Re: Questions about Community Currency.
William F Hummel
>
>Hello, I am currently working on the proposed Monetary system for my
>Venture Communist investment model, and I have been looking at the
>various theories regarding community issued currencies, particularly
>those like LETS, which are issued by //mutual credit.//
The viability of an inconvertible fiat currency, as distinct from a
commodity-backed currency, depends on control of the quantity of that
fiat currency by some authority. That control is normally effected
through taxation, which implies a government authority with the power
to impose penalties, such as the confiscation of property in lieu of
taxes. Note that modern governments recapture their own spending
through taxes, and the sale of interest-earning debt securities in the
case of deficit spending. The expansion of the money supply is mainly
the result of bank credit expansion, driven by the demand for credit
rather than by government initiative.
Aside from very primitive societies, all local fiat currencies without
such control are viable only to the extent that they can ride piggy
back on a national currency. Trade in a local currency implies trade
in the national currency because much of what the local currency zone
needs is not produced under the local currency regime. That means
members of the local currency group must have sources of income in the
national currency. It also means there must be a positive and
reasonably stable exchange value of the local currency in terms of the
national currency. Credit in local currency ultimately rests on the
net income of local zone members in the national currency. If that
income dries up, the local currency will wither and die.
>
>If anybody has done any study of these, or has experience with them, I
>have a few questions regarding these systems:
>
>
>1- Investment.
>
>As these systems generally discourage saving via no interest or
>demurrage, and since investment starts with abstaining from
>consumption, how does capital form in these models?
>
>
>2- Credit limits.
>
>How are credit limits set? How is bad debt dealt with?
>
>
>3- Liquidity crisis.
>
>Even with low savings, they still are not zero, and even with free
>credit, the limits are not necessarily high enough to match savings, so
>how is a liquidity crisis avoided?
>
>Or is it assumed that negative balances will simply raise high enough
>to match positive balances? Wouldn't this end up with a lot of bad debt
>and abandoned negative accounts?
>
>Or is it assumed that no-interest or demurrage will keep total savings
>equal to or below total credit?
>
>
>4- Capital Flight.
>
>If no-interest and/or demurrage is indeed expected to be sufficient to
>discourage a liquidity crisis, what would prevent Capital Flight via a
>community currency being used to purchase commodities that are then in
>turn sold for an external currency that pays interest or at least has
>no demurrage.
>
>
>5- Public Goods.
>
>How is it proposed that Public Goods be furnished. Taxes? Controlled
>Money Supply Inflation? Or is is left to external institutions (i.e.
>the State)?
>
>
>Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Dominus Rex
Quirk
Hello, I am currently working on the proposed Monetary system for my
Venture Communist investment model, and I have been looking at the
various theories regarding community issued currencies, particularly
those like LETS, which are issued by //mutual credit.//
If anybody has done any study of these, or has experience with them, I
BananaRepublican
"John D" <Wend...@bmts.com> wrote:
> I've added ARG to the crosspost, as there are posters there who have
> expressed interest in this topic before. My own experience is narrow,
> limited to Ithica Hours: about 15 years ago, I was travelling thru upstate
> NY and made a special sidetrip to Ithica to investigate the IH in use.
> Although I did find a few businesses with Ithica Hours stickers on their
> doors, the vast majority didn't accept them, and of the half-dozen or so
> that did, I found only one that seemed enthusiastic about the project. The
> other owners told me that it was a pain, and in a couple the clerk at the
> counter didn't seem to know what I was talking about when I asked how many
> Ithica Hours they recieved on a weekly basis.
>
> -JD
and of course one can always go to the IthacaHours web-site.
fo mo.
>
g adds;
"Pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute
sitting in the "family values" white house"
John D
expressed interest in this topic before. My own experience is narrow,
limited to Ithica Hours: about 15 years ago, I was travelling thru upstate
NY and made a special sidetrip to Ithica to investigate the IH in use.
Although I did find a few businesses with Ithica Hours stickers on their
doors, the vast majority didn't accept them, and of the half-dozen or so
that did, I found only one that seemed enthusiastic about the project. The
other owners told me that it was a pain, and in a couple the clerk at the
counter didn't seem to know what I was talking about when I asked how many
Ithica Hours they recieved on a weekly basis.
-JD
"Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote in message
news:1110471134.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
inv...@example.com
Quirk wrote:
>...community issued currencies, particularly those like LETS...
>If anybody has done any study of these...
| 2003 update on the Westport LETS, by Richard Douthwaite
|
| In 2003, ten years after it began, the Westport LETS system had
| withered away to just two members, the one trading with the other.
| Almost every other Irish system had either disappeared entirely or
| was in a similar state. This was due to two things. One was a boom
| in the Irish economy that made it much easier for people to find
| work and meet their needs without having to resort to 'funny money'.
|
| Two serious design faults common to all LETS systems are the other
| reason. One fault is easy to explain. It is that a tremendous amount
| of work is required to run a LETS system because every transaction,
| no matter how small, has to be recorded twice, once as a debit on
| the buyer's account, once as a credit on the vendor's. A simpler
| payment method is needed and it is a pity that the tokens introduced
| by Westport LETS never went into general use. It is significant that
| the Argentinean LETS systems quickly abandoned the use of cheques
| and moved over to paper notes called creditos when the collapse of
| that country's mainstream economy meant that thousands of people
| wanted to become LETS members and trade.
|
| The other fault is more serious and less easy to correct. It is that
| LETS currency is created in the same way as conventional currency -
| by someone going into debt - but that, unlike conventional currency,
| LETS systems have no effective way of ensuring that debts are ever
| repaid. Even the term 'debt' is avoided., with the much more
| positive sounding phrase 'on commitment' being used instead. Most
| people who borrow conventional money repay their debts as quickly as
| possible to minimise the interest charges but as LETS systems don't
| charge interest, their members are not under this pressure. Instead,
| the standard LETS design is based on the assumption that, if the
| state of everyone's account is made public, moral pressure from
| other members of the system will be enough to force indebted
| participants to honour the trust placed in them and get back into
| credit in a reasonable time. Unfortunately, experience has shown
| that this does not work well even in small systems and becomes
| totally inadequate when membership numbers grow and the average
| member is known personally by a declining proportion of the other
| participants.
|
| When a new LETS starts, the system is small and the group pressure
| to get out of debt fairly quickly works reasonably well, especially
| as most members know each other and are enthusiastic about the
| trading network they are starting. A honeymoon period of 18 months
| or two years results. However, as time goes by, two types of member
| become apparent. One type regards the LETS currency in the same way
| as conventional money. Their gung-ho attitude is: "Great. Let's earn
| and spend as much of this new money as we can" And they do. They
| pour enormous energy into the system, working for, or selling to,
| everyone they can and spending their earnings with panache. The
| second group, however, is much less energetic. Sure, they like
| having keen people coming to do things for them, but actually
| earning the LETS units to pay the system back, well, that's not so
| good. Working off their growing debts would mean inconveniencing
| themselves and, as there is insufficient pressure from anyone in the
| system to force them to do so, they increasingly don't. And so the
| enthusiastic members inevitably find that they have large credit
| balances in their accounts that they would like to spend if only
| they could find anything desirable to use them on while the more
| laid-back characters who should be meeting the enthusiasts' demands
| to discharge their heavy debts are not sufficiently motivated to do
| so. Accordingly, with more LETS units than they know what to do
| with, the one-time enthusiasts cease to trade. This deprives the
| system of most of the energy that was driving it along.
| Consequently, as they are set up at present without any adequate
| means of ensuring that debts are honoured, LETS operate as
| near-perfect mechanisms for eliminating their most active and
| valuable members and devaluing their own currencies.
inv...@example.com
Quirk wrote:
>As these systems generally discourage saving via no interest or
>demurrage, and since investment starts with abstaining from
>consumption, how does capital form in these models?
By wishful thinking.
>2- Credit limits.
>
>How are credit limits set? How is bad debt dealt with?
By trusting in theb goodness of strangers.
>3- Liquidity crisis.
>
>Even with low savings, they still are not zero, and even with free
>credit, the limits are not necessarily high enough to match savings, so
>how is a liquidity crisis avoided?
There will never be a liquidity crises, because it is so very, very
easy for a few buyers and sellers to get together and manufacture
fake credits, thus causing runaway inflation.
>Or is it assumed that negative balances will simply raise high enough
>to match positive balances? Wouldn't this end up with a lot of bad debt
>and abandoned negative accounts?
There will *always* be a lot of bad debt and abandoned negative accounts.
This is a system that loans money to strangers with no way to compel
them to pay it back.
>Or is it assumed (snip)
LOTS of things are assumed.
_@_._
John D wrote:
>I've added ARG to the crosspost, as there are posters there who have
>expressed interest in this topic before.
Please remove soc.religion.quaker.
That group does not welcome crossposts.
inv...@example.com
William F Hummel wrote:
>The viability of an inconvertible fiat currency, as distinct from a
[snip]
You make some very good points, but alas, they are off-topic
in soc.religion.quaker. Please trim the newsgroups line when
replying. Thanks!
inv...@example.com
Dominus Rex wrote:
>
>X-posting asshole.
Indeed he is. Quirk, you are on my shit list.
Posting to five unrelated groups just because that's where the
post you reply to happened to be posted is like shitting in your
pants because that's where your ass happened to be.
Duncan Patton
>
> Hello, I am currently working on the proposed Monetary system for my
> Venture Communist investment model, and I have been looking at the
> various theories regarding community issued currencies, particularly
> those like LETS, which are issued by //mutual credit.//
>
Don't attempt to reinvent wheels. Start with the financial landscape
as it is and figure out how to construct what you want from extant
features.
Dhu
--
???????????????????????????????????????
All persons named herein are purely fictional victims
of the Canidian Bagle Breeder's Association.
Save the Bagle!
Sun Ðhu
???????????????????????????????????????
inv...@example.com
Duncan Patton wrote:
>
>"Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello, I am currently working on the proposed Monetary system for my
>> Venture Communist investment model, and I have been looking at the
>> various theories regarding community issued currencies, particularly
>> those like LETS, which are issued by //mutual credit.//
>>
>
>Don't attempt to reinvent wheels. Start with the financial landscape
>as it is and figure out how to construct what you want from extant
>features.
Ain't gonna happen. There are two classes of people who think that
these alternatives to money will work; those who want a very large
increase in the power of government (which they see as all-wise and
benificial) and those who engage in magical thinking. The latter
group has NO answer to the common problem of there being only 10
items but 20 people wanting to own one. In a free market, we find
out which 10 want the item the most by the feedback that prices give.
In a USSR-style market the commisars decide which 10 get the items.
In these new systems there is no way to make that decision; the
proponents just wave their hands and hope that you won't notice this.
Duncan Patton
Good eye. Robots or Magicians. But I think that the conceptual structures
of what we call "money" are rapidly evolving.
