In a real free market economy, the only way to acquire money (and thus to accumulate a “hoard”) is to produce things of value and exchange them. The person who hoards money is producing, but refraining from consuming. He’s making his widgets or whatever, which means more widgets for consumers. Meanwhile, he’s not using the money he receives to claim any other goods, which means more of those goods left on the market for everyone else too. How does that destabilize anything?
That needs a qualifier because there’s also voluntary gift-giving and sharing.
The “hoarding money destabilizes the economy” fallacy originated in 1933, when the default on the dollar occurred. Anticipating a default on the dollar, people rushed to convert their paper dollars to gold and started hoarding gold.
There was a mass media propaganda campaign, saying “Gold hoarders are evil!”
The reality is that the Federal Reserve was responsible for the problem. The Federal Reserve printed a lot more paper dollars than there was physical gold. Realizing the scam was about to collapse, people rushed to redeem their dollars for gold.
The gold hoarders were acting in their rational self-interest. President Roosevelt thwarted their efforts to protect their savings. He defaulted on the dollar and declared gold ownership illegal.
The blame was placed on the greedy gold hoarders for detabilizing the monetary system. The reality is that the Federal Reserve destabilized the monetary system by printing too much unbacked paper.
In the present, hoarding Federal Reserve Notes is pointless. You’ll be ripped off by inflation.
If you anticipate a SHTF scenario, then gold hoarding is a rational stategy for preserving your savings.
Good catch. I should have said “the primary way” rather than “the only way.”
Even in the case of a huge inheritance or gift, though, if the beneficiary hoards the money, it means little consumption is occurring, so the second half of my analysis stands as written, I think.
anonomous coward:
I was mearly showing how stealing is a natural thing to do when there are no incentives not to steal and plenty of incentives for stealing. very few people steal from the shops because they might get caught. almost everyone steals from the net. if people are alloud to steal they will.
this is a relevant point because I am trying to establish human nature and therefor the need for restraint of this nature.
but some power must be pooled. and I’m wondering where do economist fit in at all in a free market? who is to remind everyone that the market is free?
what is to stop to it becoming like the market that we have…one which was once free and via a process of social evolution became what it is…you could say what we have it the natural result of a free market.
wouldn’t you say?
Anonomous coward
yes people are stupid, this is quite correct. this is no doubt why any system is probably also stupid, because it was made by non other than people. politicians are not aliens but people. they have been corrupted by an industry of people. they have played up the the whims of people in elections. people vote for them when they lie and vote for the other guy when they accept their mistakes.
you are one of the few fortunate people to be enlightened and educated. try watching tv for six month and eating potatoe chips while undergoing a bit of sleep deprevation…then see how clever you are.
most people can’t even feed themselves correctly or know they need regular exercise. People will behave like animals given the chance.
and don’t get me wrong I like people…but they are what they are made to be by those that went first.
waywardwayfarer:
there must be an element of cover for the consumer even if they make repeat mistakes. the cover should be minimal and just enough so they can survive.
I admit that the current soft attitute is totally innaffective and the right balance has yet be reached. they should suffer for there mistakes in a way that means somthing to then and then they can learn a lesson from it, like we all have to do. yes I’m totaly with you on the whole nanny state thing. I’m arguing for balance and function, not ideology for ideologies sake.
this hording word has got out of context i think. I think I used the word saving initially and I ment it as the accumilation of wealth rather than gaining and not giving back. so in effect hording was taking place without it being intentional. the inflation was ment to devalue this accumilation of wealth so that the hording could not take place. sadly it was pointed out that the people likely to hord are unlikely to have a high exposure to the currency that was being devalued and therefore the only people that would be affected where those more exposed to the currency. i.e the lower classes. thereby increasing the power divide.
LEE
I don’t read the guardian:)
with the spades I was saying there were only 100 spades I think.
SPADES
well yes the latter is true…because we have had inflation …the spade theory is a world without inflation where the wealth pools. (the analogie was ratehr simple to be far)
this is actually in support of my original statement that inflation is good. a society with reasonable inflation such as the UK and america has seen a working calss that is relatively powerful in comparison to a few hundred years ago. human rights, education…you could say that thre was a lot more real wealth at base level now.
MATING RIGHTS
I have them on my mind…what can I say.
I’m talking about cold, calculating function too. Are you denying that a service is being rendered by the children to their parents? If so, please explain the parents’ actions (giving them money). If not, then I ask, are other services are illegitimate? Why is this service singled out?
Why wouldn’t they deserve it? I thought we already agreed that they deserve it, or at least you gave up the point. Remember this?
Doesn’t justify it.
-Jon
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Inflation is most definitely not one of the reasons people are more prosperous today. Any growth generated by it is like a house of concrete built on wooden stilts.
-Jon
lulz, best quote evar?
Silly me for thinking poor people were relatively unhappy.
Less to spend = less consumption = less production = less economic growth. Taxes are unnessesary redistributions of wealth from the working/producing class to the parasitic/power class. They don’t in any way benefit “society”.
Wiw this is just flawed economics.
You’re comparing saving up consumption goods to saving up monetary capital. It doesn’t work that way, sorry. The value of saving money comes in your ability to purchase more with it. If you could make purchases with spades, saving them would be valuable and nessesary.
LOLWUT
The rest of your post is just incoherant babbling.
Things got better because of technological advancements, made possible through economic calculation … which is hindered by government intervention.
