This Forum is Closed
November 28, 2021, 03:10:45 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: GGF now has a permanent home:
  Home Help Search Links Staff List Login Register  

"Left-vs.-Right" is not the only false paradigm!

Pages: [1]   Go Down
Author Topic: "Left-vs.-Right" is not the only false paradigm!  (Read 4886 times)
Global Moderator
Sr. Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 455


View Profile
« on: September 03, 2010, 09:28:47 am »

I think you have me wrong. I'm not really an Austrian-Schooler;

I know you’re not (I knew that the moment you said there is “definitely a place for fiat currency,” heheh). I was merely responding -- for clarification purposes -- to the scathing critiques of the Austrian School that I had posted earlier, not to anything you had posted.

when it comes to fiat currency, I'm pretty much of a Lincoln Greebacker

The same holds true for me obviously.

My point is, the money supply has to remain FLEXIBLE: just enough fiat currency generated to counter growth-limiting deflation of asset-backed currencies during periods of economic growth, and just enough debt instruments to generate effective deflation (as, in a properly managed economy, money pledged against the future is removed from current circulation)

The moment you allow money creation to be linked even partially to the creation of debt, you’ve sown a seed that will inevitably germinate into fractional reserve banking, and then we’ll be right back where we started. Thus, the only solution is to completely and permanently divorce the creation of money from the lending of it.

As to the question of “flexibility,” if you read my thread on monetary reform, you’ll see that the debt-free system I call for is flexible by its very design, because

(a) any decrease in the general price level will automatically trigger an offsetting increase in the money supply expansion rate, while any increase in the general price level will trigger an offsetting decrease; and

(b) banks will be allowed to loan out “existing funds” that are obtained via the sale of “negotiable CDs” (although, unlike now, “banks would not be allowed to lend the funds so obtained for a longer period of time than those funds were available to them”), and in that way maintain a “continuous flow of funds” to those areas of the market that most need it, but without overextending themselves -- and hence exposing themselves to a potential “liquidity crisis” -- in the process.

I do believe that a modicum of taxation against working class wages gives the working class the tremendous advantage of being able to state, in any public forum: "I'm a tax-paying citizen!!!"

If you read my thread on land value taxation, then perhaps you’ll understand why I firmly believe that the only thing any able-bodied person should ever have to say to morally justify his or her participation in public affairs is: “I pay for the benefits I receive!”

Taxing wages instead of land values ultimately results in landless wage-earners being forced to pay twice for the same benefits -- all so that politically-connected titleholders can enjoy those same benefits without paying even once:


(Let's allow the taxation of wages, BY STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES, NOT BY THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITED BY THE US CONSTITUTION!!!) within the strict limits which I have proposed.)

I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree on that point, because I’m convinced that wages should be exempt from taxation at all levels of government (as should the value of capital goods).

So far as concerns the land-owning reactionaries, what does land ownership mean in this day of tiny little suburban house-lots as opposed to the marketable skills of the working class?

If you read the following web site, you’ll see that – under the current system -- it means more for modern-day aristocrats than what most people have been led to believe. A lot more:

Considering the guaranteed income, I agree with the basic idea, although I would allow differential treatment between "delinquent public charges" (i.e., those who are public charges by choice), and "non-delinquent public charges" (i.e., the disabled, the elderly, widows and widowers with children, and other sad cases).  The latter should be granted the franchise and all that goes with it, the former should be granted a clear and specified pathway by means of which they might gain the franchise, but not automatic franchise.

I think that would unnecessarily complicate the system. Better to simply pay out the Dividend equally to all legally-recognized citizens, and leave it at that. The whole point is to get away from bureaucratic paper-shuffling and all of the waste, fraud and abuse that go with it. Attaching unnecessary qualifications and conditionalities to the Dividend would keep us mired in it instead.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2010, 09:17:04 am by Geolibertarian » Report Spam   Logged

"For the first years of [Ludwig von] Mises’s life in the United States...he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.” -- Richard M. Ebeling

Pages: [1]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.057 seconds with 17 queries.