[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 5 KB, 208x156, rugrat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3215207 No.3215207 [Reply] [Original]

Did I just get trolled? Someone claims banks create money out of thin air.
example given:

A deposits $100 into his account
>Money in existence: $100
Bank lends $90 of A's deposit (assuming 10% reserve) out to someone who then buys from B
B deposits fresh check of $90 into his account
>Money in existence: A's account + B's account = $190
Bank lends $81 of B's deposit (assuming 10% reserve) out to someone who then buys from C
C deposits fresh check of $81 into his account
>Money in existence: A's account + B's account + C's account = $271
and so on

Okay, money multiplier, I understand that, but is the phrase "money created out of thin air" true? Isn't there some other factor that brings this hyperbole back down to reality?

>> No.3215227

>>3215207
Most banks are only allowed to lrnd out 8000% of cash reserves.

>> No.3215231

>>3215227
wat

>> No.3215250

That is how the hypothesis goes. But the most important part isn't that money is just created, creating money is easy, the idea is that this extra money creates an increase in output through investment. The keynesian/demand side school of thought believes this, while the Austrian/supply side thinks that this creates unstable bubbles.

>> No.3215252

nope. for all intents and purposes the money is created out of nowhere

>> No.3215256

>>3215207
Nope, not a bit. It becomes a bit more of a mindfuck when it gets lent bad to the first bank.
This video will explain it all.
http://youtu.be/IO18iGZUT-k?t=3m38s

>> No.3215260

>>3215231
If a bank has 100 dollars, they can only lend out 8000 dollars. That second and third person in op example do not count as higher reserves, because there is never additional physical money put in the bank.

>> No.3215270

>>3215256

Why would you do that?

;_;

>> No.3215275
File: 14 KB, 162x227, allais.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3215275

"In essence, the present creation of money, out of nothing by the banking system, is similar - I do not hesitate to say it in order to make people clearly realize what is at stake here - to the creation of money by counterfeiters, so rightly condemned by law."

>> No.3215295

>>3215231
It's widely known that banks usually lend out more money than they've actually brought in.

It's probably why the government only insures deposits of up to $10,000. If you're stupid enough to give a bank more than that they're not going to cover your ass.

Isn't fiat money fun? You can have a worthless piece of paper says you've got $100, give that to a bank who then says to another person here's $90 an a paper that says you owe us $90. All of it is paper! Even the change in your pocket isn't even precious anymore. Zinc, Copper, & Nickel.

>> No.3215308

>>3215295
LOLOLOLOL, you're living more than a decade in the past. Almost all money these days is electronic (i.e. numbers stored on hard drives :P), so it's even more worthless in a physical sense XD

>> No.3215316

The whole money multiplier thing is correct, banks can indeed loan out more money than they have (in a fractional-reserve monetary system). The "money created out of thin air" is bullshit. The ammount of money that gets created via bank lending depends on the monetary base (# of reserves of banks at the FED + # currency in circulation) which is controlled by the FED. There are some small fluctations in the money creation process which are not entirely controlled by the FED (the ammount of currency the public wants to hold, the ammount of reserves that banks want to hold) but the FED has a pretty good control over the ammount of money circulation overall (if they do their job right).

>> No.3215358

Money is not created by the banks, it's created when the average man on the street will take a depository note (cheque, debit, etc) as if it were cash.

>> No.3215393

Banks are not supposed to "create" money, however I suspect that this does happen. Some of the larger banks are so massive that transactions are pretty much untraceable and involved multiple other banks.

Governments can sort of create money, in the UK the British government kind of "created" money, they issue "bonds" which are then bought by rich people and other rich governments. Effectively they create money which is then bought with money. The whole scenario is pretty odd and I don't know enough about it however this was seen to be a very good way to recover from the recession. Somehow the government needs to pay guaranteed interest rates on these new bonds so that the people who bought the bonds (money) will end up making more money.

>> No.3215402

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HdmA3vPbSU

oversimplified, but it comes in the format of an easily digestable cartoon

>> No.3215447

You didn't get trolled op, money is indeed simply created.

When you get a home loan, the money isn't being withdrawn from the bank, a fractional reserve is created, and the bank creates new money which is backed by the debt you are creating.

Debt = Money in our system.

By agreeing to the 200,000.00 debt, 200,000.00 of money is "created" (number on a screen, only something like 3% of USD money is in paper/coin form).

Banks made it so they can create money, this way they don't lose anything when they give you a loan, and they assume it will work because you will create the value necessary for the "loan" (created money) they gave you.

EG you create the debt and they make the money out of nothing for you, then you have to pay off the debt, which is supposed to reimburse the value of the created money.

Your friend was not trolling you.

>> No.3215465

>>3215295

The FDIC "insures" each account to 250,000 dollars.

>> No.3215508

>>3215465
What is a "dollar" if USD collapses though?

Security is an illusion.

