and normal prices to everything by the democratic means of voluntary buying and selling

edit on 11-10-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

BS! Nationalisation implies soveriegn ownership of the means of production by every citizen of that nation, state or city. Laissez faire capitalism is good for small time entrepreneurs all the way up to mid-size business, then mutinational corporations take over and turn everything into a corporate banking fascist dictatorship.

Originally posted by MidnightTide

Originally posted by gorgi
Oh wow! All these people commenting have no idea how the Fed works or have never studied economics. Sure you have studied Austrian economics, but thats a joke and is not taken seriously by any real economist.

Now there ladies and gentlemen is a HUGE "I embrace ignorance" post.....with the added spice of I know the truth, the rest of you are morons...but I have to hand it to the Keynesian crowd to actually think you can spend your way out of a fiscal crisis.

edit on 11-10-2012 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)

Worked in the great depression and its working now.
Also there is a reason why Austrian "economics" isnt taken seriously. There is no empirical data, no math, no proofs, nothing. Its politics disguised as "economics".