Dhu
polar bear
Hummel <wfhu...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
>The expansion of the money supply is mainly
> the result of bank credit expansion, driven by the demand for credit
> rather than by government initiative.
You should probably read this:
http://www.safehaven.com/article-187.htm
about halfway down the page, paragraph starting with:
"I think we all suffer from trying to analyze the highly complex
contemporary financial world through concepts that were developed back
when the banking system was basically the credit system, and bank
deposit expansion was the key component of money supply growth."
HTH
pb
Paul Casino
>Venture Communist investment model
What the hell are you doing spending your time on something like that?
polar bear
"Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
> Hello, I am currently working on the proposed Monetary system for my
> Venture Communist investment model, and I have been looking at the
> various theories regarding community issued currencies, particularly
> those like LETS, which are issued by //mutual credit.//
Keeping it simple:
With your initial joint capital, buy investment grade silver rounds and
have them struck with your mark. Establish a relationship with a
dealer for converting to outside currencies.
Circulate the silver amongst yourselves, and sell/buy it through your
dealer (treasury) as needed for outside transactions (foreign
exchange). All outside earnings should be converted to newly struck
rounds, or to old ones re-purchased out of dealer inventory.
Eventually, after you have a large enough capital stock, you can hold
'reserves" in other currencies and develop methods for managing these.
This is not meant as a complete solution, just an idea on how to get
started. For the new currency to be accepted, it will have to have
intrinsic value. A mere promise is insufficient, unless backed by
credible force, of which you presently have none. Establish a hard
currency FIRST, and many subsequent issues will resolve themselves,
especially if the price of silver continues to rise.
Consider:
For you idea to take root, it needs a method for surviving massive
inflation and widespread default. Paper won't help much here. Any
system based on contracts to deliver a commodity, rather than the
commodity itself, will ultimately depend on the liquidity of markets
and agents. In other words, the only 'agent" you should trust is one
with an allocated hoard in a secure vault you can inspect, preferably
outside the USA, and preferably in a producer nation where the impulse
to confiscate is overuled by national interest. Canada, Australia and
South Africa spring to mind.
It's going to happen anyway, so you may as well be part of it.
pb
Quirk
inv...@example.com wrote:
> [snip]
> You make some very good points, but alas, they are off-topic
> in soc.religion.quaker. Please trim the newsgroups line when
> replying. Thanks!
However, when searching usenet looking for references to community
currencies such as LETS, it is in soc.religion.quaker that is where
many of them are. Do a search on LETSystem and see for yourself.
Given the Quaker's long history of community building, this is not
really surprising.
Quirk
Duncan Patton wrote:
> On 10 Mar 2005 08:12:14 -0800
> > Hello, I am currently working on the proposed Monetary system for
my
> > Venture Communist investment model, and I have been looking at the
> > various theories regarding community issued currencies,
particularly
> > those like LETS, which are issued by //mutual credit.//
> Don't attempt to reinvent wheels.
Yes, I agree, that is why I am looking closely and trying to understand
all the alternative models, so that I can attach the best wheels to my
wagon.
> Start with the financial landscape
> as it is and figure out how to construct what you want from extant
> features.
Yup. I have to start by understanding the financial landscape as it is,
no small task.
If you have any suggestions, that would be helpful.
Quirk
polar bear wrote:
> In article <1110471134.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
> Keeping it simple:
Yeah. At this point I *not* inclined to consider a mutual credit
monetary model for venture communism, because of the issues I raise in
my Questions, however as a lot of people seem to believe in the
concept, I am interested in responses to my issues, perhaps I can
include aspects of it in my model, so I ask my questions with an open
mind.
However, my current thinking is that Venture Communes will issue simple
scrip for internal transactions and the value of the scrip will be
based on the land and capital the Commune holds, plus the value of new
labour investments. And that that scrip would be issued as (non-debt)
investment in new or existing Enterprises, based on figures from the
previous fiscal cycle. Holders would use scrip to pay rent on land and
capital to the Commune, for wages, and for transactions with the
Communes other enterprises. In other words, for mesoeconomic
transactions.
This amounts to a variation on the State Theory of Money, with Rent
taking the place of Taxes and the Commune instead of the State.
> With your initial joint capital, buy investment grade silver rounds
and
> have them struck with your mark.
Good advise, and basicly the idea, but focusing on a more diverse
basket of land and capital as is needed for the operation of the
Enterprises.
So our "mark" would be an asset tag :) and scrip would be used for
trade.
However, surpluses could certainly use silver as a store of value.
You might be interested in e-gold or "the liberty dollar" too.
> Establish a relationship with a
> dealer for converting to outside currencies.
Since the Venture Commune is fundamentally an investment bank, this is
a service it would provide for its Enterprises.
> Circulate the silver amongst yourselves, and sell/buy it through your
> dealer (treasury) as needed for outside transactions (foreign
> exchange). All outside earnings should be converted to newly struck
> rounds, or to old ones re-purchased out of dealer inventory.
You're right on target, Polar. Except as I said, instead of silver, I
plan to focus on land, and because land is hard to lug around, use
scrip instead for trade. One big advantage with land over silver is you
Rent land, so you can "spend" it over and over again.
> Eventually, after you have a large enough capital stock, you can hold
> 'reserves" in other currencies and develop methods for managing
these.
Exactly. And for providing for external trade and investment.
> This is not meant as a complete solution, just an idea on how to get
> started. For the new currency to be accepted, it will have to have
> intrinsic value. A mere promise is insufficient, unless backed by
> credible force, of which you presently have none. Establish a hard
> currency FIRST, and many subsequent issues will resolve themselves,
> especially if the price of silver continues to rise.
Thanks for your comments Polar. I agree with the basics of what you are
suggesting, but think that land itself is an even better basis for the
backing of a currency than silver.
> Consider:
> For you idea to take root, it needs a method for surviving massive
> inflation and widespread default. Paper won't help much here. Any
> system based on contracts to deliver a commodity, rather than the
> commodity itself, will ultimately depend on the liquidity of markets
> and agents. In other words, the only 'agent" you should trust is one
> with an allocated hoard in a secure vault you can inspect, preferably
> outside the USA, and preferably in a producer nation where the
impulse
> to confiscate is overuled by national interest. Canada, Australia
and
> South Africa spring to mind.
>
> It's going to happen anyway, so you may as well be part of it.
I completely agree. I've agreed so often in this response, I'm getting
the urge to take issue with some random detail just to keep up usenet
norms.
"Dollar Down. Gold Up in mixed trading" or "Dollar falls against Euro"
have become such regular headlines in the news wires that it looks like
they're stuck on a broken proxy somewhere.
TRADE DEFICIT FIGURES COME OUT TODAY. Will the dollar drop bellow
0.74€? Below December's Low? How low will it go?
Looking forward to your comments regarding the use of Rent instead of
Silver as a basis for currency value.
Regards.
Duncan Patton
"Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
Various mid-layer economic models are structured unlike the traditional
corporation/nation-state. Coops, kibbutz and Kingdoms are just examples.
Understanding the origins and mechanisms of representative organizations
is also of some potential use. Mostly, tho' I think most gain will come
from systemically examining what we claim to do and what we really do
when we act in concert as humans: lots of useless simon-sez goes on
when what you want is more like a game of catch.
Just remember that whole-cloth is difficult to integrate. It's better to
blend new threads in, letting friction and entropy determine which colors
predominate.
Dhu
Quirk
Paul Casino wrote:
Well, I'm not mechanicly inclined enough for the perpetual motion
machine, my math is insufficient to take a crack at the unified field
theory, the GNU General Public License already exists, I'm a little too
accident prone for the Alchemic pursuits of the Philospher's Stone or
the Elixer of Life, I'm not outdoorsy enough to track down Sasquatch or
prove that ancient transpacific trade existed. What else is there to do
but DESTROY CAPITALISM?
Regards.
Quirk
Duncan Patton wrote:
> Various mid-layer economic models are structured unlike the
traditional
> corporation/nation-state. Coops, kibbutz and Kingdoms are just
examples.
Duncan, after already replying to Polar Bear's post with various
different ways to say "I agree," I have run fresh out ways to express
agreement, so forgive me if I short change you and simply say "I agree
with this post."
However, I did surf through your website, and I have a question.
Know anybody who could put together example Venture Communist Articles
of Incorporation and Terms of Investment?
Regards.
Wm James
Well put.
A curency is only as valuabe as those with it can trade it for what
they want. That's only of value to the party trading for it if they
find it more valuable than what they are trading AND they trust the
currency to keep it's value for trading later. Government IOU backed
currencies have no value of their own, and are worthless unless the
government backing them is trusted. Any society which doesn't respect
property rights, and system which doesn't recognize ownership of
property, cannot be trusted. Even communist dictatorships like cuba
find their own slaves using US dollars for trade instead of their own
for that reason.
Want a "community currency"? Try gold and silver coins. Their value
is not dependent on any IOUs or anyone's credit.
William R. James
William F Hummel
An interesting article, and I fully agree with the observation that
the credit system has expanded far beyond the banking system. However
money supply growth is still largely a function of bank lending. The
main exception is the money market mutual funds which now serve as a
money proxy. There is some confusion about the meaning of the term
"money supply." The usual meaning is that which we use in purchasing,
paying bills, or investing, in other words liquid financial assets
(LFAs). That should be contrasted with non-liquid financial assets
(NLFAs) such as credit issued by non-bank financial institutions.
The amount of credit far exceeds the money supply. In fact
bank-issued credit, which comprises the main part of the money supply,
now accounts for less than 20% of the total credit market debt. NLFAs
normally expand and contract without affecting the money supply. For
example, investor A lends $1M to finance company B, who then lends it
to business C. The result is that $1M in A's bank account has
transferred to C's bank account. The money supply remains the same,
but the total credit market debt has increased by $2M.
The author of the article presents an obsolete version of how the
money supply expands through bank lending, the so-called money
multiplier concept. He starts with an injection of reserves into the
banking system by central bank, whereupon the banking system issues
credit money equal to a multiple of those reserves, depending on the
required reserve ratio. This version has not applied for many
decades. Central banks now target the interest rate on money market
funds, and respond to the demand for reserves as required by the
banking system. In Canada and several other countries, where banks
hold little or no reserves since there is no reserve requirement, the
money multiplier concept obviously has no meaning.
inv...@example.com
polar bear wrote:
[snip]
Please stop crossposting off-topic economics comments to religion newsgroups.
inv...@example.com
Quirk
inva...@example.com wrote:
> polar bear wrote:
> Please stop crossposting off-topic economics comments to religion
newsgroups.
Please show us your badge, Sheriff.
Quakers have a history of community currency, and it is a frequently
discussed topic in the group.
inv...@example.com
polar bear wrote:
>For you idea to take root, it needs a method for surviving massive
>inflation and widespread default.
In a LETS economy, it is a trivial task for a few buyers and sellers
to cause hyperinflation - and quite profitable to do so.
inv...@example.com
Quirk wrote:
>Yup. I have to start by understanding the financial landscape as it is,
>no small task.
