You’re introducing additional assumptions. the prior discussion assumes that the automakers have mortgagable assets.
Here is a simple question for a hard money advocate: If the issuance of credit requires the backing of gold,
then how do you avoid an oligarchy, where the oligarchs control all the credit, since they will own all the gold
(or at least they will own it eventually)? Or do you advocate an oligarchy system?
The point I’m getting at is there are 3 types of money systems -1) hard money, 2) debt money fiat, and 3) interest
free fiat. The first 2 types lead to oligarchy. I contend that only 3) will allow a libertarian society,
where the credit is managed for the common good.
I’m not introducing an assumption. I’m introducing a fact. The automakers don’t have enough money to pay their debts that’s why they are going broke. They have no equity left.
First, I am not a hard money advocate. I am a free market advocate, and thus I advocate a free market in money.
Second, you presume the issuance of a currency must be centralized, and thus how all common bills of credit are backed would be uniform.
Third, the presumption that all of the money would be hoarded, is based upon people being unable to choose what to use as money. If some jackhole wants to hoard all the gold, people will use silver. Unless someone thinks it’s a good idea to make a law against that.
Fourth, you use the word libertarian, without embracing libertarianism. Libertarians are for freedom and decentralization, not democratic centralization vs. oligarchical centralization. What you’re proposing is, slavery vs. slavery. Try incorporating freedom into your paradigms. Your insistence that there must be a monopoly in law, money etc is where your argument is failing.
Check your premises.
When I clicked on the link, my adobe reader said there was an error in transferring the file. Too bad, as I would have
gladly read the book. However, I can critique the title - It is not the government that has done anything
to our money. The government has defaulted on its responsibility to regulate credit issuance. The private bank
Federal Reserve has created the damaging debt fiat system which creates the depressions.
If in fact the automakers have no mortgagable assets, the loan couldn’t be made. I’m not aware that the companies are
presently in receivership, however.
Here it is online.
Please read it. It will clear up a lot of the misunderstandings in this discussion.
we don’t need to compete. If a foreign competitor wants to subsidize our standard of living by giving us high quality cars for cheaper than the free-market dictates, let them. We benefit.
Well, if the companies were credit-worthy they could raise the money themselves through the voluntary system known as “the market”, no ?
What does this mean, exactly ? Do you mean privately issued commodity money? Say almond money issued
by an almond growers consortium? I believe such money is presently legal. Perhaps the coming depression
will give impetus to this type of money. However. you still have not answered the question regarding Michigan scrip -
while you’ve claimed there is theft, you’ve not identified any robbery victims - why not?
When you say we, I presume you mean we the consumers rather than we the American car companies, right?
What about we the disinterested non-car-buyers who would like to see our fellow Michiganders fully employed?
What position should we, the latter group, take - rationally speaking wise?
It’s not legal because you must pay capital gains when converting it into FRNs for tax purposes.
TAXES ARE THEFT!
Yes, of course. And they could build their new car making facilities in China, or Sudan or other poverty pesthole.
I’m saying a scrip loan would be beneficial to the people of Michigan generally. While you supposed liberty advocates have carped about
theft and centralization, you haven’t identified any parties that would be harmed by this transaction.
Buy their more expensive, lower quality cars (ie. put YOUR money where your mouth is) or hire them to work in your industry..
What about all of the plants in Tennessee and Alabama? The auto industry is growing in those states. Why? Why are they succeeding where Michigan has failed?
Obviously. But you haven’t identified how or where additional taxes are being raised by this scheme. The
taxes due are the same taxes that are due prior to the scrip loan.
Do you mean to say, instead, that it is legal but inconvenient? I’m waiting to hear what your free money scheme entails.
Do you admit that the automakers can’t get more cash using voluntary means…?
And I’d reply that you’re trying to get the majority of people to pay for the mistakes of the automakers.
Who is making the loan? Where is the capital coming from?
You’re the schemer. I’m talking about a free market in money. Read Rothbard’s book.
And no, it is not legal but inconvenient. It’s illegal to use commodities as money. First, you cannot pay taxes with them. Second, you must pay capital gains on them when converting to FRNs. Any inflation in FRNs discounts the value of your commodity money because the exchange is taxed like profit.
Maybe someone else wants to discuss with you, but I tire of it. I’m not even sure why you are here, because you don’t understand the market, you aren’t for liberty, I don’t think you have a clue about Austrianism, and you’re pro-state/pro-protectionism/pro-nationalism/pro-democracy.
It’s an enormous waste of time trying to discuss with someone who refuses to critically analyze his position. Best of luck.
To that I would say that while the automakers have made mistakes, the majority would be injured by
the greatly increased unemployment should automaking disappear in Michigan. I’m not saying loaning
the existing companies money would be the best idea. Perhaps making scrip loans available to promising
new startups would be better. I am making the point, however, that acting to preserve in some form
automaking in Michigan is a rational thing for the state government to try to do.
The state is making the loan out of scrip it prints out of thin air. Whether or not the car company
repays the loan, the scrip returns to the state treasury where it is paid to state employees and
other state suppliers. The state loses no tax revenue. Indeed, it gains revenue when the loan is
repaid, and the taxpayer gets relief from the interest paid on the loan by the automaker.
In scanning Rothbard’s book, it seems he’s willing to allow, in his free society, a choice between gold and silver
money. Very generous! But what about my almond money? Or what if I am content with a well managed scrip?
Am i not free to choose?