>> No.3215514

>>3215508

The want for the dollar to collapse is silly. The USD is specifically used because of its stability.

>> No.3215522

>>3215508
idiot. (i was going to thoughtfully respond, but you're not worthy) peace

>> No.3215527

to make way for the amero, numnut.

>> No.3215531
File: 188 KB, 650x857, Economics Prof.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3215531

someone say economics?

>> No.3215571

>>3215316

You only forgot to add that the Federal Reserve DOES create money out of thin air.

>> No.3215619

>>3215571

not that guy and you're correct, but it doesnt create money for the lulz, FED creates just enough money for the whole system to run correctly, not more not less then needed. Ofc, this is theory, what is doing in RL, nobody knows

>> No.3215634

>>3215619

> implying inflation is correct
> implying the devaluing of labor is correct
> implying interest rates are not always too low

>> No.3215685

>>3215308

I'll give you three electrons for your sheep, good sir.

>> No.3215690

>>3215634
> implying inflation is correct


nigga wut? inflation is real, it wont disappear if anybody says it's not correct or is correct. i really dont understand what you said thurr. Inflation at 3-4% is good inflation

>> No.3215693

>>3215634
Why are you so retarded? I'd write you off as just a full-time troll, but you aren't really parodying libertarians, you're just really fucking stupid.

>> No.3215703

>>3215690

> inflation happens currently
> so it is ideal

Haha.

>>3215693

> you dumb
> i cannot or will not refute anything you said, just name call

I see.

>> No.3215709

While it's a very loose and imprecise definition of how money is created OP. He is essentially correct.

It sounds like you are in disbelief? What exactly is wrong with this idea OP? The system apparently works quite well if you look at the amount of aggregate wealth it has produced.

Basing the money supply on gold would create huge deflationary pressures in a modern globalized economy. Also I don't see how having politicians control the money supply would be any better or worse than having central bankers print the supply.

>> No.3215714

>>3215703


take your answer to 2nd post and relate somehow to answer you gave to the 1st post.

>> No.3215722

>>3215709

Deflation happened in the fastest growing time ever in America. Feels good, man.

>> No.3215726

>>3215714

Take a chance, and address me with what you claim to be logical on the topic of anything I discussed.

>> No.3215734

>>3215726
wh do you think moderate inflation is bad? do you even support money creation as it is today? what about deflation, do you like it or not?

>> No.3215750

The money isn't "created" he bank is just lending more money than it has, making the bank itself having a negative balance
No money is cerated all liabilities cancel to zero in the end

>> No.3215754

>>3215734
moderate inflation is a tax on people who save which goes to politically connected commercial banks

>> No.3215760

>>3215750
no, just no. banks dont have negative balances and they DO create money that wasnt existing before.

>> No.3215762

>>3215734

Artificial devaluing of labor is never good.

Of course not.

Deflation as it is today? Nope.

>> No.3215764

>It sounds like you are in disbelief? What exactly is wrong with this idea OP? The system apparently works quite well if you look at the amount of aggregate wealth it has produced.

Arguibly, aggregate wealth has been produced IN SPITE of the monetary system, not because of it.

>Basing the money supply on gold would create huge deflationary pressures in a modern globalized economy.

We had Price-Deflation during most of the 19th Century, and it was the period of fastest growth in our history. Real wages were rising, and so were consumption and profits.

Japan currently has a monetary policy that is causing price deflation, and consumers and firms alike have no problem with it, and in fact really like it. Sadly the Government runs an enormous deficit and has an enormous debt that crowds out private investment.

There's a difference between price deflation ( money gains value, prices fall) and monetary-deflation ( FED contracts the money supply). And also, you seem to disregard the existence of the "Free Banking School", i suggest you look into it.

>> No.3215771

>>3215754
>>3215754
what about ever growing gdp? if money remains constant there wont be enough of it to satisfy more gdp

>> No.3215773

>>3215760
>no, just no.
right on, champ, your argument is irrefutable

>> No.3215775

>>3215762
what is your solution, what do you support?

>> No.3215777

>>3215771

GDP is not bound to the cash printed by the FED in America.

>> No.3215779

>Gold standard.
Lol, no.
Money is used to represent wealth. When you work, you create wealth and get money for it. When you buy something, you are reaping the fruits of someone else's work and/or natural resources. Binding money to gold would be stupid and add an unnecessary middle man.

>money printers controlled by elected government
FUCK NO
temptation to patch up budget holes by printing out more money is too great.

>>3215703
>tripfag gonna fag

Deflation harms investment.
Deflation slows down economic growth.
Fed has taken a risky step, but apparently its leadership thinks it is worth taking. It should help patch up the trade balance deficit, too.

>> No.3215785

>>3215775

Liberty of course.

Complete vanishing of any and all states. Insofar as a state is any person or group of people that regulate and punish.