>
>If you have any suggestions, that would be helpful.
Get a copy of _Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the
Economy_ by Thomas Sowell
inv...@example.com
>Wouldn't this fall foul of Gresham's Law (bad currency drives out
>good)? Given the option of settling a bill in silver or paper, which
>would most people choose?
"Standing by itself, the general statement, "good money drives out bad,"
is the more correct empirical proposition. Historically, it has been
good, strong currencies that have driven out bad, weak currencies.
Over the span of several millennia, strong currencies have dominated
and driven out weak in international competition. The Persian daric,
the Greek tetradrachma, the Macedonian stater, and the Roman denarius
did not become dominant currencies of the ancient world because they
were "bad" or "weak." The florins, ducats and sequins of the Italian
city-states did not become the "dollars of the Middle Ages" because
they were bad coins; they were among the best coins ever made. The
pound sterling in the 19th century and the dollar in the 20th century
did not become the dominant currencies of their time because they
were weak. Consistency, stability and high quality have been the
attributes of great currencies that have won the competition for
use as international money. The same proposition holds with respect
to the use of materials for international money. The precious metals
won out over other substances not because they were "cheap" or "bad"
but because they were more efficient than other instruments in
fulfilling the required functions of money. Among the precious
metals, gold drove out others not because gold was bad but because
it was more efficient from the standpoint of effecting transactions
at the least cost. The dollar became the dominant international
money in a world of paper currencies not because it was "bad" but
because, among the alternatives, it best satisfied the characteristics
of an international money."
Source:
-Uses and Abuses of Gresham's Law in the History of Money_
http://www.columbia.edu/~ram15/grash.html
inv...@example.com
Quirk wrote:
>However, my current thinking is that Venture Communes will issue simple
>scrip for internal transactions and the value of the scrip will be
>based on the land and capital the Commune holds, plus the value of new
>labour investments. And that that scrip would be issued as (non-debt)
>investment in new or existing Enterprises, based on figures from the
>previous fiscal cycle. Holders would use scrip to pay rent on land and
>capital to the Commune, for wages, and for transactions with the
>Communes other enterprises. In other words, for mesoeconomic
>transactions.
Communes or communism?
(You join a commune and can quit it. Communism is forced upon you and
there are walls to prevent escape.)
inv...@example.com
Quirk wrote:
>Well, I'm not mechanicly inclined enough for the perpetual motion
>machine, my math is insufficient to take a crack at the unified field
>theory, the GNU General Public License already exists, I'm a little too
>accident prone for the Alchemic pursuits of the Philospher's Stone or
>the Elixer of Life, I'm not outdoorsy enough to track down Sasquatch or
>prove that ancient transpacific trade existed. What else is there to do
>but DESTROY CAPITALISM?
Destroying usenet through off-topic crossposting?
inv...@example.com
William F Hummel wrote:
>money supply growth is still largely a function of bank lending.
All banks, or just the Federal Reserve?
inv...@example.com
Comments from the religion group you people are currently flooding:
"if you want to post to several groups without your message being
eaten by the spambots use copy and paste to post the message to one
group at a time (rather than using crossposting)"
"I will no longer be posting due to the fact you have cross posted
his post here to other newsgroups that LOVE to FIGHT."
Please be considerate by not posting to groups that you don't read.
William F Hummel
I mean all depositories (banks and thrifts) and NOT the Federal
Reserve. The amount of lending by the Fed is trivial. Banks borrow
from the Fed only when they have a problem with clearing balances, and
not to back further lending. It costs banks 100 basis more than the
Fed funds rate to borrow from the Fed.
The Fed adds reserves via open market operations as needed to balance
supply and demand at it target Fed funds rate. It cannot inject or
withhold reserves on its own initiative without giving up control of
the Fed funds rate. Since the Fed has sole responsibility for
ensuring the liquidity of the payment system, it must respond to the
demand for reserves from depositories as the need arises. Note that
this is quite a different story from the textbook money multiplier
concept.
polar bear
wrote:
> polar bear wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Please stop crossposting off-topic economics comments to religion newsgroups.
SHUT UP
pb
Duncan Patton
"Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
Yes. You need to talk with the GPL/Freesoftware guys. As well, it might
be worth speaking with Jesuits or Franciscans: don't get too close there
or you'll be servering other purposes than your own good intent.
Dhu
> Regards.
Duncan Patton
Hmm, I assumed that soc.religion.quaker would be a reasonable place to
make inquiries about non-greed-oriented economic models. Profit is,
in fact, a Puritan religious concept, into which the society of
friends might have some deep insight.
Dhu
inv...@example.com
Duncan Patton wrote:
>Yes. You need to talk with the GPL/Freesoftware guys. As well, it might
>be worth speaking with Jesuits or Franciscans: don't get too close there
>or you'll be servering other purposes than your own good intent.
Or he could just start right off with the communist manifesto.
inv...@example.com
Duncan Patton wrote:
>Hmm, I assumed that soc.religion.quaker would be a reasonable place to
>make inquiries about non-greed-oriented economic models. Profit is,
>in fact, a Puritan religious concept, into which the society of
>friends might have some deep insight.
soc.religion.quaker would be a great place for such inquiries, It's the
crossposting that Quakers object to. Experience has shown that such
threads experience topic drift, and soon yiou see a fellow in alt.slack
and another fellow in alt.activism flaming each other over the usual
subjects (politics, religion, gun control, abortion, top posting,
microsoft) - all crossposted to soc.religion.quaker.
Case in point: You were asked to please stop crossposting to
soc.religion.quaker, yet you decided to add soc.religion.quaker
to your reply anyway, without even bothering to find out why
doing that is very much frowned on. Quakers wouldn't do such a
thing - it woulkd be considered rude. Quakers tend to be nice
and polite; attributes not normally associated with alt.slack or
alt.activism.
Please feel free to come over to soc.religion.quaker and discuss
whatever you wish. Please stop crossposting to soc.religion.quaker;
please either post to soc.religion.quaker only or not at all.
inv...@example.com
Wm James wrote:
>Want a "community currency"? Try gold and silver coins. Their value
>is not dependent on any IOUs or anyone's credit.
*Excellent* advice!
I see nothing about any Community Currency that makes it better than
gold and silver coins, and many things about them that are worse.
inv...@example.com
Quirk wrote:
>
>inva...@example.com wrote:
>
>> polar bear wrote:
>
>> Please stop crossposting off-topic economics comments to religion
>newsgroups.
>
>Please show us your badge, Sheriff.
You seem to be confusing "please don't do X" with "You are ordered
to not do X." Making a polite request is generally considered to
be acceptable behavior in polite society.
>Quakers have a history of community currency, and it is a frequently
>discussed topic in the group.
But only when not crossposted. Many years of bad experience with
crossposting has resulted in a newsgroup where crossposts simply
don't result in discussions that the SRQ users participate in.
Too many bad experiences. If you go to SRQ and post only there
you will get replies. If you crosspost there you will not.
Are you aware that several religion groups have been destroyed
- all active users gone - and are now filled with nothing but
off-topic crossposts? Go read a dozen posts picked at random
in alt.christnet.bible to see one such smoking ruin.
You are a guest in SRQ, and polite guests take the trouble to find
out what the rules of the house are. They ceratinaly don't argue
when someone who lives in the hous makes a polite request that
they follow one of the house rules.
inv...@example.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
Excellent point. One must, however, keep in mind the other function
of the The Fed - printing money to compensate for deficit spending
The key question is this; The Federal Reserve System prints $100
bills at a cost of 6¢. So who pockets the $99.94 profit?
.
Since 1913 when the Fed was created, there has been inflation in 68
of the past 82 years. Compare this with the 80 years preceding the
Fed we had a rough balance between inflationary years ad deflationary
ones. Perhaps we don't need the Fed as much as we think we do...
inv...@example.com
polar bear wrote:
>SHUT UP
I love you too! (Group hug)
inv...@example.com
Duncan Patton wrote:
>Yes. You need to talk with the GPL/Freesoftware guys. As well, it might
>be worth speaking with Jesuits or Franciscans: don't get too close there
>or you'll be servering other purposes than your own good intent.
Don't forget the Freemasons and the Scientologists! :)
Joel K. 'Jay' Furr
> polar bear wrote:
>
>>SHUT UP
>
> I love you too! (Group hug)
Righty-ho. No more hostility, ok?
--
(__) (__) (__) (__)(__) (__) (__)(__)(__) (__)
(oo(__)oo) (__)o) (oo)((__)(__)oo) (__)(o(__)o)(__)o)(__)
\/(oo)\/ (oo)/(__)/ (oo)(oo)\/ (oo) \(oo)/ (oo)/ (oo)
\/ \/ (oo) \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
\/
a cownfluence
Mark Monson
<inv...@example.com> wrote in message news:11349ph...@corp.supernews.com...
We don't need the Fed the way it is set up. Money issue and regulation is the
proper business of central government. There is no good reason why the government
can't issue money directly to the people on a per capita basis as required to
maintain stable overall prices. The Fed scheme including public debt and much of
how banks operate is simply a way for parasites to get production without producing.
MM
eric volkel-barno
...What
|| else is there to do but DESTROY CAPITALISM?
Good fortune on your endeavour.
--
fare thee well in christ,
eric
William F Hummel
>
>William F Hummel wrote:
>>
>>On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:24:11 +0000, inv...@example.com wrote:
>>
>>>William F Hummel wrote:
>>>
>>>>money supply growth is still largely a function of bank lending.
>>>
>>>All banks, or just the Federal Reserve?
>>
>>I mean all depositories (banks and thrifts) and NOT the Federal
>>Reserve. The amount of lending by the Fed is trivial. Banks borrow
>>from the Fed only when they have a problem with clearing balances, and
>>not to back further lending. It costs banks 100 basis more than the
>>Fed funds rate to borrow from the Fed.
>>
>>The Fed adds reserves via open market operations as needed to balance
>>supply and demand at it target Fed funds rate. It cannot inject or
>>withhold reserves on its own initiative without giving up control of
>>the Fed funds rate. Since the Fed has sole responsibility for
>>ensuring the liquidity of the payment system, it must respond to the
>>demand for reserves from depositories as the need arises. Note that
>>this is quite a different story from the textbook money multiplier
>>concept.
>
>Excellent point. One must, however, keep in mind the other function
>of the The Fed - printing money to compensate for deficit spending
The Fed plays no role with respect to deficit spending other than to
act as the fiscal agent of the Treasury in selling bonds to recapture
the deficit spending. The Fed "prints money" only as required to
maintain control of the Fed funds rate.
>The key question is this; The Federal Reserve System prints $100
>bills at a cost of 6¢. So who pockets the $99.94 profit?
>.
