Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
nimble

Money: Does Objectivism Hold That Govt

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

nimble, you can't expect us to take you seriously until you quit quoting losertarian frauds like Rothbard.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nimble, you can't expect us to take you seriously until you quit quoting losertarian frauds like Rothbard.

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.. Von Mises even though he was an anarcho-capitalist.

Ludwig von Mises is, from what I have read, most known as in favour of a minimal government. Rothbard coined the term anarcho-capitalism but I don't think he managed to persuade von Mises to change his opinion on politics. On economics though they are much the same, and to dismiss Rothbard on economics just because you don't agree with him on politics is a bit silly in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ludwig von Mises is, from what I have read, most known as in favour of a minimal government. Rothbard coined the term anarcho-capitalism but I don't think he managed to persuade von Mises to change his opinion on politics. On economics though they are much the same, and to dismiss Rothbard on economics just because you don't agree with him on politics is a bit silly in my opinion.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RationalEgoist
So, paper money and coinage should not be manufactured by the government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ever since the Federal Reserve Act, our money, paper and coin alike, has not been in the hands of the government, but the FED, which is a private organization.

The reason the Constitution specifically gave Congress the responsibility--and the reason we got together to create the document in the first place--was that each of the colonies had their own currency based on fiat paper money. The FED, being a private corporation, is not restricted to the Constitution, as Congress is. The Federal Reserve Act is a fraud anyhow, since Congress cannot pass off their responsibilities to someone else, just as a traffic cop cannot hand over her/his responsibilities to a Citizen.

Antony Marcus Reed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
to dismiss Rothbard on economics just because you don't agree with him on politics is a bit silly in my opinion.

I deeply disagree with Rothbard on philosophy. That is reason enough to dismiss him on all that depends on philosophy--which is EVERYTHING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ever since the Federal Reserve Act, our money, paper and coin alike, has not been in the hands of the government, but the FED, which is a private organization.

That alone would not be a problem. The problem is that it is a private organization enjoying a monopoly granted and enforced by the government.

The reason the Constitution specifically gave Congress the responsibility--and the reason we got together to create the document in the first place--was that each of the colonies had their own currency based on fiat paper money.

Replacing many small evils with one big evil is not something I call a solution. And I'm sure the Founders would disagree with you that "the" reason--or even "the main reason," or "one of the main reasons"--for writing the Constitution had anything to do with currency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who believes in reason and logic should know it is the argument you must attack, NOT the person.

Not true, if the person is the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I deeply disagree with Rothbard on philosophy. That is reason enough to dismiss him on all that depends on philosophy--which is EVERYTHING.

Do you agree with Newton, Turing, Bohr, Tesla or Cantor on philosophy? Does mathematics, physics and computer science depend on philosophy?

Rothbard's character and 'philosophy' has no bearing on whether his arguments on a specific topic are valid. I disagree with Rothbard's general stance, but have found several of his essays quite lucid.

Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you agree with Newton, Turing, Bohr, Tesla or Cantor on philosophy? Does mathematics, physics and computer science depend on philosophy?

Rothbard's character and 'philosophy' has no bearing on whether his arguments on a specific topic are valid. I disagree with Rothbard's general stance, but have found several of his essays quite lucid.

First of all, why put philosophy in scare quotes?

Newton and the other scientist's correct arguments flowed from a correct philosophical basis (even if not all their philosophy was correct). Rothbard's arguments all flow from an incorrect philosophical basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RationalEgoist
And I'm sure the Founders would disagree with you that "the" reason--or even "the main reason," or "one of the main reasons"--for writing the Constitution had anything to do with currency.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On the contrary, Cap... the original intent of the meeting of the Continental Congress was to fix the Articles of the Federation, due to the economic instability of the union. Each state had agreed to pay it's share of the debt owed to France and Spain for the war, yet most had a very difficult time finding the funds, some didn't bother, and many states simply printed money hand-over-fist, inflating the money supply and making it worthless, stunting the economy.

Rather than fix the Articles, they started from scratch, creating the Constitution of the United States.

"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit."