NO! Speak for yourself. I think I’m more capible of making decisions for myself than some prick in a suit sipping a $5 cup of coffee watching C-SPAN in his posh office at the Capitol Building. Sorry you have such a lack of faith in yourself, and believe yourself to be ignorant and untrustworthy (though from your oh so elegant verbiage and use of logic, I wouldn’t say you’re too far off target).
Oh, so now we should embrace “brainwashedness”?
wat
Why “must” there be? What you advocate is nothing short of the government serving as an enabler, and responsible taxpayers footing the bill. To quote Herbert Spencer, “The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.” And why “must” it be administered by force? Who is to be the arbiter of who is worthy of your and my “assistance” and who is not?
In truth, you’ve expressed no coherent ideology at all. There is no objective standard by which the “right” degree of robbery can somehow be achieved. Robbery is to be abhorred categorically.
Apparently you overlooked the part about inflation encouraging the hoarding of goods. If I know my money is going to be worth less tomorrow, I have a much stronger incentive to spend it today, in other words, to exchange it for goods now and hang onto the goods instead of the money. I don’t get why you think it’s such a wonderful thing to steal from people who, in your subjective opinion, have “too much,” nor how you would even propose to set any standard for how much is “too much.”
I think we have estabilished that we have a divergence in oppinion as to what human nature is.
I believe man acting in a totally free way will not create a society as good as the one we have today.
but as soon as one man exists he inprisons the next man and takes anyway his freedom anyway so the argument it silly. freedom can not exist.
the only way you could have a free society is the destroy every phenomenon a man makes and somehow blank everyones memory.
anyway its rediculous, the only way to be free is to be alone.
government and law and interferance is inevitable because if it does not exist it will exist anyway, so its better to have a system that fills the power void and prevents anyone else from superseeding it. the prime responsibility of a system I might say would be its self defence.
so thats another example of competition and survival of the fitest in a non human form.
if a system can not defend itself/or has pacifistic tendancies then it ends up loosing its power to do good or bad. so to make a dramatic example, the first thing a pacifist must do is be able to fight at the level of the competitor. as a competitor could hold any aspect of human nature then this allows a pritty wide scope.
In this way the competitor sets the agenda for how everyone else behaves. In a historic setting of competition and long term competitors that have fought previous battles it would seem reasonable to have preemtive moves and become the compeititor itself.
in this environemnt of competition a country and a system can not be free, never mind the individuals within it. its not just about chosing right and wrong from a moral standbpoint.
so in this way a government can not be ideologic but must be functional.
ideology is part of that function and one ideology is freedom. therefor freedom must be maximised within a context of competition on all levels. sometimes this means that people must be imprisioned to be free.
all I would say a philanthropic system could do is insure as much balance and stability as possible.
yes well as described above my ideology is one of non specific specificity:)
there are no fools on a sliding scale of foolery.
robbery is an emotive term and doesn’t involve giving (however grudgingly)
Nope. I doubt you’ll hear many on this board claim anything positive about human nature.
So? Proove it.
Non sequitur. Prove it.
No. Even history proves you wrong.
Bzzzt. Hasn’t been proven, and history would refute that.
Your reasoning eludes me. 1984 much?
Oh good, so you propose everyone be forced into a self contradictory ideology while you jump up and down and cry “freedom!”?
Good, you have a scale for yourself.
Not many on this board are “giving to the state”. They’re having their money stolen.
banned:
do you undersand the universe? do you undersatnd how the human brain works? do you undersatnd what a piece of dust is?
do you understand women?
you only might seem intellegent in relation to the level of foolery around you.
and you’re taking things to extremes and using dramatic words.
socialisation is a more subtle form of brainwashing yes.
and it should exist to a degree. It will exist to a degree as regardless if I want it or not, so better to be aware of it.
banned:
well the proof is that man made a society without total freedom. look around. any attempt to make total freedom would be an infringment on mans freedom to imprioson himself.
well if I say hi to you, most people would feel obliged to say hi back. Hi in this way carries an element of a request and a possible punishment. that would be an immediate restriction (if tiny) of freedom. fill the world with people saying hi and there you go.
the confusion that seems to always be happening here is that when I say one thing I mean it on a scale but its been taken as the most extreme end of that scale. Everything exists in proportion. its about balancing these proportions.
No. No. No, not exhaustively.
Let me get this straight:
Universe → Human Brain → Dust → Women
Is your structure by accident?
No, I don’t think I’m of a superior intelligence to those around me. I just think that I’m more capable of making my own decisions than someone else making them. If you don’t happen to feel that secure with yourself, go ahead and give your free choice away. Why do you insist on forcing me into your society of “stupid people”?
I don’t think I am. You want me to buy into some scheme where I confess I’m less capable of conducting myself in a way that would benefit me than some guy an arbitrary majority likes.
So people should be lied to to endorse immoral, hurtful things?
No, it “does”, not “it will”. You’re making a warentless future prediction.
You were/are making a claim upon all social arrangements. This has not been the case, historically. Even though I don’t believe History can produce truths this is more than enough to prove you wrong.
Oh, I hadn’t thought about that what a breakthrough!.. No wait, yes I had, that’s why I’m a Voluntaryist. I couldn’t give a rat’s *** about what you want to do with your body. Go ahead and sell your organs, kill yourself, whatever. I refuse to infringe upon self ownership, do you?
Thanks for the tip. Next time Someone doesn’t return my wave I’ll beat them senseless.
Your analogy is flawed, and what you’re proposing as “punishment” is ostracism. That doesn’t violate freedom, I have no idea where you came up with the idea it did.