Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

Good questions SolTun

No one ! Or more correctly, everyone!
While a "gold coin" type standard imposed by govt is a much better solution than what we have, the only way to ensure honest money is to defend free market money.

Nobody garuntees anything. People are free to use whatever they like as money.

It is never (yours) If a govt controls something it is not yours, its theirs

Thats what they tell you !
Is anyone entitled to steal from another ?
To control a nations money supply is to control the nation.
After nearly every economic collapse in history, the people have always gone back to the most suitable form of money, gold and silver. Not regulated or contolled by anyone, simply understood by all as the ultimate means of exhange and store of value.
The most important thing about gold is that governments cannot print it, and the supply is basically fixed (a tiny bit is mined every year).
The most evil function of government is having the monopoly power to increase and decrease the supply of money.

Bollocks


What "free market" money.... you surely can't mean that which pertains to the cartel financial institutions


No they're not... trying paying for your groceries with monopoly money... or printing your own...


Except when it comes to debt.... government or private... then it's our money/debt.... eh??


Agreed, and I made that point a while back.... and you said bullshit....

And removing the gold standard... and increasing the loan to deposit reserve rate for the banks.... (a supposed "de-regulation").....enabled the banks to "create" vast amounts of debt/money supply... all sorts of bodgey derivative and ponsey schemes....thus inflation... and ultimately the GFC....

And again... it's then suddenly "our" money/debt.....

Yep.. it's a "free market"... and free ride.... for those that control the game..... but it's the mug punter that ends up wearing the consequences of the inflation crash...

In a "free market"... the banks should have been left to fail... likewise GMH/Ford etc...

I was referring to how it should be, not how it is


Of course not. I mean money that the market would choose, no one else.


What I mean by this is that "the people" not "a person". Through the natural operations of the market, the people will converge on that which best provides the services of "money" which would probably be (and has been, historically) gold/silver.

In the present day yes.
Without the government raping the currency, we wouldn't have the debt and we wouldnt have the devaluation.


If that was the specific point you made, then it was a communication breakdown. For some reason we are not completely understanding each others points fully...(and I apologise)


Increasing the loan to deposit ratio is not a deregulation when we do not have free market money. This is simply a way the govt manipulates the supply of money. The entire system is an evil bastard and tinkering with some of the "rules" can in no way be described as "deregulation"


I have to pull you up on this point again. not "..thus inflatioin" inflation happens first, inflation is the tool by which the government creates money out of thin air and steals the wealth of the middle and lower classes. Inflation does not just happen, it is not just caused by other things. Inflation IS the evil and the root cause.


Exactly right, no one should ever get bailed out ever for any reason whatsoever....ever
If you pay someone to make mistakes, what do you get ? more mistakes of course.

But of course our wonderful all knowing, all powerful, almighty rulers would never let this happen (or be the direct cause)... oh wait..

But then this just makes the statists (and other govt lovers) think we need MORE regulation, to somehow counteract all the other regulation that causes these problems in the first place

The cause of depressions: Part 1

Most economists today use Keynes “New” economics theory to explain the business cycle, ever since his book was written in 1936. Beneath their diagrams, mathematics, and inchoate jargon, the attitude of Keynesians toward booms and bust is simplicity, even naivete, itself. If there is inflation, then the cause is supposed to be "excessive spending" on the part of the public; the alleged cure is for the government, the self-appointed stabilizer and regulator of the nation's economy, to step in and force people to spend less, "sopping up their excess purchasing power" through increased taxation. If there is a recession, on the other hand, this has been caused by insufficient private spending, and the cure now is for the government to increase its own spending, preferably through deficits, thereby adding to the nation's aggregate spending stream.

The fundamental attitude is that the economy is a troublesome and disobedient patient, always needing constant adjustment. The govt of course being required to watch and tinker, to make it run smoothly.

It was not so long ago that this kind of attitude and policy was called "socialism"; but we live in a world of euphemism, and now we call it by far less harsh labels, such as "moderation" or "enlightened free enterprise." We live and learn.

The cause of depressions: Part 2

What, then, are the causes of periodic depressions? Must we always remain agnostic about the causes of booms and busts? Is it really true that business cycles are rooted deep within the free-market economy, and that therefore some form of government planning is needed if we wish to keep the economy within some kind of stable bounds? Do booms and then busts just simply happen, or does one phase of the cycle flow logically from the other?
The currently fashionable attitude toward the business cycle stems, actually, from Karl Marx. Marx saw that, before the Industrial Revolution in approximately the late eighteenth century, there were no regularly recurring booms and depressions. There would be a sudden economic crisis whenever some king made war or confiscated the property of his subject; but there was no sign of the peculiarly modern phenomena of general and fairly regular swings in business fortunes, of expansions and contractions. Since these cycles also appeared on the scene at about the same time as modern industry, Marx concluded that business cycles were an inherent feature of the capitalist market economy. All the various current schools of economic thought, regardless of their other differences and the different causes that they attribute to the cycle, agree on this vital point: That these business cycles originate somewhere deep within the free-market economy. The market economy is to blame. Karl Marx believed that the periodic depressions would get worse and worse, until the masses would be moved to revolt and destroy the system, while the modern economists believe that the government can successfully stabilize depressions and the cycle. But all parties agree that the fault lies deep within the market economy and that if anything can save the day, it must be some form of massive government intervention.
There are, however, some critical problems in the assumption that the market economy is the culprit.
(Point form to conserve time/space)
- General economic theory says supply and demand tend to be in equilibrium
--So prices always tend towards equilibrium point.
- Constant changes in the market prevent equilibrium being reached (but always the tendency)
- Nothing in the general theory of the market system can explain the regular booms and busts.
- Modern economists solve this problem by putting it in a different “box” from general price theory and pretending there is not just one economy.