The seigniorage benefit from issuing notes at 6 cents a copy flows
right back to the public. Neither the Fed nor the Treasury needs the
seigniorage, nor can they keep it in any case -- as explained in
http://wfhummel.net/seigniorage.html
>
>Since 1913 when the Fed was created, there has been inflation in 68
>of the past 82 years. Compare this with the 80 years preceding the
>Fed we had a rough balance between inflationary years ad deflationary
>ones. Perhaps we don't need the Fed as much as we think we do...
>
In a fiat money system, the central bank or its equivalent is
indispensable.
It's true that the average price level remained relatively flat before
the Fed was created. But you should look closely at the financial
crises and serious depressions that occurred in that era. Since World
War II, there has been no depression comparable to the Great
Depression or to the several depressions in the 19th century which are
now largely forgotten.
Duncan Patton
you write:
"
soc.religion.quaker would be a great place for such inquiries, It's the
crossposting that Quakers object to. Experience has shown that such
threads experience topic drift, and soon yiou see a fellow in alt.slack
and another fellow in alt.activism flaming each other over the usual
subjects (politics, religion, gun control, abortion, top posting,
microsoft) - all crossposted to soc.religion.quaker.
Case in point: You were asked to please stop crossposting to
soc.religion.quaker, yet you decided to add soc.religion.quaker
to your reply anyway, without even bothering to find out why
doing that is very much frowned on. Quakers wouldn't do such a
thing - it woulkd be considered rude. Quakers tend to be nice
and polite; attributes not normally associated with alt.slack or
alt.activism.
Please feel free to come over to soc.religion.quaker and discuss
whatever you wish. Please stop crossposting to soc.religion.quaker;
please either post to soc.religion.quaker only or not at all.
"
And I reply that you are missing the point of newsgroups entirely
and you should take any "quakers-only-stuff" only discourse to a
private venue. There is a reason for cross-posting here, in
particular wrt non-greed oriented economics, which was what
the original poster was on about.
Dhu
Duncan Patton
From what I've seen these don't exactly qualify in the "non-greed-oriented" spectrum
of socio-economic philosophies.
I would recommend reading some of J.K. Galbraith's economic writings as a basis for
understanding the situation.
Dhu
John D
Written by, um, that guy...
"polar bear" <be...@pole.com> wrote in message
news:110320050227436148%be...@pole.com...
> In article <1110471134.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
>
>> Hello, I am currently working on the proposed Monetary system for my
>> Venture Communist investment model, and I have been looking at the
>> various theories regarding community issued currencies, particularly
>> those like LETS, which are issued by //mutual credit.//
>
> Keeping it simple:
>
> With your initial joint capital, buy investment grade silver rounds and
> have them struck with your mark. Establish a relationship with a
> dealer for converting to outside currencies.
>
> Circulate the silver amongst yourselves, and sell/buy it through your
> dealer (treasury) as needed for outside transactions (foreign
> exchange). All outside earnings should be converted to newly struck
> rounds, or to old ones re-purchased out of dealer inventory.
> Eventually, after you have a large enough capital stock, you can hold
> 'reserves" in other currencies and develop methods for managing these.
>
> This is not meant as a complete solution, just an idea on how to get
> started. For the new currency to be accepted, it will have to have
> intrinsic value. A mere promise is insufficient, unless backed by
> credible force, of which you presently have none. Establish a hard
> currency FIRST, and many subsequent issues will resolve themselves,
> especially if the price of silver continues to rise.
>
> Consider:
>
> For you idea to take root, it needs a method for surviving massive
> inflation and widespread default. Paper won't help much here. Any
> system based on contracts to deliver a commodity, rather than the
> commodity itself, will ultimately depend on the liquidity of markets
> and agents. In other words, the only 'agent" you should trust is one
> with an allocated hoard in a secure vault you can inspect, preferably
> outside the USA, and preferably in a producer nation where the impulse
> to confiscate is overuled by national interest. Canada, Australia and
> South Africa spring to mind.
>
> It's going to happen anyway, so you may as well be part of it.
>
> pb
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
polar bear
Hummel <wfhu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:52:09 -0800, polar bear <be...@pole.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ubv031dh0v04njder...@4ax.com>, William F
> >Hummel <wfhu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>The expansion of the money supply is mainly
> >> the result of bank credit expansion, driven by the demand for credit
> >> rather than by government initiative.
> >
> >You should probably read this:
> >http://www.safehaven.com/article-187.htm
> >
> >about halfway down the page, paragraph starting with:
> >
> >"I think we all suffer from trying to analyze the highly complex
> >contemporary financial world through concepts that were developed back
> >when the banking system was basically the credit system, and bank
> >deposit expansion was the key component of money supply growth."
> >
> An interesting article, and I fully agree with the observation that
> the credit system has expanded far beyond the banking system. However
> money supply growth is still largely a function of bank lending. The
> main exception is the money market mutual funds which now serve as a
> money proxy. There is some confusion about the meaning of the term
> "money supply." The usual meaning is that which we use in purchasing,
> paying bills, or investing, in other words liquid financial assets
> (LFAs). That should be contrasted with non-liquid financial assets
> (NLFAs) such as credit issued by non-bank financial institutions.
>
> The amount of credit far exceeds the money supply. In fact
> bank-issued credit, which comprises the main part of the money supply,
> now accounts for less than 20% of the total credit market debt. NLFAs
> normally expand and contract without affecting the money supply. For
> example, investor A lends $1M to finance company B, who then lends it
> to business C. The result is that $1M in A's bank account has
> transferred to C's bank account. The money supply remains the same,
> but the total credit market debt has increased by $2M.
>
> The author of the article presents an obsolete version of how the
> money supply expands through bank lending, the so-called money
> multiplier concept. He starts with an injection of reserves into the
> banking system by central bank, whereupon the banking system issues
> credit money equal to a multiple of those reserves, depending on the
> required reserve ratio. This version has not applied for many
> decades. Central banks now target the interest rate on money market
> funds, and respond to the demand for reserves as required by the
> banking system. In Canada and several other countries, where banks
> hold little or no reserves since there is no reserve requirement, the
> money multiplier concept obviously has no meaning.
As far as I'm aware, open market operations are the tool of choice with
this Fed. Who they trade with makes little difference however, since
the bulk of money created ends up in inflating financial assets, which
are then leveraged to buy more inflating assets - same as happened in
Japan, and it will end just as badly. Doug's main point stands. The
Fed may target money supply, but that's not where the action is.
They know it, and they also know there's nothing they can do about it,
short of collapsing the system. All they can do is jawbone, and try to
push it out past Greenspan's retirement. After that, all bets are off.
pb
polar bear
Hummel <wfhu...@comcast.net> wrote:
This is the same argument the Fed uses. Basically it amounts to
distributing risk amongst the whole society. Sounds good in theory,
but in practice it's a lie. When I can leverage MY portfolio 50 to 1,
as their implicit agents the GSE's do, then I'll consider it a level
field. Until then, I'd prefer the occasional "crisis" to the general
collapse we now face, even if it meant a few Morgan Stanleys and
Citibanks went up in smoke.
Besides, a little adversity is good for the soul. It fosters prudence
and sound judgement.
pb
polar bear
"Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
> polar bear wrote:
>
> > In article <1110471134.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
>
> > Keeping it simple:
>
> Yeah. At this point I *not* inclined to consider a mutual credit
> monetary model for venture communism, because of the issues I raise in
> my Questions, however as a lot of people seem to believe in the
> concept, I am interested in responses to my issues, perhaps I can
> include aspects of it in my model, so I ask my questions with an open
> mind.
>
> However, my current thinking is that Venture Communes will issue simple
> scrip for internal transactions and the value of the scrip will be
> based on the land and capital the Commune holds, plus the value of new
> labour investments. And that that scrip would be issued as (non-debt)
> investment in new or existing Enterprises, based on figures from the
> previous fiscal cycle. Holders would use scrip to pay rent on land and
> capital to the Commune, for wages, and for transactions with the
> Communes other enterprises. In other words, for mesoeconomic
> transactions.
>
Well, by issuing script, you are essentially abstracting the value of
the land. No problem, as long as you don't use a fractional reserve
system. The question is then, how do you value the land? What
objective measure do you use? It's rent equivalent value? It's
productive output? It's external market value?
Once you've figured out a valuation method, you'd still be better off
issuing silver against it, rather than script. You open a whole can of
worms when you start issuing "shares" which is what script essentially
is. You're much better off paying out in silver. The fact that you
CAN is itself encouragement to remain in the group. It also eliminates
the problem of subdividing land should members decide to withdraw.
Convertability is the big issue here, especially at the outset. The
door has to swing both ways or you won't attract any serious interest.
pb
William F Hummel
As explained in some detail, open market operations are used simply to
control the overnight interest rate on banking system reserves. They
are not used to create money except as required to balance supply and
demand for reserves at the Fed's target rate. Private bank-issued
credit is the main source of money used in the economy. The Fed can
only influence the amount of bank credit issued by its selection of
the target rate, which affects demand for credit.
>Doug's main point stands. The
>Fed may target money supply, but that's not where the action is.
Wrong. The Fed does not target the money supply. It targets the
price of money.
William F Hummel
Cite the reference.
>Basically it amounts to
>distributing risk amongst the whole society. Sounds good in theory,
>but in practice it's a lie. When I can leverage MY portfolio 50 to 1,
>as their implicit agents the GSE's do, then I'll consider it a level
>field. Until then, I'd prefer the occasional "crisis" to the general
>collapse we now face, even if it meant a few Morgan Stanleys and
>Citibanks went up in smoke.
>
>Besides, a little adversity is good for the soul. It fosters prudence
>and sound judgement.
>
Spoken like someone who has never experienced such adversity as the
Great Depression. Ah the innocence of youth!
Duncan Patton
inv...@example.com wrote:
>
>
> Quirk wrote:
>
> >However, my current thinking is that Venture Communes will issue simple
> >scrip for internal transactions and the value of the scrip will be
> >based on the land and capital the Commune holds, plus the value of new
> >labour investments. And that that scrip would be issued as (non-debt)
> >investment in new or existing Enterprises, based on figures from the
> >previous fiscal cycle. Holders would use scrip to pay rent on land and
> >capital to the Commune, for wages, and for transactions with the
> >Communes other enterprises. In other words, for mesoeconomic
> >transactions.
>
> Communes or communism?
>
> (You join a commune and can quit it. Communism is forced upon you and
> there are walls to prevent escape.)
>
>
I expect he means communes in the voluntary sense. We have reams of
evidence to show that trying to force people to "do the right thing"
is The Wrong Thing.
Models that are workeable might be include some forms of religious
orders. But the real problem is that without some higher social ideal
to serve, Capitalism is no more than an amok machine.
polar bear
Hummel <wfhu...@comcast.net> wrote:
Pick any Greenspan speech. He's always talking about what a marvelous
job the Fed does at smoothing out the "bumps" in the economy.
Actually, my comment was a throwaway. To expect a central banker to
say anything else would be ridiculous. Central banking is like any
other bureaucracy. It always finds justification for it's existence.