~John Galt, Atlas Shrugged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RationalEgoist
I disagree with Rothbard's general stance, but have found several of his essays quite lucid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So have I. I have also noticed (which is not at all difficult) that so many O'ist minded individuals will disassociate entirely with those with which they may have some very similar and complimentary views, and would much more readily accept those with opposing views, who happen to have a point or two of which they see eye to eye. Such is the difference between voting Bush, Kerry or Badnarik. Most seem to go for Bush, some for Kerry... but refuse Badnarik, though he is 50 times closer to an o'ist philosophy. All in all, he is the more moral of any of them, but is shunned.

BTW...Is this a topic I'm not to mention?

Best,

Edited by RationalEgoist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
refuse Badnarik, though he is 50 times closer to an o'ist philosophy.

Maybe he is very close to an "o'ist philosophy," but he is as far from Objectivism as one gets.

BTW...Is this a topic I'm not to mention?

This is a forum for Objectivists and students of Objectivism. Libertarians are not welcome here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I deeply disagree with Rothbard on philosophy. That is reason enough to dismiss him on all that depends on philosophy--which is EVERYTHING.

I disagree with lots of people, even you, but if you said "circles have no corners" I would have to agree with you. Rand even mentions that an argument should be addressed and not dismissed because of the arguer. Any one who would do otherwise, is just participating in evasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, why put philosophy in scare quotes?

Newton and the other scientist's correct arguments flowed from a correct philosophical basis (even if not all their philosophy was correct). Rothbard's arguments all flow from an incorrect philosophical basis.

Show me some examples, that show his philosophy makes THIS PARTICULAR ARGUMENT false. You are evading the point. And it is getting annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with lots of people, even you, but if you said "circles have no corners" I would have to agree with you.

If I said, "God loves circles and knows that corners are bad for them, therefore circles have no corners," would you agree with me?

Rand even mentions that an argument should be addressed and not dismissed because of the arguer.

What am I addressing, if not the argument, when I say: "This argument rests on arbitrary premises and should therefore be dismissed" ?

Show me some examples, that show his philosophy makes THIS PARTICULAR ARGUMENT false.

The bank is tempted, then to use other people's money to earn a profit for itself.
As if earning a profit for oneself was a bad thing!

The bank creates new money out of thin air, and does not, like everyone else, have to acquire money by producing and selling its services.
So, if the depositors do not see what the bank does as a useful service, why do they voluntarily put their money into the bank? Is the bank owned by the Bilderbergers who control people's minds by magic and make them do things they don't want to--or what??

No other business experiences a phenomenon like a "run."
Has Mr. Rothbard never been in a traffic jam? Or is he simply too anti-conceptual to admit that it's the same kind of thing? Should private roads be banned from selling all-year tickets just because all the ticketholders might decide to use the road at the same time and clog up the road?

Although traffic jams would probably be less frequent under capitalism than they are today, chances are they would still occur more often than "bank runs." Is that a reason to write a diatribe denouncing road operators for wanting to earn a profit for themselves?

An increased stock of gold or silver, however, fulfills more non-monetary wants (ornament, industrial purposes, etc.) served by the metal, and is therefore socially useful. Inflation (an increase in money substitutes not covered by an increase in the metal stock) is never socially useful, but merely benefits one set of people at the expense of another.
And "social usefulness" is a valid criterion since when?! And if I prefer to hire competent employees instead of incompetent ones and thereby "benefit one set of people at the expense of another," is that an argument against my existence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I want to thank you for replying and addressing the issues.

Second, I want to thank you for replying with a good argument.

Third, I want to clear up, that I am not in entire agreement with the Rothbardian stance on banking, I just didn't like that you dismissed his essays without addressing a single point. That was my only reason for replying in the manner that I did.

If I said, "God loves circles and knows that corners are bad for them, therefore circles have no corners," would you agree with me?
Point taken.

As if earning a profit for oneself was a bad thing!

I don't think he thinks profits are bad, he is a laissez faire economist, but any thing we think, he thinks, is just pure speculation, so I won't go any further on this point. I think profits are good, and that's all I can really say.