>> No.3215796

>>3215785

>implying every people is intelligent and rational individual
>implying your kind of liberty is the ONLY good liberty
>implying only you want to be free

>> No.3215797

>>3215771

First, "GDP" is not really a very good measure of economy wealth.

Second, you don't need more money to "satisfy ever growing GDP". Money is merely the mean of exchange used to trade goods and services, the real wealth is the goods and services. Increasing the money supply will merely make each unit of the currency worth less in face of the goods and services.
As long as there is enough money to be useful as a mean of exchange, there is no need to change the supply, the current amount will do.
>http://mises.org/daily/5213/What-Is-Money

Of course, Keynesians can argue that some increase in the money supply is useful to boost aggregate demand during recessions, but that's a whole different matter.

>> No.3215798

>>3215779

Deflation occurred in our fastest growing period.
Growth is not mutually exclusive of deflation.
The Fed always thinks it is right. Did you catch Bernanke getting asked what the cost to business all the new regulations that were passed by the democrat controlled legislature? He flat out had no idea. He literally said I will not even pretend to know. The Fed is a joke.

>> No.3215802

>>3215796

> implying they need to be
> implying there is another logical kind
> implying I care about unrestricted freedom

>> No.3215806

>>3215771
Gentle deflation is fine by me, the premium on loanable funds will keep people invested.

>> No.3215809

>>3215764
We can always argue things "could have been better" but that's almost impossible to prove.

If the current system *could* have produced more we'd see massive under utilization of labor. Massive portions of the population that essentially have nothi- oh wait, there are.

>> No.3215810

>>3215797

imagine this situation. we set money supply to be n, and after 1000 of years our gdp is so increased that buying a bread will take 1/10000 of dollar. i dont see the point of it. It's much better that infaltion keeps rising ah mush as gdp is rising, so prices always remain the same

>> No.3215811

>>3215785

That's a nice dream. I dream of sitting in a lotus position and levitating over the town where I live, that's a nice one too. More realistic than yours, too.

>> No.3215822

>>3215798
dude you gotta make difference between gold standard and current economic system

>> No.3215823

>>3215779

>Binding money to gold would be stupid and add an unnecessary middle man.

It would prevent reckless Government spending and limit unecessary increases in the money supply. If that's useless, i don't know what's useful.

>Deflation harms investment.
>Deflation slows down economic growth.
>Fed has taken a risky step, but apparently its leadership thinks it is worth taking. It should help patch up the trade balance deficit, too.

The period of fastest growth in American history was during a period of price deflation. It was also the period of fastest rising real wages, profits AND consumption. It wasn't perfect ( fractional reserve banking implemented, banks with state charters expanded credit beyond the gold standard, etc), but was better than what we have today.

Contraction of the money supply harms investment, just like inflation of it does. But a constant money supply harms no one.
Also, you are now aware that "Trade deficit" can also be called "Capital account surplus". Fréderic Bastiat, David Ricardo and others showed in the 19th century that trade deficits are not a big deal, and in most cases can be seen as a sign of a good economy.

>> No.3215831

>Deflation occurred in our fastest growing period.
wait, what?
The last time there was any significant Deflation was during the great depression.
that was certainly not a " fastest growing period"

>> No.3215837

>>3215811

> can't happen in the real world
> not realistic

I see you think you can predict the future. That seems like it would not work in the real world, and is not realistic.

> this whole thread
> implying gold backed currency would not have substantial reserves to counter any swings in the cost of gold

sigh

>> No.3215841

>>3215831

In Great Depression the FED contracted the money supply ( monetary deflation), which was indeed very bad and crashed the economy. Contraction of the money supply is just as bad as inflation of it.

We are arguing for a constant supply of money and price deflation, which existed during the 19th century when the Gold Standard still mattered.

>> No.3215845

>>3215831

Deflation occurred in the fastest growing period ever in America.

> lol that is dumb because one time when deflation happened we did not grow

Logic motherfucker, do you understand it? The fastest growing period was within a deflationary period. This is not proven incorrect because deflation happened during the great depression. Also you are confusing monetary deflation with price deflation.

>> No.3215846

> implying gold backed currency would not have substantial reserves to counter any swings in the cost of gold
Expect there's more money in the United states alone than all the gold in the world could back

>> No.3215850

>Deflation occurred in the fastest growing period ever in America.
And when exactly was that?

>> No.3215852

>>3215823
you just spit theory which turned to be totally opposite in real life. Gold standard was perfect in theory, but countries managed to "trick" it, which resulted that big countries like UK kept their surpluses and refused to gave up gold and poor countries got even poorer

>> No.3215857

>>3215846

Not knowing the value would switch if it backed currency.

>> No.3215858

>>3215823
No, it wouldn't actually. The gold supply is about 3% of the GDP, so if they made dollars redeemable for gold, there wouldn't be enough gold to cover all the goods and services in the economy. That's how it used to be. The problem then is that when things go wrong, there can be a run on the gold from either within the coutnry, or by a foreign holder of dollars, and then all hell breaks loose, and nothing can be done but to stop the redeamability of dollars for gold.

