Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

nimble

Regulars
  • Posts

    621
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nimble

  1. He used the final arbitrater argument, but Roderick Long refuted that argument. I'll quote that in my next post. But my question for you is that, if you think anarchy is bad because it is not based on moral principles in the Objectivist sense, because it allows people to act freely so long as they don't aggress others, how would your system differ? Would an Objectivist society make it illegal to have porn, since porn is a desire that comes from no rational purpose, it is only a hedonistic type of activity, or how about being mostly selfless, by just working for free all the time and giving all your possessions away? Or how about doing drugs, would those be illegal since there is no rational purpose for non-medicinal drugs? Should those activities be illegal because they are not correspondent with Objectivist principles?
  2. Okay I did not realize that saying this would cause this type of response. I retract the use of the word axiom. It was a malapropism. I don't consider politics to be part of philosophy, but I do consider ethics to be part of philosophy. I consider politics to just be a result of all the other branches of philosophy. I used to consider myself to be an Objectivist, until I started studying economics. From that point on, I have been an anarchist, which has kind of put me on the outs with most Objectivists. I have heard all the Objectivists arguments about why anarchy is bad, etc. But there hasn't been an argument which I have found compelling or self contradictory. There was a series of debates between Robert Badnitto (might have butchered his last name; he's an Objectivist) and Roderick Long. Every issue Badnitto brought up, Roderick Long (Mises Institute) seemed to have an answer for. And eventually Badnitto quit debating, which left Roderick with what seemed to be the upper hand. If I ever find a irrefutable argument for a minimal state, I would quickly change my politics.
  3. When I say axiom I do not mean it in the philosophical sense. I mean it in a purely ehtical-political sense. I do not mean it to be an axiom like Aristotle described, 'to deny it is to affirm it.' And to actually reply to the point you made. He is not looking for a rational discussion. Any man who would say that, is looking to make an attack. He is a troll, looking to corrupt someones view because they do not know how to defend his attacks. I know this, if you have ever sat through a philosophy class or a college campus in general, those are the types of people you will find in every corner and coffee shop.
  4. When exactly would it be moral to "murder" someone? When I say murder I mean it to mean that you kill an innocent person who poses no immediate threat to you. If they posed an immediate threat it would cease to be murder and instead be self defense. I do not see how non-aggression would be something that is contextual. If you attack others and violate that normative law you subject yourself to the other person being able to defend himself and potentially kill you (rightfully) in the process.
  5. Capitalism does not gaurantee that every actor in the economy make the most efficient economic decisions that he can, but it does gaurantee the most efficient system for an economy to work--mutual cooperation.
  6. That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read. He argued that murdering is okay if the goal is wealth? I wouldn't even bother arguing with a moron like this; your best bet is to just leave him alone. You cannot murder someone because the non aggression axiom dictates that you cannot. His right to life, supercedes whatever whim a person might have to kill him. I do not see what selfishness or altruism have to do with this problem.
  7. The problem with the US Constitution was that it was printed on paper rather than on the hearts of every US citizen.
  8. Not every active person in the economy has Objectivist morals, so I would have to agree with Von Mises on this one. If everyone were Objectivists there wouldn't be a big market for porn, yet it still has value in our economy. This means that people do assign value to things I do not consider valuable. Although I would not call that arbitrary.
  9. If I accepted them at 10% of its face value from some other dope, I'd be more than happy to get rid of them at 20% IN GOLD. And lets hope the bank still has enough gold to give you its full face value, because if it does, it both of us will make out like bandits in this process.
  10. This is why I cannot understand why the process of fractional reserve banking is useful. The quantity of the medium of exchange does not matter, so why does the bank have to create more paper money, than there exists real gold money to back it? Printing more money does not increase production (at least not for long, before the boom dies and the bust comes). All it can possibly do is inflate prices, which is bad , and it creates business cycles, which are bad, and undesirable. But we aren't making any process here. All I have to say is that IF we ever have a truly free market, I will not be accepting any fractional reserve notes as trade.
  11. I have a few questions for you A West. First, in your fractional reserve system would every bank note with a face value of 1oz of gold, actually have 1oz of gold, SOMEWHERE in the economy? If no, then where do those slips of paper derive their value from? Why value them any more than any other peice of paper, if they are not backed by gold? It would be like playing the lottery, your slip might have gold behind it, it would be like a 10% chance.