>
> >Basically it amounts to
> >distributing risk amongst the whole society. Sounds good in theory,
> >but in practice it's a lie. When I can leverage MY portfolio 50 to 1,
> >as their implicit agents the GSE's do, then I'll consider it a level
> >field. Until then, I'd prefer the occasional "crisis" to the general
> >collapse we now face, even if it meant a few Morgan Stanleys and
> >Citibanks went up in smoke.
> >
> >Besides, a little adversity is good for the soul. It fosters prudence
> >and sound judgement.
> >
> Spoken like someone who has never experienced such adversity as the
> Great Depression. Ah the innocence of youth!
I wish. I wasn't around for the Great Depression, but I certainly
remember the inflation of the 70's and the Volcker Fed. I also know
what a bear market looks like, which most people on Wall St today have
never experienced, and unlike Alan Greenspan, I also know a bubble when
I see one.
pb
Quirk
inv...@example.com wrote:
> Comments from the religion group you people are currently flooding:
> "if you want to post to several groups without your message being
> eaten by the spambots use copy and paste to post the message to one
> group at a time (rather than using crossposting)"
This is incredibly bad advice, this is the practice that is ACTUALLY
CALLED SPAM in a net-abuse context, multiple posting to different
groups.
Crossposting, on the other hand, is a FEATURE of usenet, a good feature
that allows for the cross-fertilization of ideas.
It can, of course, be abused too, but five newsgroups or so is well
within norms.
> "I will no longer be posting due to the fact you have cross posted
> his post here to other newsgroups that LOVE to FIGHT."
A fallacy of course, a newgroups is a newsgroup and has only a topic
and community, you can respond to or ignore whichever people or threads
you like,
I suggest you ignore these would be censors and feel free to contribute
your ideas to wherever YOU think they are relevent. THAT is the spirit
of USENET. Those who want gated communities can take their discusions
to private BBSes and mailing lists.
Thanks.
polar bear
Hummel <wfhu...@comcast.net> wrote:
Is this what you're refering to?
http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed49.html
In 2000, when the Humphrey-Hawkins legislation requiring the Fed to set
target ranges for money supply growth expired, the Fed announced that
it was no longer setting such targets, because money supply growth does
not provide a useful benchmark for the conduct of monetary policy.
However, the Fed said, too, that "Šthe FOMC believes that the behavior
of money and credit will continue to have value for gauging economic
and financial conditions." Moreover, M2, adjusted for changes in the
price level, remains a component of the Index of Leading Economic
Indicators, which some market analysts use to forecast economic
recessions and recoveries.
The fact that they don't set targets anymore is a side issue. All it
means is they've granted themselves more latitude to respond because
their basic metrics have broken down. Not a very reassuring thought.
"the FOMC believes that the behavior of money and credit will continue
to have value for gauging economic and financial conditions."
Well, Duh!
pb
Quirk
inv...@example.com wrote:
> >Please show us your badge, Sheriff.
> You seem to be confusing "please don't do X" with "You are ordered
> to not do X." Making a polite request is generally considered to
> be acceptable behavior in polite society.
OK. Then I politely ask you to stop poluttiong this thread with your
endless requests that people not use an important design feature of
usenet, namemly crossposting.
> >Quakers have a history of community currency, and it is a frequently
> >discussed topic in the group.
> But only when not crossposted.
Then those that do not like the functionality of usenet should take
their discusions to a medium they prefer, such as mailing lists.
Crossposting is a part of the FUNCTIONALITY of usenet, and SHOULD BE
USED.
It the same as the aristocrats that enclosed the commons for sheep
farming. Leave our commons alone, if you want private space, get your
own.
Quirk
inv...@example.com wrote:
> Communes or communism?
If you are intrested, you can find the latest draft of my venture
comminst proposal here:
http://www.sparwasserhq.de/Index/HTMLjan5/jesper1.htm
(or many other places)
This thread is about Community Currency.
Quirk
Duncan Patton wrote:
> Yes. You need to talk with the GPL/Freesoftware guys.
Sure, Eben Moglen would be my first choice to author the articles, but
I have not been so bold as of yet as to ask him directly.
> As well, it might
> be worth speaking with Jesuits or Franciscans: don't get too close
there
> or you'll be servering other purposes than your own good intent.
A little too scary for me, the only religious groups that I would touch
with a ten foot pole at this point are ones like the Quakers and the
Church of the SubGenius :)
Quirk
polar bear wrote:
> Well, by issuing script, you are essentially abstracting the value of
> the land. No problem, as long as you don't use a fractional reserve
> system. The question is then, how do you value the land? What
> objective measure do you use? It's rent equivalent value? It's
> productive output? It's external market value?
As a disclaimer, the reason I am asking these questions is that I am
still developing my thoughts on the matter.
But the value of the land is set at what the market feedback gives. For
instance, whenever a lease is up, it could be put up for auction, with
the current holder given a right to match the highest offer.
And any new bidder required to pay a certain deposit up front in order
to eliminate frivolous bids.
Volumes of scrip would based of the financial numbers from the previous
fiscal cycle. Thus only the initial issuance would be speculative, and
that could be based on the sale of bonds or somether form of external
debt.
> Once you've figured out a valuation method, you'd still be better off
> issuing silver against it, rather than script.
Except that land and capital are also inputs to production, silver
reserves are not. However I agree that when a store of value is needed,
silver would be great.
Did you take a look at the liberty dollar?
> You open a whole can of
> worms when you start issuing "shares" which is what script
essentially
> is.
Except that shares give ownership of the organization itself (the
actual land and capital), while scrip only provides a claim on its
productive output.
And, as you know, Venture Communism restricts the way in which shares
can be aquired.
> You're much better off paying out in silver. The fact that you
> CAN is itself encouragement to remain in the group. It also
eliminates
> the problem of subdividing land should members decide to withdraw.
Land can not be withdrawn, the scrip only pays Rent, it does not
provide ownership. Venture Communist scrip is a //RENT// backed
currency, land and captal, within the model, are owned mutually by all
the shareholders.
It only needs to be subdivided as needed by the tennents.
> Convertability is the big issue here, especially at the outset.
You can always sell scrip for a national currency or any other form of
wealth to those that wish to Rent land or capital from the Commune.
> The door has to swing both ways or you won't attract any serious
interest.
It does, but without allowing private sovereign property rights to any
of the commune's land.
William F Hummel
>In article <hn86319mgf83pkcp7...@4ax.com>, William F
>Hummel <wfhu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:03:52 -0800, polar bear <be...@pole.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> It's true that the average price level remained relatively flat before
>> >> the Fed was created. But you should look closely at the financial
>> >> crises and serious depressions that occurred in that era. Since World
>> >> War II, there has been no depression comparable to the Great
>> >> Depression or to the several depressions in the 19th century which are
>> >> now largely forgotten.
>> >
>> >This is the same argument the Fed uses.
>>
>> Cite the reference.
>
>Pick any Greenspan speech. He's always talking about what a marvelous
>job the Fed does at smoothing out the "bumps" in the economy.
>Actually, my comment was a throwaway. To expect a central banker to
>say anything else would be ridiculous. Central banking is like any
>other bureaucracy. It always finds justification for it's existence.
OK, show us one Greenspan speech where he said what you claim he said,
or it will be evident that you are just blowing smoke.
William F Hummel
Looking at economic indicators is not the same thing as targeting the
money supply.
>
>The fact that they don't set targets anymore is a side issue. All it
>means is they've granted themselves more latitude to respond because
>their basic metrics have broken down. Not a very reassuring thought.
OK, so you mis-spoke.
>
>"the FOMC believes that the behavior of money and credit will continue
>to have value for gauging economic and financial conditions."
The Fed has essentially ignored its own monetary measures since the
early 1980s, even though it gave lip service to the notion that it was
monitoring them -- because it was obliged to do so by Congress. Of
all the economic indicators the Fed uses to set monetary policy, the
monetary measures rate very low. Why? Because they show essentially
no correlation with any of the Fed's primary targets -- inflation and
unemployment.
The fact is that there is no meaningful measure of the "money supply."
For example, every time you use a credit card, you increase the Fed's
M1 money aggregate until you pay off the credit card loan. Consumers
on their own initiative have increased the money supply through
revolving credit card loans by hundreds of billions of dollars.
That's a sizable fraction of M1, which neither banks nor the Fed
controls.
polar bear
Hummel <wfhu...@comcast.net> wrote:
Basically I agree. My particular concern is not with the mechanics
per se, but with the effect they have. The central issue for me is a
Federal Reserve which set rates so low it's led to a situation that can
only be described as a debt trap. Sure, everyone had a role to play,
but as the purported guardian of financial stability, the Fed has done
far less than it claims. That people talk about a "Greenspan Put" is
just one indication.
The game, under this Fed, has mutated from a market in productive
investment to a market of pure speculation in which the guy with the
most leverage wins, while at the same time receiving assurances that if
anything goes wrong, the Fed will be there to bail him out, just so
long as he's "too big to fail." With this Fed, the only thing that's
not too big to fail is the corner grocery store.
The helicopters are warming their engines as we speak.
pb
polar bear
Hummel <wfhu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:32:01 -0800, polar bear <be...@pole.com> wrote:
>
snip
> The Fed has essentially ignored its own monetary measures since the
> early 1980s, even though it gave lip service to the notion that it was
> monitoring them -- because it was obliged to do so by Congress. Of
> all the economic indicators the Fed uses to set monetary policy, the
> monetary measures rate very low. Why? Because they show essentially
> no correlation with any of the Fed's primary targets -- inflation and
> unemployment.
>
It's rather disingenous to say the Fed targets inflation, when the main
indicator they use systematically understates it. The BLS, which I
fondly refer to as the Bureau of Lying Sycophants distorts CPI through
hedonic adjustment, substitution, rent-equivalence and leaving out
things it just doesn't like, such as oil and food.
My wife does a better job of calculating inflation than they do. Alan
Greenspan should talk to her. According to her figures it's running
about 7-8 percent, although she's a very careful shopper, so my guess
is most folks are seeing 10-12..
As for employment. More lies. Hamburger chefs are NOT manufacturers,
part-time jobs do not support families, and people who've given up
looking for work are still unemployed, whether or not you count them.
pb
Doktor Dark
William F Hummel
>William F Hummel wrote:
>>
>> The fact is that there is no meaningful measure of the "money supply."
>> For example, every time you use a credit card, you increase the Fed's
>> M1 money aggregate until you pay off the credit card loan. Consumers
>> on their own initiative have increased the money supply through
>> revolving credit card loans by hundreds of billions of dollars.
>> That's a sizable fraction of M1, which neither banks nor the Fed
>> controls.
>
>Basically I agree. My particular concern is not with the mechanics
>per se, but with the effect they have. The central issue for me is a
>Federal Reserve which set rates so low it's led to a situation that can
>only be described as a debt trap. Sure, everyone had a role to play,
>but as the purported guardian of financial stability, the Fed has done
>far less than it claims. That people talk about a "Greenspan Put" is
>just one indication.