As for irresponsible increases in the money supply, that is done by separating the fiscal authority from the monetary authority, i.e. separating parliament from the central bank, or in the case of the US separating Congress from the Fed. The Fed's one mission is to maintain the price stability of the dollar by controlling the money supply.

>> No.3215864

>>3215858

> thinking gold has to be able to redeemed for gold by the state backing currency with gold
> thinking it would even matter


nope.jpg

>> No.3215867

>>3215858
so much this. kudos anon

>> No.3215869

>>3215845
>Deflation occurred in the fastest growing period ever in America.
wat. Deflation means the economy is in freefall. It means interest becomes meaningless, and businesses shut down. This happened during the beginning of the great depression, and briefly in '08.

>> No.3215871

>Not knowing the value would switch if it backed currency.
So, we should go from one worthless thing with a big number on it (paper) to another slightly less worthless thing, but still with a bigger number on it than it's actually worth (gold)

>> No.3215874

>>3215864
So, what the fuck would then be the reason to sue the gold standard at all?

>> No.3215876

>>3215857
So you're just going to inflate the price of gold until the gold reserves cover the entire GDP? Then there's NO FUCKING POINT in using gold at all. It's intrinsic value is a tiny fraction of the fiat value assigned to it as currency.

>> No.3215878
File: 19 KB, 168x218, FAHayek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3215878

So, even the Libertarian-minded people here are forgetting about the Free Banking School?

Feelsbadman.jpg

>> No.3215880

>>3215864
Yes, that's what the gold standard means. It means the state makes dollars redeemable for gold. Otherwise there is no gold standard.

>> No.3215882

>>3215869
In the modern central banking monetarist world we live in, yes.
In the old, stable currency world of the past, prices fell gently while wages grew as capital accumulation and technology made the society more prosperous.

>> No.3215887

>>3215869

Deflation is not defined as an economy in free fall. That is silly. The ACTUAL definition of deflation is a decrease in the price of goods and services. You are talking about monetary deflation by the state, which is irrelevant to the fact I stated.

>>3215871

> implying gold has not been a generally accepted medium of exchange and valued for centuries

>> No.3215890

>>3215880
you're the only dude here that knows anything about economics, pretty much everybody else is rephrasing zeitgeist/money as debt things

>> No.3215892

>>3215887
>implying paper has not been a generally accepted medium of exchange and valued for centuries
Again, inflation gold until it fits the money supply is NO different than inflating colorful paper until it fits the money supply, see >>3215876
You're replacing one fiat currency with an other

>> No.3215894

>>3215874

gold backed currency =/= you have to be able to get that gold from the state whenever you want

>>3215876

> implying the value would stay the same if it backed us currency

>>3215880

Not in the slightest. The state does not have to give out the gold to whomever wants it whenever they want it for it to be backed. In fact, it doesn't need to happen at all to be backed by gold.

>> No.3215896

>>3215823

Only thing that can prevent governments from spending carelessly are caring politicians. Big chance. The problem is when the politicians have power to print out money to finance this spending, which is bad. If they don't, they have to borrow it somewhere... at interest. It's just a pity the investors are being taught that it's 'risk-free' investment.

As for price stability, the fact remains that dropping prices do not feel investors with confidence, nor dodropping wages make workers happy - even if real wage remained the same or grew. While mild inflation, on the other hand, gives both parties some degree of comfort.

>> No.3215898

>>3215882
>In the old, stable currency world of the past, prices fell gently while wages grew as capital accumulation and technology made the society more prosperous.

Wat? Deflation means money is getting more valuable. Prices are dropping. Wages are dropping. No one puts money in the bank, because there is no inflation, and your money gains real value just by being in your pocket.

Sounds good at first, except for those who owe money, who find themselves owing more than they ever bargained for. Mortgages would start going underwater first.

Lower prices means businesses have to cut wages, which lowers demand, which lowers prices further, which is the deflationary spiral which shuts down the economy.

>> No.3215899

>>3215887
do you even know why and when gold standard failed? Do you really think that all countries were following the rules of the game? what happens in situations when deflation is occurring and your wages are dropping and you have loans to pay?

>> No.3215900

>>3215890

>Everyone's using Austrian arguments for a fixed money supply.
>"rephrasing Zeitgeist money as debt things"

The Pro-Gold people are diametrically opposed to Zeitgeist bullshit. They simply want a limit to the money supply and for the government to get out of the economy and defend this with Austrian arguments, Zeitgeist people on the other hand are Socialists.

>> No.3215905

>>3215894
> implying the value would stay the same if it backed us currency
Why the fuck would any material be worth "more" just because it was used as currency
That makes no fucking sense

>> No.3215906

>>3215890

Haha, he/she/it literally knows nothing of economics.

>>3215892

> centuries

NOPE.png

The value will not stay the same, nor will America be able to keep out more currency than is valued.

