Obviously It won’t survive on the market, but that’s not the point. The point is that there is nothing fraudulent about issuing it.
In an exchange, one party exchanges a commodity with another party. With backed currency, the exchange is made between a commodity and a reciept for a commodity (a backed banknote). I was saying that the commodity being exchanged could just be the banknote.
Actually there is. If I offer ‘credit’ which is not backed by savings I’m offering a fraudulent product. No different from offering a car with no wheels and pretending it’s a perfectly good car.
And that’s one very extreme instance, but it isn’t the statistical mean.
I’m not saying that the current banking system is perfect, but I am saying that it’s better than warehouse pipe dreams in Rothbardia.
Monetarists just never give it a rest.
Talk about misrepresenting my point.
My point was that, like someone selling product on the street (say very pure heroin with a brand name label to it), if someone else starts using that name for a different product produced by a different person, he will be negotiated with and then strong armed if the problem persists. This is the way the real free market works - which is fine with me, but it seems others who like free markets don’t like to face up to the dirtier side of the business.
The same situation exists for bank notes. Bank Co. of Rochester will have every justification for killing Juan if he starts issuing his own Rochester notes to people who think they are getting a Bank Co. of Rochester product.
The movie American Ganster had a very similar situation to what I’m talking about.
That situation could eventually lead to a type of court system to make it all a little more aesthetic, but reduce everything down to its core and it’s all about staking your claim with a pointed gun.
They accept them today. They accepted them in Scotand during the first half of the 19th century. It worked out great. The best of both worlds. Dynamic markets and free markets.
It’s just that the gold bugs want neither.
So you’re using a five year window to judge an industry that has existed for 20 times that amount of years? Again, look at the statistical mean - if you know what statistics are.
You’re wrong here. “Perfectly good” is subjective. What you mean to say is “offering a car with no wheels and pretending it has wheels”. Issuing bank notes is not fraudulent, unless you violate a contract with your depositers or explicitly mislead your customers. Simply giving out slips of paper that people can exchange in is wholly valid. Anyone who decided to invest in such a thing would be a fool, but that’s beside the point.
The distant past is largely irrelevant. There are too many variables to account for.
For most of human history there has been slavery, or women have been denied sexual freedom and property rights.
Certainly you wouldn’t argue for the mean in those trends, would you?
LOL. I did not.
So, how did I misrepresent your point ? You said that. I repeated it, and now you say it again.
The only thing you royally fail to grasp is that you are not talking about a free market. Perhaps you are some variety of neocon ? You seem to be the kind of savage who believe that
Because of something called Legal Tender and the IRS.
No it is not subjective. If I sell you a “'working car” with no wheels or no motor, I’m a fraudster. If I give you credit which is not backed by savings I’m a fraudster. Let’s not start the everything-is-subjective game please ?
Misrepresenting the nature of something is what fraud is all about. So the problem is not the issuing, but lying about what you are issuing.
Reducing the problem to “giving out slips of paper” reduces the discussion to meaninglessness.
It’s not beside the point. The point is that the only way to get people to invest in a such a thing is by lying about the nature of the thing. Or by using violence like bankers do today.
But we’re talking about one industry of an economy for one century… 20 times five is 100. Slavery isn’t really applicable and I don’t know what voting rights have to do with the conversation.
Are you saying means aren’t important?
Uh huh… Your point being what?
EDIT: It looks to me like circa 1995 the market has been above 30 more than it has been at 10.
LOL. Yes you did. What is it about the internet that makes people… Eh. Nevermind.
No. You left out the part about trademarks and misrepresentation itself.
Uh oh. You got me. I’m a card carrying neocon who believes that Israel is a blight on the face of the Earth that should be wiped off of the map and that the state is a terrible war machine that inflicts heavy casualties all in the name of keeping things on the status quo or going back to some romanticized dream of a more “moral” past.
Guess I got greedy with the cooky jar. [8-)]
Well, you whined about my using only five years so I added some more years.
So, you are seeing the price of the shares of a leading bank in the last 30 years. And you are seeing the price of gold which can be used as a proxy of sorts for the value of the dollar.
You can draw some conclusions or just keep on parroting pseudo economics…
No, you don’t understand what a free market is. You can’t own IP so trademarks are irrelevant. Both your bank and the people who you call counterfeiters produce the same good - unbacked notes. Yet you want to use violence to suppress competition. That’s called monopoly.
As far as finance goes, yes. You’re the typical right winger who defends the status quo.