>
>The game, under this Fed, has mutated from a market in productive
>investment to a market of pure speculation in which the guy with the
>most leverage wins, while at the same time receiving assurances that if
>anything goes wrong, the Fed will be there to bail him out, just so
>long as he's "too big to fail." With this Fed, the only thing that's
>not too big to fail is the corner grocery store.
I agree the Fed could be more aggressive in setting rules to limit
lending for speculative purposes. But that is much easier said than
done. All lending is speculative in some degree. Defining what is
"overly speculative lending" is difficult at best. Financial
institutions have been gaming the system from day one, and bank
regulators find they are always a step behind playing catch up.
The truth is, Congress bears the real responsibility for most of the
problems you are concerned about. The Fed is a creature of Congress
and must follow its rules. The banking committees set the rules,
which are largely driven by special interests (read lobbyists with
plenty of favors to dispense). The notion that the Fed is independent
of those pressures is naive.
The "too big to fail" problem exists in all major countries, and none
have yet found a way of avoiding it. No one in his right mind would
argue for letting a major financial institution to crash because the
economy would soon find itself in danger of a melt down. So the Fed,
as lender of last resort, must come to the rescue. Central banks have
been working hard to deal with the problem, and generally have done a
good job of it. The next generation of capital adequacy requirements
(Basel II) should do an even better job.
William F Hummel
>In article <nam831trktafrkdgu...@4ax.com>, William F
>Hummel <wfhu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:32:01 -0800, polar bear <be...@pole.com> wrote:
>>
>snip
>> The Fed has essentially ignored its own monetary measures since the
>> early 1980s, even though it gave lip service to the notion that it was
>> monitoring them -- because it was obliged to do so by Congress. Of
>> all the economic indicators the Fed uses to set monetary policy, the
>> monetary measures rate very low. Why? Because they show essentially
>> no correlation with any of the Fed's primary targets -- inflation and
>> unemployment.
>>
>It's rather disingenous to say the Fed targets inflation, when the main
>indicator they use systematically understates it. The BLS, which I
>fondly refer to as the Bureau of Lying Sycophants distorts CPI through
>hedonic adjustment, substitution, rent-equivalence and leaving out
>things it just doesn't like, such as oil and food.
>
>My wife does a better job of calculating inflation than they do. Alan
>Greenspan should talk to her. According to her figures it's running
>about 7-8 percent, although she's a very careful shopper, so my guess
>is most folks are seeing 10-12..
Some prices are rising, some or dropping. Food and energy have been
rising without doubt. Relative to what functions they perform,
computer and other consumer electronics prices have been dropping
steadily for years. How this all averages out depends on what model
we use for the cost of living general price level. One thing is clear
however, those with jobs are living better today than they were 25
years ago, in spite of the price inflation over that period.
>
>As for employment. More lies. Hamburger chefs are NOT manufacturers,
>part-time jobs do not support families, and people who've given up
>looking for work are still unemployed, whether or not you count them.
>
It's easy to complain, but I don't see any constructive proposals.
The Fed has only one basic tool at its disposal. Should the Fed raise
rates, lower rates, or leave them at their present levels?
Raising rates may cause prices to rise because of the increased
borrowing costs to firms. It may also cause more businesses to fail,
throwing more people out of work. Lowering rates may cause more asset
price inflation, especially in the housing market. It's not an easy
polar bear
Hummel <wfhu...@comcast.net> wrote:
I think you're confusing smoke with the frosty breath of a mighty polar
bear. Besides.....I didn't say it, YOU said it. I merely commented
that the fed used the same arguments. What else are they there for if
not to smooth out the bumps? That's their entire game.
Heh... Tried to get me to wade through a bunch of Greenspan speeches
looking for where he says "marvelous job I did smoothing out the bumps"
didn't you? Nice trick, but it won't work. If I've learned anything
from Alan Greenspan it's that you can just make it up as you go along.
pb
PS. I trimmed the Quakers out of this post. They must be getting
tired of this stuff. I know I sure am.
polar bear
"Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
There's a few schemes like this afoot. If they're based offshore you
are essentially "out of the system" as well as being protected from
inflation. I wouldn't use a US based system though. They've
confiscated gold before and will do it again if it suits them. In
fact, the best way to protect yourself is to just leave. Move to
Canada or maybe Brazil.
http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/money_laundering/money1.htm
>
I'm still struggling with this concept of communal land. It seems to
me that the land, while held jointly and with restrictions on private
use, still has to be alienated from the general pool of available land.
I'm thinking of Hutterites, Menonites and so on, who, while they have
no individual claims per se, all have joint ownership under the laws of
whatever country they live in. Ultimately someone holds title,
whether it's a corporation, a commune or an individual.
Also, what happens when population exceeds available land? Even the
early settlers had to displace the indians, whom one could argue had a
fairer system of allocation.
pb
(I've trimmed the Quakers from this reply - they don't seem to be
participating, and I certainly don't want to disturb their tranquility)
inv...@example.com
Quirk wrote:
>Crossposting, on the other hand, is a FEATURE of usenet, a good feature
>that allows for the cross-fertilization of ideas.
...and you don't care whether one of the groups has made a group
decision to politely ask people not to crosspost.
I would only hope that those who reply to you are more polite than you are.
>It can, of course, be abused too, but five newsgroups or so is well
>within norms.
It was five-newsgroup crossposts which destroyed the christnet groups.
inv...@example.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
polar bear wrote:
>> Wrong. The Fed does not target the money supply. It targets the
>> price of money.
>
>Is this what you're refering to?
>http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed49.html
>In 2000, when the Humphrey-Hawkins legislation requiring the Fed to set
>target ranges for money supply growth expired, the Fed announced that
>it was no longer setting such targets, because money supply growth does
>not provide a useful benchmark for the conduct of monetary policy.
>However, the Fed said, too, that "Šthe FOMC believes that the behavior
>of money and credit will continue to have value for gauging economic
>and financial conditions." Moreover, M2, adjusted for changes in the
>price level, remains a component of the Index of Leading Economic
>Indicators, which some market analysts use to forecast economic
>recessions and recoveries.
>
>The fact that they don't set targets anymore is a side issue. All it
>means is they've granted themselves more latitude to respond because
>their basic metrics have broken down. Not a very reassuring thought.
You make a very good point. "Does not provide a useful benchmark"
and "continues to have value for gauging" are incompatible.
In addition, what they *say* they are doing may not be what they
actually *are* doing....
--
Please don't crosspost economics discussions to religion newsgroups.
inv...@example.com
William F Hummel wrote:
>The fact is that there is no meaningful measure of the "money supply."
>For example, every time you use a credit card, you increase the Fed's
>M1 money aggregate until you pay off the credit card loan. Consumers
>on their own initiative have increased the money supply through
>revolving credit card loans by hundreds of billions of dollars.
>That's a sizable fraction of M1, which neither banks nor the Fed
>controls.
Good point. Not only can't they control M1, they have a hard time
measuring M1.
Perhaps we should go back to the way we did things before the Fed
existed.
--
Please don't crosspost economics discussions into religion newsgroups.
inv...@example.com
Quirk wrote:
>Crossposting is a part of the FUNCTIONALITY of usenet, and SHOULD BE
>USED.
The fact that I can cancel your posts without your consent is also
part of the "FUNCTIONALITY of usenet." That doesn't mean that it
is functionality that should be used.
inv...@example.com
Quirk wrote:
>A little too scary for me, the only religious groups that I would touch
>with a ten foot pole at this point are ones like the Quakers and the
>Church of the SubGenius :)
Followers of Bob aren't as rude as you are. They don't barge in
where they are guests and tell the people who live there that
their house rules are stupid.
Have you gone and looked at the smoking wrecks of newsgroups that
used to be thriving religious communities yet? Or don't you care?
inv...@example.com
Quirk wrote:
>But the value of the land is set at what the market feedback gives. For
>instance, whenever a lease is up, it could be put up for auction, with
>the current holder given a right to match the highest offer.
>
>And any new bidder required to pay a certain deposit up front in order
>to eliminate frivolous bids.
Or you could just have a system that hom=nors property rights.
>but without allowing private sovereign property rights to any
>of the commune's land.
I guess not.
>...Venture Communist...
Got any examples of this actually working? No other form of communism
has ever worked.
--
Please don't crosspost economics threads into religion newsgroups
inv...@example.com
Duncan Patton wrote:
>
>inv...@example.com wrote:
>
>> Communes or communism?
>>
>> (You join a commune and can quit it. Communism is forced upon you and
>> there are walls to prevent escape.)
>
>I expect he means communes in the voluntary sense. We have reams of
>evidence to show that trying to force people to "do the right thing"
>is The Wrong Thing.
>
>Models that are workeable might be include some forms of religious
>orders.
I wish I could believe that he means communes in the voluntary sense,
but his behavior (repeated crossposting to a newsgroup that asks not
to be crossposted to) makes me think that he is in favor of force in
other areas as well.
Communes can work very well. Communism never has.
inv...@example.com
polar bear wrote:
>unlike Alan Greenspan, I also know a bubble when I see one.
It does make you wonder how he got the job, doesn't it?
inv...@example.com
Quirk wrote:
>If you are intrested, you can find the latest draft of my venture
>comminst proposal here:
>
>http://www.sparwasserhq.de/Index/HTMLjan5/jesper1.htm
It starts out with an error:
"Wealth and Poverty describe the extremes of entitlement to the
productivity of the economy, if your share is large, you are
wealthy, if your share is small, you are poor."
This definition does not allow for the basic truth that it is
possible for everyone to become richer or for everyone to become
poorer. It confuses absolute wealth with relative wealth.
it goes on with another error:
"All productive capacity of the economy is the result of the
application of the three factors of production: Land, Labour
and Capital."
This definition does not allow for the basic truth that iy is
possible to work hard, burn through capital, and occupy land,
all without being the least bit productive.
inv...@example.com
polar bear wrote:
>Basically I agree. My particular concern is not with the mechanics
>per se, but with the effect they have. The central issue for me is a
>Federal Reserve which set rates so low it's led to a situation that can
>only be described as a debt trap.
And when those rates go back up, disaster.
--
Trim your newsgroups line; it annoys Quirk.
inv...@example.com
polar bear wrote:
>PS. I trimmed the Quakers out of this post. They must be getting
>tired of this stuff. I know I sure am.
You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.
Duncan Patton
I regularly cross post. Usually by accident, but this *is* the News:
press N for next or whatever your reader does, eh?
In fact, I find it difficult to see such a statement as your comparison
of the violence of forced communalism with cross-posting in a good light
at all: you do grave disservice to this community as well as real victims
of ideologically justified violence by this.
> Communes can work very well. Communism never has.
>
Yes.