>> No.3215912

>>3215894
>gold backed currency =/= you have to be able to get that gold from the state whenever you want

That's exactly what it means. But by all means, tell us what you think it means.

>> No.3215917

>nor will America be able to keep out more currency than is valued.
Of course
If the government can decide that all the gold in the world is now worth exactly the GDP (because it sure as hell isn't now), it can just as well decide that all the gold is now 1.1 times the GDP or 0.9 times, effectively having control over the money supply

>> No.3215926

>>3215900
> They simply want a limit to the money supply
Limit it to what? Certainly not to the value of the gold reserves. We'd have to start using pesos.

>> No.3215929

>>3215898

Any intelligent person would keep money out of the bank with inflation towering over interest rates.

> implying housing cannot increase in value if deflation of eggs is happening

sigh

>>3215899

> states failed and fail

Um, I agree. The state is always the problem.

>>3215905

Why would it stay the same if there was less supply?

>> No.3215934

>>3215917
what if a rich indian guy with a lot of gold comes from abroad?

>> No.3215935

>Why would it stay the same if there was less supply?
And why the fuck would there be less supply?

>> No.3215936

>>3215917
Exactly. If you can arbitrarily make gold 20x more valuable than the market says it is, it's no less fiat currency than arbitrarily making paper 1000x more valuable than it is.

>> No.3215939

>>3215912

gold backed =/= gold redeemable whenever anyone wants

>> No.3215946

>>3215936

Haha, it isn't arbitrary. The US would of course have more gold. So the supply would go down. This is extremely elementary stuff.

>> No.3215947

>>3215929
Deflation means housing prices are falling and the real value of mortgages are growing. What the fuck, dude? Are you trolling?

>> No.3215951

>>3215929
you're pretty much saying that state should gtfo from doing anything related to monetray supply, get back to gold standard and....what? who controls it, who is looking if everyone plays by the rules?

>> No.3215954

>>3215939
Yes it does. For the 3rd time, please tell us what YOU think gold backed currency is.

>> No.3215956

>The US would of course have more gold. So the supply would go down
This makes literally no sense whatsoever

>> No.3215959

>>3215939
why wouldnt be redeemable? if someone want it's gold- backed money, why the fuck he wouldnt be able to pick up gold? what's the point of gold then?

>> No.3215960

>>3215947

Haha, again no. Deflation does not mean EVERYTHING goes down. You are silly.

>>3215951

Any support of the gold standard is a presumed there has to be a state argument. If the argument was what do I support absolutely it would be no state, but that is not the debate.

>> No.3215966

>>3215946
What? Of course it's arbitrary. It's taking a commodity and saying that it is legal tender for all goods and services in the economy. That increases the value of the commodity orders of magnitude beyond its intrinsic value.
>This is extremely elementary stuff.
No shit. So why can't you get it?

>> No.3215972

>>3215960

>Haha, again no. Deflation does not mean EVERYTHING goes down. You are silly.

you just went full retard

>> No.3215974

>>3215960
You're a troll, or living in some kind of fantasy world.

>> No.3215976

>>3215954

I did. It simply means that every unit of money has the same value unit of gold somewhere. IT does not have to be given out to whomever wants it whenever they want.

>>3215956

> gold reserves would stay the same now and the us would not buy gold before preparing for a gold standard

Really?

>>3215959

How "doable" is it for any person to go to the state and say I want this much gold right now, gimme?

>> No.3215986

>>3215966

As the US prepares for the gold standard they would buy gold and take it off the market.

>>3215972

> you dumb
> i cannot refute your points, so you dumb

I see.

>>3215974

> you a troll
> i cannot refute your points, so you are a troll

>> No.3215988

>>3215976

and what happens when countries run on trade deficits?

>> No.3215990

>Deflation does not mean EVERYTHING goes down. You are silly.
Though it does in reality
Look at every depression and recession every
Across the board EVERYTHING would be affected, because the reasons are psychological.
People are afraid because of the "bad economy" and don't spend money on anything at all, so any recession that starts with a small sector of the economy (like the housing market) quickly engulfs nearly everything, because of massive reduced consumer spending

>> No.3215998

>As the US prepares for the gold standard they would buy gold and take it off the market.
Hahha, oh wow
And where exactly would they get the money for that, again?

>> No.3216006

>>3215988

In any logical gold standard system there would be reserves that will allow for fluctuation in value and trade deficits.

>> No.3216011

>>3215998
I know!! I know!!!
What if we created more money...
to buy more gold...
to cover the money we have.
I must be genius.

>> No.3216022

>>3215990

Not at all. Everything does not have to go down. Prices of goods and services generally go down, not all. That is just silly.

>>3215998

Why would the gold standard have to start in one day with the current amount of held gold at the current gold value?