  12. He is not earning interest (gold)--he is earning paper FBNs. It's loans aren't made with real money (gold), but are made with unbacked paper FBNs. And thus it distorts markets to artificially expand more than they would have, but when everyone realizes that banks have overextended credit, everyone pulls their money out, and thus a bust. This is known as the business cycle. Greenspan mentioned this in his article in CUI, however the business cycle is nothing to aspire for. Without banks creating industry bubbles, all of the economy would steadily grow at the normal rate of real growth--no more booms and busts. They wouldn't remain equal, you would have 1000% increase in the money supply (if the fractional reserve were 1:10) and you might have a 3-20% GDP increase, whatever ratios there were before would be thrown out the window at this point. Edit for content
  13. Your mistake was assuming FBNs would be worth as much as gold. The FBNs would be worth whatever fraction of gold they had backing them, or worth their amount as paper, which ever is higher. If the bank has 100 oz of gold, and 1000 FBNs, each FBN would be worth only 1/10th of its face value in a free market, where government couldn't enforce its fake value. There are many historic examples of this, such as any banking panic.
  14. I am saying, you can use fractional reserve banking, but what good does it do, if the value of that bank's fiduciary media goes down to the amount of gold that backs it, which is what will happen in a free market, just like it did before govt stole banking. It would make the fractional reserve process moot. Secondly, no one has ever addressed my question, WHAT BENEFITS DOES FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING HAVE? The amount of money in the economy does not matter, prices are just a ratio of gold to output, so whether the bank prints more or less bank notes, it won't change real production and output. The only thing it can do is inflate the money supply, and make prices rise, which isn't too bad if they don't over do it. Lastly, Mises took this stance, not just Rothbard. And Mises was who Rand recommended for economics. I like how an Objectivist forum ignores Rand's advice on economics.
  15. First, Rand would be very appalled by this forum's view of fractional reserve banking. Second, tell me then what is the total of fiduciary media (Paper) at any one point of time in a fractional reserve system?And at that same time tell me how much real money (gold) there is in the market? If there is more paper than gold, someone is inflating the economy, even if its not a government, it still isnt right. Third, NO ONE HAS ANSWERED WHAT BENEFITS HAVING MORE MONEY IN AN ECONOMY HOLDS!!!!! You keep claiming that there are some, but never state any. Lastly, I guess we don't need to argue about this, if a free market even allowed fractional reserve banking, its notes would not be worth anything more than the gold that backs them on the free market. So even if you were allowed to practice fractional reserve banking, the notes wouldn't be traded as highly as their face value states, so it doesn't even matter that you would be allowed to practice it, because the market would fix the problem. Oh and in response to the friend analogy. You are misrepresenting the analogy. A fractional reserve bank gaurantees that "All of its depositors may redeem their deposits on demand." Yet, there is never a period of time where the bank can make good on its promise. It is literally impossible. But the point you are missing is not whether the bank can make good on its promises, but the fact that there would exist more paper (fake money/fiduciary media) than there is real money (gold). This means that the bank can never pay off all its debts IN GOLD. Simply because there is not enough gold to back all the paper. Every bank note is a bank debt, every gold bar is a bank asset. If there are more bank notes than gold bars in an economy, it makes it literally impossible for the banks to pay off their debts, thus the fraud. Unless people are willing to take paper rather than gold, and in that case, paper would be the medium of exchange and not gold, so why even have any gold standard at all?
  16. They were private individuals, they have the right to give to whatever philanthopy they choose. It is THEIR money. If the Waynes' want to donate a train to the city, I see no moral problem in that. It would be much more moral than the city taxing the Waynes' and then building a much worse rail.
  17. I want to reiterate what someone else pointed out. Marx was kind of an anarchist. He believed that government should seize control of the capitalist society, force it into his ideal, and then after a while the government would have to grow and grow to keep things under control, until it got so big that it just kind of collapsed upon itself and left the world with a marxist-government-free society or basically his utopia. Also, without market mechanism how does the government know who and how many people want milk and in what quantities? Do they take a public poll everyday? With a market, prices will be the measurements by which someone producer can determine whether he better milk that cow more or less because of what demand for milk dictates. (I am drinking milk, that made me use that for an example. HA!)
  18. Oh, I didn't know Von Mises wasn't an anarchist. The language he uses everytime he mentions government made me think he was, although I guess he never explicitly stated it in any thing I've read of him. Thank you for that information.
  19. Also, Rand was able to still like Von Mises even though he was an anarcho-capitalist. She mentioned that he is the economist to read, if you want to understand economics. Rothbard is Von Mises closest pupil, and he has the EXACT same stance on money, read "Theory of Money and Credit."
  20. I cannot believe you just said that. Anyone who believes in reason and logic should know it is the argument you must attack, NOT the person. I just lost alot of respect for you there.
