Hello libertarians (and other strong supporters of liberty and--therefore--capitalism):
I contacted Jeffrey Tucker regarding the idea referred to below, and he suggested I put a post on this forum.
I stumbled upon a way to improve capitalism systemically and to accomplish everything any libertarian has dared to hope for--and more. The only thing that has to be changed is the approach to the money. This idea leaves the debate over having a metallic currency far, far behind. It actually harks back to the idea of neutral money, the concept that first attracted those who would form the Austrian School, and especially F.A. Hayek. It is impossible to summarize it in a post of this kind and do the idea, well, justice, but an essay of 3,000 words at www.ajustsolution.com presents a reasonably thorough introduction of it.
I must warn readers that the key to the idea is a money supply that is purely fiat money. Materially (as opposed to purely ideologically), the problem with fiat money has been that the supply of it can be manipulated--indeed, is designed to be manipulated--by a group of cloistered individuals making arbitrary decisions (thereby subjecting everyone else in the economy to their arbitrary wills--the very definition of injustice according to John Locke, and one that is consistent with my own account of justice). In my proposed approach to the money, the supply of it would be truly exogenously determined: No person, group, organization, or institution would have the means or the opportunity to alter the size of the money supply. Output would in turn be determined by that exogenous variable.
Again, the website is www.ajustsolution.com.
JosephBright level of pwnage is over 9000!
Re JosephBright, "marked as not answered:"
For the record, specifically rebutted twice (much less the less direct rebuttals in various places on the thread).
Re JosephBright's most recent scolding:
It seems to me that posters here have consistently misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm not saying Austrian economics is wrong. I'm saying there are possibly other routes to the goals that its implementation would achieve (which I have listed numerous times), one of them being the route I propose In "How to Improve Capitalism."
I thought that the idea of an exogenously determined money supply that can't be manipulated would be interesting to people who see the nature of the money supply as being the most central concern of the structure and functioning of the economy. I thougtht that, at a minimum, it would lead to some fruitful discussion of the topic of money, especially given the reference to F.A. Hayek and "neutral money" in my original post. To say it hasn't worked out that way is quite the understatement.
Re Jack Cuyler's list of my misundertandings of Austrian theory:
Thank you. Sincerely. That clarifies lots of things. Again, I came to this forum assuminng it was a place where libertarians gathered. I was completely ignorant of the important difference between Austrians and (at least some) libertarians regarding political action. While I was completely off base, I did address "libertarians" in my greeting; had someone written this post at the start, we could all have been spared a fair amount of aggravation.
Stephen Yearwood: Re Jack Cuyler's list of my misundertandings of Austrian theory: Thank you. Sincerely. That clarifies lots of things. Again, I came to this forum assuminng it was a place where libertarians gathered. I was completely ignorant of the important difference between Austrians and (at least some) libertarians regarding political action. While I was completely off base, I did address "libertarians" in my greeting; had someone written this post at the start, we could all have been spared a fair amount of aggravation.
It is not about Austrian. It is anarchists who happens to be libertarian.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Stephen Yearwood: Re JosephBright's most recent scolding: It seems to me that posters here have consistently misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm not saying Austrian economics is wrong. I'm saying there are possibly other routes to the goals that its implementation would achieve (which I have listed numerous times), one of them being the route I propose In "How to Improve Capitalism."
You can't implement Austrian economics.
To Austrians, neutral money doesn't exist.
K.C. Farmer: Am I correct in assuming that you wished to post your article on Mises.org, but Mr.Tucker wisely directed you to this forum?
Am I correct in assuming that you wished to post your article on Mises.org, but Mr.Tucker wisely directed you to this forum?
He's politer than I am.
Re McKibbin's quote of Farmer, regarding the locationof my original posting.
I contacted.Tucker expressing a desire to disseminate my ideas, and he asked if I had posted on the Mises forum.
What I think many here would tell you is we encourage competing monetary units. A unit of exchange is a market good just like a banana or anything else. We encourage you to fill that entrepreneurial roll of speculating other forms of units of exchange. We can only give you advise from an economic stance as to whether your speculation is likely to succeed or not.
Remember that it's speculation on our parts as well. The actual methods by which units of exchange develop in a free market is to be decided by entrepreneurs, and consumers, not economists. Still, it is in your best interest, especially as a business dealing with money, to understand money and credit first. Many folks here have posted some good texts! GL Stephen.
Stephen Yearwood: Re McKibbin's quote of Farmer, regarding the locationof my original posting. I contacted.Tucker expressing a desire to disseminate my ideas, and he asked if I had posted on the Mises forum.
Were you looking for honest appraisals, discussions and critiques of your ideas, or were you expecting people to tell you what a great idea you've had?
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Stephen Yearwood:It seems to me that posters here have consistently misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm not saying Austrian economics is wrong. I'm saying there are possibly other routes to the goals that its implementation would achieve (which I have listed numerous times), one of them being the route I propose In "How to Improve Capitalism."
There is a route around economics like there is a path around physics. With that in mind, let me show you my plans on how you can improve your gas mileage via water and magnets.
Stephen Yearwood: Re JosephBright's most recent scolding: It seems to me that posters here have consistently misunderstood what I'm saying.
It seems to me that posters here have consistently misunderstood what I'm saying.
No, we have not. You seem to think that if you repeat that enough times, it will become true. We completely understand the consequences of your proposal, which is why we are critical of it.
I'm not saying Austrian economics is wrong.
Then why not take the time to understand what Austrian economics says about money?
I'm saying there are possibly other routes to the goals that its implementation would achieve (which I have listed numerous times), one of them being the route I propose In "How to Improve Capitalism."
And we are saying that there aren't any other routes other than the market. And this is by the very definition of what money is, which you refuse to inform yourself about.
I thought that the idea of an exogenously determined money supply that can't be manipulated
Money emerges on the market, not in the minds of economists and social planners.
I thougtht that, at a minimum, it would lead to some fruitful discussion of the topic of money, especially given the reference to F.A. Hayek and "neutral money" in my original post.
But it is you who doesn't seem to be interested in a discussion on the topic of money. Whenever we try to explain to you how your thoughts on money are flawed, you dismiss these points. Please, try to understand money before you go around trying to fix the monetary system. Read this: http://mises.org/money.asp
Re Filc, "competing monetary units:"
Thank you for your specificity. That and Cuyler's previous post have been given me some good information. You see, I came to this forum ignorant of Austrian economics--or at least what it has evolved into. (A Survey of the LIterature on "neutral money," which was the starting point for those who would establish Austrian economics, was part of my Master's Thesis, so I thought I knew the basics of it, but I was wrong about that.) But I thought I was addressing libertarians, you see. I've learned that adherents of Austrian economics are libertarians, but not politically oriented in the sense that I assumed libertarians to be. If I am now understanding correctly, Austrians hold that even the determination of the money supply should be outside the scope of any formal organization or institution, but purely the result of the interplay of market forces, in which some proffered monies flourish and some perish. Am I at least starting to catching on?
Stephen Yearwood: Am I at least starting to catching on?
I hope that in time you come to believe that Tucker did you a service recommending you to visit us
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Stephen Yearwood: Austrians hold that even the determination of the money supply should be outside the scope of any formal organization or institution, but purely the result of the interplay of market forces, in which some proffered monies flourish and some perish. Am I at least starting to catching on?
Bingo
This works out to consumer sovereignty.