>> No.3216029

>>3216011

> implying you cannot transition to a gold standard

>> No.3216033

>Why would the gold standard have to start in one day with the current amount of held gold at the current gold value?
Because otherwise, there would be a massive alteration of the money supply, probably triggering some heavy economic tumroil

>> No.3216042

>>3216022
>Why would the gold standard have to start in one day with the current amount of held gold at the current gold value?
So, it's all handwaving and "someday, maybe"

>> No.3216047

It's not exactly created out of thin air.
It's created from debt

>> No.3216049

>>3216033

That would be a problem of no currency reserves. Or a failure of the state. You never need to convince me that the state fails.

>> No.3216052

>>3216022

so the government, instead of investing into something that would be actually useful, will pay for huge amounts of gold. And then commits currency retardation. It would consign this metal to rot in vault, making it unavailable for any use by, say, electronics industry. And since it would be unable to gather enough gold to cover entirety of the monetary base, it would have to resort to fiat anyway.

Brilliant plan.

>> No.3216055

>>3216042

The debate is assumed that there has to be a state.

>> No.3216063

>>3216052

Haha, what is "helpful" to you?

Why do you think the value would remain the same as supply is lowered?

>> No.3216068
File: 18 KB, 355x294, braveheart.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3216068

>>3216052
But, but, but, FREEDOM!

>> No.3216082

>>3216052
I think i get it know.
Libertarians don't actually want a Gold Standard, they just hope that somehow, the government will be stupid enough to do it, thereby causing it to collapse, because again, it's a fucking stupid idea

>> No.3216087

>>3216068

I never argue for actual freedom (unrestricted doing of whatever you want).

>> No.3216091

So, if banks can create money out of thin air, and only $10000 bucks are "safe" if they do something really wrong, what to do with all the rest? I cannot store it at my house and digging a hole to store it is not really an option.

>> No.3216097

>>3216091
put it in the bank.

>> No.3216100

>>3216082
Fuck! You've revealed our secret plan!

>> No.3216102

>>3216091
what do you think happens to paper money, if the money banks use will become worthless?

>> No.3216121

>>3216087
>unrestricted doing of whatever you want

so, that's freedom? i can blow you with shotgun and there wont be any restrictions? sign me up!

>> No.3216126

>>3216121

That is actual freedom. And that is one reason why I do not support it.

>> No.3216154

/sci/borgs are useless when it comes to economics.

repeat after me: FRACTIONAL RESERVE SYSTEM.

Google that shit and come back and post after you've learned something.

>> No.3216156

>>3216126
and you "only" support liberty? how old are you btw?

>> No.3216174

>>3216156

Why would anyone not support Liberty?

Between 18 and 99.

>> No.3216191

>>3216174
you already have the liberty to try whatever you want. OFc rules are not equal for anyone but they wont ever be.

what especially you to be free off?

>> No.3216200

>>3216191

Even if that was Liberty (which it is not), I do not.

I do not support freedom, I support Liberty. Liberty is restricted freedom.

>> No.3216201

>>3216174
why would anyone not support communism? from everyone according to his ability, to everyone according to his needs!

>> No.3216211

>>3216201

Why would anyone ever support theft of labor (communism)?

>> No.3216214

>>3216200
but in which elements in life you want to be more liberated?

>> No.3216221

>>3216214

Only physical and mental.

>> No.3216230

>>3216211
why would anyone ever support dissolution of justice? ('liberty')

>> No.3216238

>>3216230

Why would anyone ever claim justice is objective and thereby usable for logical argument?

>> No.3216246

>>3216221
and how the fuck does that have to do with gold standard you support? it seems to me that you're jelly of those jew bankers that get incredible amounts of money just by doing their shit in financial markets these days, but you are in no real danger, both physical and mental, from them. Why so jelly, Liberty?

>> No.3216263

>>3216246

For the third or fourth time in this thread, I pointed out the debate was framed around the assumption that the state has to exist.

>> No.3216266

>>3216238
Because it is, faggot. It is an idea of society how things should work. Even if it can vary from one individual to another, there is always universally accepted version. Even if you decided to strip society of all formal structures which enforce it, they would reform, and probably not in a form that you would enjoy.

>> No.3216270

>>3216263
and if state doesnt have to exist, how to deal with one currency for them all if world is not optimum currency area?

>> No.3216276

>>3216266

Justice is based on human emotion. You think theft is justice, I do not.

>> No.3216285

>>3216270

How to deal with what? How to deal with the state?

>> No.3216296

>>3216276

>implying I give a shit about what you think
>implying the state gives a shit about what you think
>implying other people give a shit about what you think
>implying your preference would matter when local thugs would come to collect ransom from you, but unlike government would give you any sort of compensation in form of public goods, or say in who the next chief of thugs is going to be

>> No.3216301

>>3216285
how to deal with one currency for the whole world. look at eu, even on small scale (smaller then world at least) one currency is not working. Germany is differently developed than Spain and what would be good for Spain isnt good for Germany. What do you suggest if we break all the states, how to handle one currency system? and please dont tell me that we have to keep currencies and break countries

>> No.3216310

>>3216296

> implying i said you should
> implying i said it should
> implying i said they should
> implying that does not happen within a state

The last one made me laugh the most. Good work, statist.