All businessess/private corporations are private economic communes. And the
constitution of those communes is dictated by the commercial laws of the
land, ERGO involuntary communism IS slavery. Slave societies do work,
sortof, just not very well.
Dhu
>
>
>
>
--
???????????????????????????????????????
All persons named herein are purely fictional victims
of the Canidian Bagle Breeder's Association.
Save the Bagle!
Sun Ðhu
???????????????????????????????????????
Duncan Patton
"Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
>
> Duncan Patton wrote:
>
> > Yes. You need to talk with the GPL/Freesoftware guys.
>
> Sure, Eben Moglen would be my first choice to author the articles, but
> I have not been so bold as of yet as to ask him directly.
>
Well, do. Go read their site first, because they are trying to do
similar things. It is quite possible they have material you can
use already.
> > As well, it might
> > be worth speaking with Jesuits or Franciscans: don't get too close
> there
> > or you'll be servering other purposes than your own good intent.
>
> A little too scary for me, the only religious groups that I would touch
> with a ten foot pole at this point are ones like the Quakers and the
> Church of the SubGenius :)
>
Yes, well, that's why I was xposting there, but we got snarked at so..
Read some Of J.K. Galbraith's stuff. He's a Covenanter/Congregationalist,
which is a similar lot of Scotch puritans (Quakers are more anglo).
News Browser
>
>
>
>>Wouldn't this fall foul of Gresham's Law (bad currency drives out
>>good)? Given the option of settling a bill in silver or paper, which
>>would most people choose?
>
>"Standing by itself, the general statement, "good money drives out bad,"
>is the more correct empirical proposition. Historically, it has been
>good, strong currencies that have driven out bad, weak currencies.
>Over the span of several millennia, strong currencies have dominated
>and driven out weak in international competition. The Persian daric,
>the Greek tetradrachma, the Macedonian stater, and the Roman denarius
>did not become dominant currencies of the ancient world because they
>were "bad" or "weak." The florins, ducats and sequins of the Italian
>city-states did not become the "dollars of the Middle Ages" because
>they were bad coins; they were among the best coins ever made. The
>pound sterling in the 19th century and the dollar in the 20th century
>did not become the dominant currencies of their time because they
>were weak. Consistency, stability and high quality have been the
>attributes of great currencies that have won the competition for
>use as international money. The same proposition holds with respect
>to the use of materials for international money. The precious metals
>won out over other substances not because they were "cheap" or "bad"
>but because they were more efficient than other instruments in
>fulfilling the required functions of money. Among the precious
>metals, gold drove out others not because gold was bad but because
>it was more efficient from the standpoint of effecting transactions
>at the least cost. The dollar became the dominant international
>money in a world of paper currencies not because it was "bad" but
>because, among the alternatives, it best satisfied the characteristics
>of an international money."
>
>Source:
>-Uses and Abuses of Gresham's Law in the History of Money_
>http://www.columbia.edu/~ram15/grash.html
I can tell ya guys. All that M2 talk is bogus and unneeded. It's more
like "an overly complicated smokescreen" to make what the Fed is doing
seem confusing.
The Fed is a privately owned bank corporation, it is not part of the
government. The Fed gets the newly printed US dollars. In 2002 they
got over $300 billion in newly printed currency free.
See page 27 of their annual report
http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/annual/annual02/finance.pdf
The Fed basically prints new currency to match newly arriving
immigrants. But instead of the fed having its taxes raised to help pay
for the higher immigration, the Fed gets its taxes lowered.
=========================================
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Exercise your right to Freedom of Speech as guaranteed by the
Constitution.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
=========================================
Ignoring Superstition website at
http://members.fcc.net/workgroup5/sup/
=========================================
Young people sometimes have problems with harassment.
This website explains there is nothing to worry about.
If a person harasses someone, the person doing the
harassing always harms his own situation more than the
person he is trying to harass.
http://members.fcc.net/workgroup5/country/harassment.html
=========================================
Quirk
> Quirk wrote:
> Followers of Bob aren't as rude as you are.
Now that's funny.
And it is you being rude, I am politely discussing an issue, you are
rudely telling people which groups they are allowed to use and how.
And you calling me rude, when we are politely discussing a difference
of opinion is, well, rude.
> They don't barge in
> where they are guests and tell the people who live there that
> their house rules are stupid.
I am not telling any "them," I am telling you. You are the one trying
to impose rules. These are not "house rules." they are YOUR rules.
"House rules" in unmoderated forums are invariable implemented by
despots who like to speak for the rest of the group. If these are
legitimate house rules, then go through some sort of diligent charter
process and publish them regularly. Then, instead of insisting, you
could point to the Charter instead of alluding to "House rules" that
can not be read.
Nor did I call anyone or anything stupid, this is just more rudeness on
your part representing what I said that way.
> Have you gone and looked at the smoking wrecks of newsgroups that
> used to be thriving religious communities yet? Or don't you care?
Slippery slope fallacy.
Respectfull, multiple newsgroup discussions do not make "smoking
wrecks" of newsgroups," you are just FEAR MONGERING inorder to impose
your rules.
I think it is obvious to everyone that I posted my questions to
soc.religion.quaker, respectfully, because I felt, for good reason,
that there might be people who could answer them there.
All you have done is litter this thread with your endless attempts to
play usenet traffic cop, and these contributions are not relevant to
ANY of the newsgroups you are crossposting them too, nor the thread
itself.
Further, I am not even interested in discusing this issue with you
anymore, as it will does not contribute to the topic of the thread, so
I will ignore any more comments you make on this topic, and encourage
others to as well.
Regards.
Quirk
inv...@example.com wrote:
> Trim your newsgroups line; it annoys Quirk.
No, trim your newsgroup line when you feel your reply is not relevant
to any group it contains, what I disapprove of is other people trying
to make this decision for you. Annoying me takes far more than a
newsreader.
Quirk
inv...@example.com wrote:
> It starts out with an error:
> "Wealth and Poverty describe the extremes of entitlement to the
> productivity of the economy, if your share is large, you are
> wealthy, if your share is small, you are poor."
> This definition does not allow for the basic truth that it is
> possible for everyone to become richer or for everyone to become
> poorer.
Yes it does.
> It confuses absolute wealth with relative wealth.
The concepts of "being" wealthy and poor are relative. This is why, HDI
poverty statistics, for instance, are calculated against median income.
> it goes on with another error:
>
> "All productive capacity of the economy is the result of the
> application of the three factors of production: Land, Labour
> and Capital."
> This definition does not allow for the basic truth that iy is
> possible to work hard, burn through capital, and occupy land,
> all without being the least bit productive.
It does not say that the application of land, labour and capital
invariably leads to production, but rather that all production is the
result of such application.
In anycase, I already said that Venture Communism is not the topic of
this thread, except in relation to currency.
If you are interested, we can discuss this when I post my next draft.
Quirk
> On 13 Mar 2005 06:45:18 -0800
> > > Yes. You need to talk with the GPL/Freesoftware guys.
> > Sure, Eben Moglen would be my first choice to author the articles,
but
> > I have not been so bold as of yet as to ask him directly.
> Well, do.
Maybe after a few more drafts :)
> Go read their site first, because they are trying to do
> similar things. It is quite possible they have material you can
> use already.
Yes, you might be interested in the article I co-wrote for community
bandwidth:
http://www.communitybandwidth.ca/articles/free_software
It is based on an earlier article I wrote for the Non Profit Times.
Not really part of the current topic, but would love your feedback non
the less.
> Yes, well, that's why I was xposting there, but we got snarked at
so..
I might take the snarking more seriously if it was backed with a
Charter that was a result of diligent collaborative effort, not a
self-appointed net.cop with a penchant for pitching any fallacy at the
wall that may stick.
> Read some Of J.K. Galbraith's stuff. He's a
Covenanter/Congregationalist,
> which is a similar lot of Scotch puritans (Quakers are more anglo).
I have a passing familiarity with Galbraith, but have yet to read one
of his books, I was thinking about "The Affluent Society," is there one
you would recommend?
polar bear
Hummel <wfhu...@comcast.net> wrote:
Dude, you're starting to sound like Larry Kudlow! 25 years ago I was
paying half what I do now for the same stuff. No way the work I did
then (trucking) pays double today. Add to that the loss of benefits
and increased workload and you're waaaaay behind if you stuck with it,
which is why I got the hell out. I'm only further ahead today because
I figured things out and applied myself. Go further back, and things
were better still. I come from a two parent family where my mom stayed
home and raised her kids. Try doing that today on a trucker's wage.
The things we need have been constantly rising: Housing, clothes,
food, fuel, insurance, medical care, tuition, golf clubs. The things
we don't need have been falling: TV's, Hello Kitty toasters, IPODS,
Beanie Babies, Internet stocks. As for computers, the bulk of them are
used for mundane tasks. My old Starmax, at $1000 did just as good a
job word processing as my current G4 at twice the price. Hedonic
adjustments make absolutely no sense if the increased performance is
never used. Likewise, my present car can go 200 km/hr without flying
apart. Does that make it twice as good as my old Duster, which barely
made 120? Granted the ride's more comfortable, but nothing has
functionally changed. It's still just a car.
> >
> >As for employment. More lies. Hamburger chefs are NOT manufacturers,
> >part-time jobs do not support families, and people who've given up
> >looking for work are still unemployed, whether or not you count them.
> >
> It's easy to complain, but I don't see any constructive proposals.
> The Fed has only one basic tool at its disposal. Should the Fed raise
> rates, lower rates, or leave them at their present levels?
I don't suppose it really matters at this point. Actually, this Fed
has been rather good to me. I've been a trader for 15 years and I
never had a better run than in 98/99. I hit all my stops and was out
by april 2000. Still, i'd rather have made it the hard way, a-la Ben
Graham. At least I'd feel like I contributed something, rather than
just taking it out. But hey, when fixed income runs well below the
inflation rate, what's a bear to do? My next move will be shorting
the stuff that's gone up a whole lot: builders, semis, sub-prime
lenders, REIT's. I hate to say it, but it's like shooting fish in a
barrel. That's NOT how it's supposed to work. I should be working
hard at this. They make it way too easy.
I don't really hate the Fed. After all, they're just a symptom.of the
disease, and I have every confidence a cure will be forthcoming.
Nature has an uncanny way of correcting it's mistakes.
>
> Raising rates may cause prices to rise because of the increased
> borrowing costs to firms. It may also cause more businesses to fail,
> throwing more people out of work. Lowering rates may cause more asset
> price inflation, especially in the housing market. It's not an easy
It is never an easy!
pb
Quirk
> There's a few schemes like this afoot. If they're based offshore
you
> are essentially "out of the system" as well as being protected from
> inflation. I wouldn't use a US based system though. They've
> confiscated gold before and will do it again if it suits them.
Yes, I agree, I do not plan to really do much business with the US
system, however with the falling dollar, it does become more and more
attractive in areas such as internet hosting.