  21. You said it perfectly, if everyone comes back at once the bank is in trouble, it promised something it can NEVER PROVIDE (never is the key word)--money to all depositors on demand. What business can get away with promising something it can never provide to its customers. It is literally impossible for the bank to ever meet all its obligations. Businesses do use IOUs, but businesses have the means to pay the money back in real terms since they are producing something. Eventually they can meet their obligations. The fractional reserve bank merely inflates the money supply artificially with paper IOUs or bank notes, and expects the producer (loanee) to bear the sole weight of this fraud, by paying in the forms of interest on principle and through inflation. And then the bank gives the depositor a cut of the crime. Think about it, if there is nothing wrong with fractional reserve banking, then why can't the fractions be smaller. Why keep 10% in reserves, why not keep 5%, or why not keep 1%, and so on ad infinitum. The only reason for not making the reserves smaller is because they can get caught if they make them too small, thus exposing the fraud. Also, no one as answered, how fractional reserve banking is beneficial to an economy. Why would there be a market for it? It causes inflation (not good). It causes the business cycle (not good). You may say that an increase in the money supply causes aggregate investment demand to grow, and thus letting business invest, but as any economist will tell you, more money doesn't equal more prosperity. Even though the money supply increased, production, labor and capital may have not. It doesn't matter what quantity of money you have in an economy it works the same way, prices will be determined by the ratio of money to output. More money equals higher prices, less money equals lower prices. Both still have the same economic REAL output. The increase in the money supply caused by a fractional reserve bank only has a psychological effect, not an economic one. I find this interesting. Why do you think so? That is how banks used to work. Also, that is how the whole warehousing industry works. People pay to have their valuables stored in a warehouse. Money is valuable and would work like any other commodity on the market, people would pay to store it. Last question I pose to everyone...if money is a commodity (gold) and the bank note is a representation of the total stock of that commodity, why would printing more paper notes than there is gold not result in a loss of value for the bank notes? Wouldn't the value of the bank notes be determined by the ratio of bank notes to actual money (gold), just like any other things value is determined (just like the price bread would be determined by the total quantity and demand of bread relative to the stock of money)? So if the total amout of gold in the economy was 10 pounds, and there were bank notes printed to represent 100 pounds, wouldn't the value of the bank notes fall since they are being currently overvalued by the bank? (Just so you know the bank notes would lose 90% of their said-value because there exists 90 pounds gold representing bank notes than there is actual gold, and the gold is all that matters since it is the real medium of exchange, NOT paper)
  22. Also, I particularly liked this overview at the end of Rothbard's "What has government done to our money?" If inflation is a result of a increase in the money supply, and inflation also is a tax on the holders of money. Both economics definitions, then we can deduce that when a bank causes inflation it basically taxes both the depositor and the loanee for the benefit of the bank who holds the real money (which wont lose its value) and lets its fiduciary media lose value which luckily it isn't holding, the depositors and the loanees are holding. Thus giving the bank stolen real value. And even if all parties enter this willingly, the bank is at least not giving its customers a very good deal, which makes me think that on a free market, there would be no use for a business that screwed over its customers.
  23. Here is a good selection from the Austrian School that illustrates the point I was trying to make. If the bank is not fraudulent about its practices and admits that its paper money (CDs) are not equivalent to the real money (gold), then the value of the CDs will fall to the right fraction of gold that they should represent (as I showed in many above posts). First, the practice of inflating the money supply is not beneficial at all economically. If the money supply increases, have capital goods, labor, or production increased? NO! So, what benefit does having more money in an economy have economically? None. It only causes inflation. Second, if gold is the medium of exchange, (not paper) why would the paper be worth the equivalent of gold when the ratio of CDs to gold is not 1:1 (or 100%)? If you can get passed those two issues you might have a case for fractional reserve banking, but you won't be able to. I think what you guys are arguing for is not a fractional reserve bank, but a financial planning firm, that you agree to "loan them" your money, then they take risks with your money (loan it to another at a higher interest rate than they are paying you), and meanwhile, you cannot redeem your money until they have received payments for the loan adventure they made on your behalf. That isn't a bank at all. And that isn't fractional reserves. Its financial planning.
  24. I am not sure the government could provide arbitration cheaper than the market. Private arbitration is one of the fastest growing industries in the US, and I would guess that in a free market, it would be even bigger. Now I know you will reply that the private arbitraters do not have the power to enforce a contract like the government does, but private arbitraters don't have that power now, yet they still handle more cases than our court system ever sees, because our courts are slow, and inefficient. And if you had to pay a "service fee" on top of the govt courts being slow and inefficient, my guess is that no one would use them, that didn't have to because of the severe risk of the contract (and its need for enforcement).
×
×
  • Create New...