>> No.3216320

>>3216301

You want me to tell you how to keep the state afloat. What?

>> No.3216327

>>3216310
well, in a society without central authority, they better should, otherwise there is nothing to stop them from turning your 'liberty' into their 'freedom to do as they want with your property'. But by all means keep dreaming your impossible dream.

>> No.3216328

>>3216320
no, you said you want to abolish states, i ask you how to deal with one currency in that world?

>> No.3216342

>>3216327

That would make them a state.

>>3216328

Why would there be one currency?

>> No.3216354

>>3216342
oh, come-the-fuck-on dude, no countries in the world and many currencies? do you even see how retarded that is? do i even have to start explaining why that wouldnt work?

>> No.3216366

>>3216354

> thinking all people would use the same currency throughout the entire world

The fuck are you blathering about?

>> No.3216370

>>3216366
if there are no countries, it's logical to think whole world will use one currency, no?

>> No.3216373

>>3216370

Not logical at all.

>> No.3216379

>>3216342
>I don't support existence of a state
>other people don't have to care about my preferences
>if other people do me something that I don't like, they are acting like state

I rest my case.

>> No.3216384

>>3216379

> implying i said that

You are silly.

Case rested.

>> No.3216387

People like this Liberty tripfaggot are retarded because they value policies in line with their moronic ideology over policies that actually lead to society being a better place.

There, I said it.

>> No.3216404

>>3216370
Anyone could print their own money.

Some economists think this could be good, while others think it's bullshit.

Go figure.

>> No.3216405

>>3216387

> implying "better" is not hilariously subjective

Why stop there? Base it on what is mean.

>> No.3216424

>>3216405
> implying "better" is not hilariously subjective
>implying it is

>> No.3216436

>>3216424

> implying you know what it means

>> No.3216445

>>3216384
yeah, you did.
here
>>3216049
here
>>3216310
and here
>>3216342

you silly boy.

>> No.3216450

>>3216404
>>3216373

ok, here's the deal. Imagine if anyone could print their own money. All kinds of those currencies would polarize (strong currencies will prevail over shitty-backyard-school-boys created currencies) and voila, we have the same situation we have today.

Now, to answer Liberty's retarded claim that there's nothing wrong with one world and many currencies, who would control those currencies? People using one currency would want to make that currency more stronger aka to get more gold than others and thus creating whole countries all over again to protect areas where that currency is used. If you see no problem with neverending currency wars than you're retarded. One world will have to use ONE currency or that world will divide into many countries just like today.

>> No.3216461

>>3216445

Where specifically? Quote this what I do not like part.

>>3216450

The markets would fracture themselves based upon personal values and such. Australia will most likely not use the same currency as Germany as it would be too impractical.

>> No.3216463

>>3216296
Actually, mafia groups are famous for befriending the cities/populations which they extort, offering goods and services to their subjects.

The government does it the exact same way, you're ignorance is showing. "Her der I don't know how mob groups work, so I'll just play pretend that they don't try and appease the populations they control!"

>> No.3216468

>>3216461
and why would australia be part of the same borderless world as germany as it has no similarities together?

>> No.3216474

>>3216468

In case you are not aware, Australia has physical barriers between other land masses.

>> No.3216495
File: 22 KB, 220x287, highnoon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3216495

>>3216463
so you say dictatorship is a perfectly valid form of government? oh, okay, sure, that's just like your opinion, man.

>>3216461
your reading comprehension is poor.
to >implying people give a shit about what you think
you replied >implying they should.
Of course, other people giving shit about your preferences is necessary in absence of enforced law. Unless of course you can rely on your neighbors to help defend your liberties. Pic related.

>> No.3216501

>>3216474
you're delusional if you think world trade would be done if no one knows who to call when he wants to make a trade. Your theory is so filled with holes, you dont even have explanations for issues that would show in that stateless world. You're just like a little kid who want candy and doesnt give a fuck if their parents have money to buy.

think your theory more through and come back to discuss. until then, gg

>> No.3216509

>>3216495

Only if you emotionally think I said that in any way. Not sure why you hope that is fact though.

Liberty requires no protection.

>> No.3216513

>>3216370
No, you need a country to enforce a currency. With no countries we'd be force to essentially barter with commodities like in the old days. Get paid in goats, cows, salt, gold, silver, trinkets, and hope you can exchange them for food.

>> No.3216515

>>3216501

What exactly are you talking about? You told me that one currency would be used in all locations if there was no state. That is silly.

>> No.3216516

>>3216501
> He thinks that the government is "magic" and that when you want to make a trade you don't communicate with the person you want to trade with.

lmao

>> No.3216522

>>3216513

> implying a currency cannot be goats, etc, etc

You must be knew here. Currency is not state based.