If the data is not confidential, and securely backed up somewhere else,
it should be safe enough to use cheap American labour and
telecommunications.
> In
> fact, the best way to protect yourself is to just leave. Move to
> Canada or maybe Brazil.
I am Canadian. I also lived briefly in Brazil. Currently I live in
Germany, which is my 8th country of residence. But a Venture Commune
doesn't really chose which land it buys, the private Enterprises it
invests in do. It just winds up owning the land as a part of the terms
of investment. Ideally the Communal land holdings would be diversified
across countries.
While I have lived and worked in the US on several occasions, and have
American friends and family, personally, I do not plan to spend any
significant time there until after the US dollar hegemony house of
cards callapses.
However, I would certainly not be against Venture Communes investing in
US based enterprises and acquiring US land, after all their are many
great Americans, who deserve our solidarity, we should not let the
neofascist US Regime make us forget that.
> http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/money_laundering/money1.htm
Orlin Grabbe?
Thanks for the link. I 'm happy it was one of the "safe for work" ones.
> > It does, but without allowing private sovereign property rights to
any
> > of the commune's land.
> I'm still struggling with this concept of communal land.
I don't know why. You believe in freedom of association, why is it so
hard for you to consider an association of land owners who own some
land equally, and then Rent it to the highest bidder, for their mutual
benefit.
I would have thought that, of the properties of a Venture Commune, it
was not the communal ownership of land which you would struggle with,
but the fact that all shareholders are equal, and that money can not
buy shares.
> It seems to
> me that the land, while held jointly and with restrictions on private
> use, still has to be alienated from the general pool of available
land.
I'm not sure what you mean by alienated, the land is still available
for Rent to the market, it is just not available for sale.
> I'm thinking of Hutterites, Menonites and so on, who, while they have
> no individual claims per se, all have joint ownership under the laws
of
> whatever country they live in. Ultimately someone holds title,
> whether it's a corporation, a commune or an individual.
Yes, I agree. I am not making the argument that a title should not be
held, but rather that it should be held mutually, and suggesting three
distinct properties that make such holding in line with Anarchist
Philosophy and Economic theory.
> Also, what happens when population exceeds available land?
A Venture Commune is an investment organization that uses Rent as the
basis of the return on investment for its investors.
It is not a colony.
> (I've trimmed the Quakers from this reply - they don't seem to be
> participating, and I certainly don't want to disturb their
tranquility)
You are entitled to decide which groups you feel your comments should
be posted to. Personally I agree, since we seem to have drifted back
into talking about Venture Communism, and not Community Currency, which
is the intended subject of this tread :)
Cheers Polar.
polar bear
Hummel <wfhu...@comcast.net> wrote:
snip
> Raising rates may cause prices to rise because of the increased
> borrowing costs to firms. It may also cause more businesses to fail,
> throwing more people out of work. Lowering rates may cause more asset
> price inflation, especially in the housing market. It's not an easy
Your post got cut off, but I think I see where you're going. These
things are all true, but they're just symptoms. Under gold, excess was
nipped in the bud. It hurt for a while, but folks got over it. In a
fiat system the CB has to get tough BEFORE things start running away.
That's hard to do when the same people you're dumping on are your Alma
Mater. At some point they stop calling you for lunch. So, if the
banks don't have discipline, and the Fed doesn't either, then the
ultimate arbiter is the currency market, which is why the dollar is
getting trashed.
Believing you can run a fiat system with all the attendant pressures
and special interests vying for your attention is the ultimate hubris.
Believing you can "control" the markets is yet more sublime folly.
I look out over the landscape and I see manipulation everywhere. Fake
'earnings", gold loans, the ten-year, S&P futures, carry trades.
Everyone's playing the spread, but no one is actually making anything,
save the Chinese.
At some point confidence WILL be lost. Even now, those other guys are
working out what a post US consumer global economy will look like.
Deals are being struck in back rooms that will cut the USA out of the
equation. That's how markets work. They are bigger than any nation,
central bank, or axis of bullshit. When the dead branch starts
sucking life from the living tree, it will get lopped off.
Every empire that ever was has foundered. This time will be no
different. We are going to see a depression in our time that will
make the 30's look like a trip to Disneyland. And all because a bunch
of economists thought they could make a science out of managing human
greed and stupidity. But hey - why worry? It's not like we can
actually DO anything about it. That point was passed a long time ago.
pb
William F Hummel
>In article <qjo931tg42e1f7sl8...@4ax.com>, William F
>Hummel <wfhu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>snip
>> Raising rates may cause prices to rise because of the increased
>> borrowing costs to firms. It may also cause more businesses to fail,
>> throwing more people out of work. Lowering rates may cause more asset
>> price inflation, especially in the housing market. It's not an easy
>
>Your post got cut off, but I think I see where you're going. These
>things are all true, but they're just symptoms. Under gold, excess was
>nipped in the bud. It hurt for a while, but folks got over it. In a
>fiat system the CB has to get tough BEFORE things start running away.
>That's hard to do when the same people you're dumping on are your Alma
>Mater. At some point they stop calling you for lunch. So, if the
>banks don't have discipline, and the Fed doesn't either, then the
>ultimate arbiter is the currency market, which is why the dollar is
>getting trashed.
>
>Believing you can run a fiat system with all the attendant pressures
>and special interests vying for your attention is the ultimate hubris.
>Believing you can "control" the markets is yet more sublime folly.
>I look out over the landscape and I see manipulation everywhere. Fake
>'earnings", gold loans, the ten-year, S&P futures, carry trades.
>Everyone's playing the spread, but no one is actually making anything,
>save the Chinese.
Manipulation and such has existed since the dawn of money. Some of
the finest practitioners were operating in the late 19th and early
20th century at the height of the gold-backed era. Manipulation and
fraud has little to do with the money system per se, fiat money or
commodity money. Anyone who thinks gold-backed money was a joy ride
compared to fiat money should read a little history. A good starting
point is "The Power of Gold, The History of an Obsession" by Peter
Bernstein.
>
>At some point confidence WILL be lost. Even now, those other guys are
>working out what a post US consumer global economy will look like.
>Deals are being struck in back rooms that will cut the USA out of the
>equation. That's how markets work. They are bigger than any nation,
>central bank, or axis of bullshit. When the dead branch starts
>sucking life from the living tree, it will get lopped off.
>
>Every empire that ever was has foundered. This time will be no
>different.
Indeed, nothing is forever. But the US will not founder simply
because it operates on fiat money rather than gold.
>We are going to see a depression in our time that will
>make the 30's look like a trip to Disneyland.
Great depressions are a phenomenon of the "hard money" era when
government were small and there were no safety nets in place to help
maintain aggregate demand. The only thing that would cause another
such depression would be a man-made or natural environmental disaster.
Ultimately we will perish from a natural disaster, in which case the
GDP growth rate won't even be a footnote. However we may all be on
the path of a man-made environmental disaster, but that has nothing to
do with the fiat money system.
inv...@example.com
Duncan Patton wrote:
>In fact, I find it difficult to see such a statement as your comparison
>of the violence
Force. Not violence. Violence is a subset of force.
>of forced communalism
>All businessess/private corporations are private economic communes.
That's an interesting thought. Not a bad way of looking at it.
inv...@example.com
News Browser wrote:
>The Fed is a privately owned bank corporation, it is not part of the
>government. The Fed gets the newly printed US dollars. In 2002 they
>got over $300 billion in newly printed currency free.
>The Fed basically prints new currency to match newly arriving
>immigrants.
Wouldn't you consider that to be at least quasi-governmental?
inv...@example.com
Quirk wrote:
>
>inv...@example.com wrote:
>
>> It starts out with an error:
>
>> "Wealth and Poverty describe the extremes of entitlement to the
>> productivity of the economy, if your share is large, you are
>> wealthy, if your share is small, you are poor."
>
>> This definition does not allow for the basic truth that it is
>> possible for everyone to become richer or for everyone to become
>> poorer.
>
>Yes it does.
Bare assertion makes a very unconvincing argument.
How can the above statement possibly be true? How can *everyone*
get a bigger share (your defintion of "rich")? How can *everyone*
get a smaller share (your defintion of "poor")? If everyone became
a hundred ten times richer, the exact same number of people would
fit your "if your share is small, you are poor" definition. Would
the poor become rich if they became a hundred time richer but ended
up with a smaller share because the rich got a thousand times
richer?
Duncan Patton
"Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
> Duncan Patton wrote:
>
> > On 13 Mar 2005 06:45:18 -0800
> > > > Yes. You need to talk with the GPL/Freesoftware guys.
>
> > > Sure, Eben Moglen would be my first choice to author the articles,
> but
> > > I have not been so bold as of yet as to ask him directly.
>
> > Well, do.
>
> Maybe after a few more drafts :)
>
> > Go read their site first, because they are trying to do
> > similar things. It is quite possible they have material you can
> > use already.
>
> Yes, you might be interested in the article I co-wrote for community
> bandwidth:
>
> http://www.communitybandwidth.ca/articles/free_software
>
> It is based on an earlier article I wrote for the Non Profit Times.
>
You need to reconsider the use of the term "Non Profit", for a variety
of reasons:
1. there is no use in undertaking something from which no profit, or
human benefit, can be derived.
2. division and utilization of the profit from an endevour are at issue:
who benefits and how.
3. "non profit" organizations are specifically forced to be uneconomic
and fairly inefficient operations under our current corporate laws.
Basically, you need to provide for making money because money is like
the internet. You can have your own network, but unless it connects
to the rest of the 'net, it is not on the inter-net. Money is an
antique economic internetwork of exchange mechanisms for providing
economic valuation and risk abatement. So you don't need to use
money internally to your system, but then you must provide an interface
to "money" that is consistent with other valuations or exchanges.
> Not really part of the current topic, but would love your feedback non
> the less.
>
> > Yes, well, that's why I was xposting there, but we got snarked at
> so..
>
> I might take the snarking more seriously if it was backed with a
> Charter that was a result of diligent collaborative effort, not a
> self-appointed net.cop with a penchant for pitching any fallacy at the
> wall that may stick.
>
Truly. Too many Tannis, and no party. Just the same, if we'd seen
disagreement with him from that newsgroup, it would have been apropriate
to continue xposting there. As it stands, we should consider them without
interest in the subject and move on. This is ancient netiquitte: because
of the way the systems/comms logic works, if you throw it at the wall
and it sticks, it is _a_ right place, and mebbe there isn't _the_ right
place at all.
> > Read some Of J.K. Galbraith's stuff. He's a
> Covenanter/Congregationalist,
> > which is a similar lot of Scotch puritans (Quakers are more anglo).
>
> I have a passing familiarity with Galbraith, but have yet to read one
> of his books, I was thinking about "The Affluent Society," is there one
> you would recommend?
>
"A History of Economics" might be useful. The Affluent Society is his
most well known and will give you more common ground to talk with others
about. If you want to know who he is, read "The Scotch" ;-)