On Mon, 10 May 2010 22:40:34 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
Yet insolvency is not possible in a true fiat system. You are merely
confirming my thesis. The problems in historical cases were a lack of
appropriate taxation. Understanding that governments print their own
money is the easy part. The hard part comes when we have to figure out
how to keep the amount of money under control. Taxing the producers in
the economy as opposed to taxing the wealthy owners is always the kiss of
Why are you changing the subject? Why are you talking about communism
and nationalizing industries and such? I am talking about insurance
systems and fiat money. And fiat money is what we currently have but for
the invasion of the interest/rent sucking "financial thieves".
And again.... Why are you changing the subject?
That isn't a "we". It is the Libertarian and the right winger that does
not know how to do it. The sane people just need a little bit of
education and they will figure it out for themselves. The rightarded
will NEVER allow themselves to figure it out and will fight like hell to
keep the regular folks from finding out how to do it.
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Yet it *has* happened. Chile is just an example where it spread
and took a regime down.
It's frequently difficult to tell the difference.
Ah, I'm not. If you haven't seen/read "The Ascent of Money", Ferguson's
principal thesis is that social insurance programs cannot be extended
indefinitely. Even worse, it's not possible to know how far you can go.
You run up against confidence in your paper (bonds) in the international
His is hardly a flawless exposition, but it's essentially sound.
The nationalization was part of Allende's plan to provide extended
social insurance. That is why I brought it up.
I fear it's beyond just right-wingers or inflation hawks. After all,
the last round of contagion was as much people desperately trying to
figure out how to allocate all the Greenspan pumping from '02-03
forward as anything else.
On Tue, 11 May 2010 01:17:52 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
If an entity can simply print money then it "technically" cannot become
insolvent. I do, however, appreciate the fact that currency may not
_serve_ as money. Unless the regime can reclaim its currency then
currency is _NOT_ money.
It is not really necessary to be that precise. Indirect taxation such as
taxation of land values and other asset values and excise taxes on
frivolous or harmful consumption do not tax real prosperity. Taxation of
imported goods that can be produced internally can actually enhance
internal production. The most stupid tax in the universe is a wage tax
applied to median wage income and below or a consumption tax applied to
general goods and services. i.e. a VAT. Why do stupid people continually
want to directly tax actual production. And general consumption is just
the other side of production.
But a word needs be inserted here concerning social insurance systems.
These systems should tax production as a mainstay because the tax is an
insurance premium as opposed to a true tax that would be invested in
defense, and property rights` enforcement. It is entirely reasonable,
however, to subsidize such insurance systems with asset taxes or to use
excess revenues during "good times" to acquire mineral rights and direct
ownership of sovereign natural resources such as land owned by the
private sector. Based on such state ownership, rents can be used instead
of taxes. But the bulk of the support for such systems must be taken
from the productive beneficiaries of the system. When regimes attempt to
tax production and wealth accumulation too heavily in the pursuit of
"social justice" or some other touchy feely crap then these insurance
systems become unsustainable. This unsustainability can be prevented by
proper and honest accounting and transparency, and, as I said above, by
acquiring rights to minerals and land in the public interest when times
are good and production exceeds the pubic need.
The primary cause of economic upheaval is always speculation interrupted
by reality. In the latest round it was peak oil and the interruption to
world wide economic growth that triggered the financial collapse.
So let us be sure to understand this.....
A "social insurance system" that does not pay for itself over the long
term will not work. The "conclusion" that social insurance systems cannot
continue forever is rightarded pig crap. Such systems, like any other
valid systems must be valuable in their own right. That seems to be
pretty clear to me and to most other sentient creatures. The rightarded
will forever deny that planing and rationality can avert the harm caused
by a rightard created "business cycle".
The other piece of the monetary puzzle is, of course, a dependence on
trade that leaves the system vulnerable to external politics. An entity
that prints its own money for internal trade can do as it pleases. But
that same entity cannot expect to send its currency abroad while not
reclaiming any of it through reciprocal trade or some sort or tribute.
Sooner or latter the external people will have too much of the currency
and lose all respect for it. If the currency cannot be used to acquire
any real goods or services directly or indirectly from the realm served
by the currency creator and the currency creator cannot force taxes or
tribute then the game is over.
A sovereignty as a unit can be rich or poor measured as the quality of
life of its middle class. When and if trade dose not serve the middle
class and make the middle class more prosperous over the long term then
trade sucks. National insolvency in the USA can only occur due to
_unnecessary_ trade (which is actually some sort of theft).
That seems to be a very popular misconception among the righties. The
"last round of contagion" was caused by the unrestrained creation of
credit-money outside the bounds of the traditional banking system by a
bunch of greedy criminals. The malfeasance of non regulation continued
with the "bail out" of these same crooks. Greenspan did not "pump"
anything at all. The entire government just looked the other way while
the thieves created their own money and then, based on the fear of
financial disorder, the government created _REAL_ money and credit and
gave it to the crooks. The crooks got richer and the rest of us got
poorer. It's called Republican economics.
That decision was made by a Republican administration that AGAIN lied
about the sky falling if the administration didn't get what it wanted.
That seems to be a recurring theme in Republican administrations. The
administration holds all the cards and intelligence data and claims a
threat to national security (like a collapse of the entire economy) if it
doesn't get what it wants.
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
BeanSmart.com is a site by and for consumers of financial services and advice. We are not affiliated with any of the banks, financial services or software manufacturers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
Tax and financial advice you come across on this site is freely given by your peers and professionals on their own time and out of the kindness of their hearts. We can guarantee
neither accuracy of such advice nor its applicability for your situation. Simply put, you are fully responsible for the results of using information from this site in real life situations.