>> No.3216524

>>3216509
if it needs no protection, then how come it does not exist anywhere on the world?

>> No.3216527

>>3216513
While there would be more than one currency, just as there currently is, general agreements for the sake of barter would be made.

Gold would be accepted.

>> No.3216534

>>3216516

Where did you come up with that?

imb4 you said it

Show the exact wording and post that leads you to hope that I said that.

>> No.3216543

>>3216524

Liberty exists or it does not. That is why.

>>3216527

He is claiming that currency is defined as a state created medium of exchange. He is of course silly and a complete jackass.

>> No.3216552

>>3216522
Yes, you can trade in goats etc., but it is not very liquid, not very reliable, and you are trading with things that have no basis of price stability in themselves, which makes for a much less efficient economy than one with a relatively stable fiat currency.

All states, once they become powerful enough to support a fiat currency, start using it. Commodities fill the gaps until then.

>> No.3216557

>>3216509
>Liberty requires no protection.
Dear god, man, every time I think you've said such stupid shit that you can't possibly say anything more retarded, you prove me wrong. I honestly don't even understand how you could possibly believe that, you have to completely close your eyes to not only all of human history but to basic principles of psychology. I'm completely serious when I say that I cannot even see a logical path that could lead you to that conclusion. Wow, man, at least religious people have been indoctrinated since childhood, you seem to have done this to yourself. Even communists aren't that delusional.

>> No.3216558

>>3216552

Efficiency is not the definition of currency.

Again, the state is not required in any way for currency to exist.

>> No.3216562

>>3216527
What do you mean there would be "general agreements". There would be no currencies. Some people would take gold, some would not. Some would take silver. Some would take salt. Some would take goats. That is how it used to be.

Generally one will become something of a standard in a region, but you never know its fluctuation value in relation to other goods, and there is never a guarantee that the commodity (gold or anything else) will be accepted by someone else, and certainly not at the exchange rate you were planning on.

>> No.3216568

>>3216557

Liberty applies to all, not just some. That is why it rapes freedom.

>> No.3216573

>>3216558
Yes, the state is required for fiat currency. That's why it's called fiat currency. Fiat currency is required for both economic stability and efficiency.

>> No.3216588

>>3216543
Ooh.. kay...

So, liberty is something that you love and believe in, even though it apparently doesn't exist anywhere in the world.

You also believe it is something that does not need protection.

Do you think it is a deity? Or an utopia? Are you an idealist? Or maybe just an idiot?

>namecalling, you're mean, can't refute my argumentation

So it's true. If a madman claims he can fly by flapping his hands, you can't convince him that he cannot even if he falls repeatedly. Because maybe he was just not flapping hard enough...

>> No.3216590

>>3216573

Where did I talk about fiat currency in reference to this discussion between you and i?

>> No.3216602

>>3216588

Where did I say love?

The earth is round, protection of the earth does not make it round, it is just round.

Is Liberty a utopia? Of course.

I would not care to convince him.

>> No.3216629

>>3216590
I talked about fiat currency. You responded to what I said, leaving off the word "fiat", but still responding as if you were talking about what I was talking about.

If you were talking about something else, then you need to improve your reading and/or general communication skills.

>> No.3216638

>>3216602
are you saying that trading in goats and salt throughout the world and yelling "I am liberated" is better than today's world?

dude...

>> No.3216644

>>3216629

> No, you need a country to enforce a currency.

You said nothing of fiat currency here, and that just so happens to be what i responded to.

>> No.3216652

>>3216638

Am I saying it? No.

Did I say it? No.

Did I imply it? No.

Did you use silly thinking to hope that I said or implied that? Yes.

>> No.3216665

>>3216652
both you and i know that in stateless world current currencies wont live, so new ones must be made

both you and i know that new currencies would be barter economics

so yes, you did say that trading goats would be better than today's world

>> No.3216672

>>3216665

Where did this emotional want for me to have said that come from?

>> No.3216682

>>3216672
it came from my ass

you are full of shit dude, good bye

>> No.3216689

>>3216682

I agree with your first point.

>> No.3216695

>>3216644
Actually you were responding to this one:
>>3216552
where I qualify "fiat" every time.

>> No.3216701

>>3216665
bingo.

>> No.3216716
File: 39 KB, 800x529, FAIL_FACE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3216716

ctrl + f - bitcoin

no results found

mfw

>> No.3216717

>>3216513
>>3216513
>>3216513
>>3216513
>>3216513
>>3216513
>>3216513

No, you need a country to enforce a currency. With no countries we'd be force to essentially barter with commodities like in the old days. Get paid in goats, cows, salt, gold, silver, trinkets, and hope you can exchange them for food.

Which garnered:

>>3216522
>>3216522
>>3216522
>>3216522
>>3216522
>>3216522

You must be knew here. Currency is not state based.

Where did you say fiat currency in that post?