So, if the depositors do not see what the bank does as a useful service, why do they voluntarily put their money into the bank? Is the bank owned by the Bilderbergers who control people's minds by magic and make them do things they don't want to--or what??
Actually it is illegal to hoard money in the US, and to withhold large sums of money you don't intend to spend. I think the sum is 10,000 dollars. So technically, we don't freely choose to put our money in banks. And as for free banking, my guess is that less people would participate in fractional reserve banking because the notes would be slightly less valuable then the actual amount of their face value on the free market. But I could be wrong, there is no telling how free willed individuals would value those notes.

Has Mr. Rothbard never been in a traffic jam? Or is he simply too anti-conceptual to admit that it's the same kind of thing? Should private roads be banned from selling all-year tickets just because all the ticketholders might decide to use the road at the same time and clog up the road?

Although traffic jams would probably be less frequent under capitalism than they are today, chances are they would still occur more often than "bank runs." Is that a reason to write a diatribe denouncing road operators for wanting to earn a profit for themselves?

Valid critique.

And "social usefulness" is a valid criterion since when?! And if I prefer to hire competent employees instead of incompetent ones and thereby "benefit one set of people at the expense of another," is that an argument against my existence?

The social usefulness remark, I think was intended to show that given a free choice, rational actors/society as a whole would not participate in things that are of no benefit to the society as a whole. First, Rothbard is an economist, not a philosopher, and I don't know a single economist who doesn't use social usefulness as a criterion for determining whether a commodity or service will do well in markets or not. If they serve no purpose, or lead to unfair redistributions in wealth, most markets would not be able to sustain such activities.

Edit: Added a sentence to make a response make sense.

Edited by nimble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RationalEgoist
Maybe he is very close to an "o'ist philosophy," but he is as far from Objectivism as one gets.

Farther than Democrats or Republicans? Not even close, CF. That statement is reactionary at best.

This is a forum for Objectivists and students of Objectivism. Libertarians are not welcome here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Politically, I am a Laissez-Faire Capitalist... Politically, Libertarians are Laissez-Faire Capitalists.

The subject of government is political, and so, Libertarians only make the best choice. Isn't it immoral to support evil, but also immoral to withhold support for virtue? I vote libertarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an LFC jurisdiction would not a "bank" be a form of business? And in that case could not both of the proposed banking methods be implemented that have thus far been addressed as long as no party issued CDs under fraudulent terms?

Knowing that the CD (s) you held retained exchangable value for gold, but understood that A.) it is guaranteed to be backed even if every member of said bank was to cash in it's CDs (no matter how unlikely) at the same point in time, or B.) That the CD is LIKELY but not guaranteed to be exchangable for its gold equivalent at any given time.

Meaning for A to work the bank would have to start with enough capital in the form of gold to issue loans and at no point give loans that exceeded its starting capital unless and until it made profits to therefore have the option of increasing the amount in which it could loan out. Then any and all deposits would be backed for exchange at any time.

Otherwise, as in B, you take the risk, even if that risk is minimal, of losing your deposit if in the unlikely event that said bank failed to iniate certain standards for its loaning procedure and had a majority of the people in which it loaned to default on said loans and cause the bank to close when it could not meet the withdrawal demands of its depositors. Granted this would be unlikely in the extreme.

Maybe I've failed to understand something, I'm not sure, perhaps I've over simplified the situation; but said examples are hinged on the assumption that the answers to my original questions are yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure what i think about this issue. But, I have one question. Suppose that someone was able to discover a very large source of gold and a cheaper than usual way to extract it. In a system 100% tied to gold would this not lead to inflation.

Edited by Gweg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I"ve read a whole bunch of this thread and I will say that nimble and y feldblums arguments for 100% gold system are very convincing.

But, I have a couple more questions which I don't think have been addressed ( i havent read everything in this thread).

The first which was almost adressed in my last post: Gold has inherent value in that it can be used for certain things. These values can change due to a number of factors. So if the value of gold changes then the value of the currency it is tied to would change.

If banks should be expect to keep gold reserves to validate the value of its notes or cd's, what is to be said of the costs of hauling tons of gold from one place to another? Is this neccessary? Is this the best way to prevent inflation? Maybe we could think of others. I don't know. Maybe at least the standard of value should be something that isn't so damn dense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...