Summary:
Modern economics ( Keynesian) is BS. It is designed purely as an excuse for the government to print as much money as it needs. Keynesian economics is economics of the state, it is the lie that allows it to secretly steal the wealth of the people, and blame it all on others.

Gee thats funny, didn't we work out that a communist country with incredibly tight controls over business and it's people is actually the best economy in the world?

This is where the cherry picking happens.... You can't take small pieces of information and apply it to your ideal model world, it's taking things out of context. It's all part of a massive complex beast with a multitude of feedback loops, it can not be simplified to the levels you base your arguments on, you're discounting all other factors. You say that it's Chinas move towards capitalism and loosening of regulation thats's made it so successful, so therefore total deregulation and no controls must be the best situation.

No, crap, it's actually the planning and controls over the top of it all that have made it the success that it is, as well as many other factors of course, but you can't just cherry pick out small bits and look at them in isolation.

We just don't have this ideal world you talk about, it does not exist... In this utopian world you still insist that companies will be smaller because people will shop elsewhere, crap. With no advertising regulations, no media ownership regulations and privatised courts. Corporations will be able to literally brainwash the public, and I mean quite literally brainwash the public into believing whatever they want. Competition on price and quality of product will not even come into the equation.

Government is to blame for everything, stealing all the hard working peoples money and giving it to the reds hiding under the bed....

Maybe in your head. We actually worked out it was the massive shift towards privatisation and LOOSER controls over business and the people that made china the economic power it is today.
Ie a move AWAY from communism.


Your lack of understanding does not necessarily mean everyone doesn't understand

What all other factors? Lets disect them.
Yes! So you do understand

This argument is not a proof. I don't believe total deregulation and no controls is the best solution beause of the China example at all, that would be just be silly.
I believe that because of my study of economics.
If it is actually possible for you to have an open mind, carefully read my "Causes of a depression" posts (I have already posted the first 2 parts). This will help you understand a small part of the reasoning.


Where is your evidence of this ? You place the burden of proof on me for my assertions, which I provide. Please do the same.


Of course it doesn't exist! If it did why would we be talking about it

Not crap, we can go over the reasoning again if you like. The reason companies are so huge is BECAUSE of stifling regulations keeping out competition. Do you know how hard it is to start a bank ? What about get approval to produce pharmaceuticals ? Its bloody impossible! It STOPS competition
how do advertising regulations protect us from being brainwashed ?
How do media ownership regulations protect us ?
And what is wrong with competition in courts? Competition produces better products and services for the lowest prices.

Brainwash eh?
So we watch an advertisement for Pert 2in1 and immediately all walk down the road like zombies to Coles to buy it ?
Of course it will, do you think every company will all collude together and gang up on the lowly consumer? How ridiculous.
Collusion is inherently unstable. The idea of collusion is to force prices higher than the market rate, which immediately creates the opportunity for new participants to share in the profit by undercutting the colluding parties, before you know it the market price is reached again. Thats how the market works.

Are you saying it is not stealing ?

This is the cherry picking, you just don't get it...

You can not take one element of a country for example China, and their economic success and use it as an example of why an unregulated economy might be successful. It is only a very small part of a large picture.



Who said that, I never mentioned collusion? I'm talking about monopolies, monopolies will control and destroy others within the market or trying to enter the market.

You accuse me of having a closed mind and preconceived ideas and not being open? I entered this whole debate in the first place with no preconceived ideas. You entered this whole debate with an agenda to promote libertarian ideal..

Actually the China example was started by you, you were trying to use it against market based policies, which we proved that it actually supports maket policies. As Rupe agreed. I never said it was a good example.


Monopolies can only exist if supported by the government. Give me an example of a monopoly today that you think does not exist due to government protection.
You have already alluded to your political preference of Authoritarian rule. This means you support tyranny over freedom.

I entered this debate because these types of conversations are important, and do not occur nearly enough in our society. Also very few people support reduction of the state (obviously the state doesn't) and as the state grows and grows this conversation becomes more and more important.

Yeah whatever.... Twice now I have written a response and twice I have deleted it.. I don't support tyranny, that's just garbage to make accusations like that..

You know what? I'm happy to pay taxes... I'm happy that here in W.A. we don't have a toll road anywhere, I never want to experience a toll road.. I know, your going to turn around and tell me I'm paying the toll for the roads in my taxes and everything is run by inefficient governments... I can see your arguments...

I'm happy paying my medicare, I hardly every use it but, but hey the couple of times I've needed it it's been brilliant..

I love the fact that I can go down south to the national parks for free and that the environment down there is clean and relatively unpolluted.

I love the fact that the state government has regulated gambling here and we don't have any pokies except for in the one casino..

I would hate to live in a world like you're suggesting..

I am arguing for a society in which there is no tyranny. In which each person is inviolable, and nobody can force their views or preferences on others.
This would mean that if there was a government, it would be strictly limited to protecting the liberty and private property rights of the citizens.
To wish for anything more is tyranny. That is fine if you wish that, just be honest about what it is.

You might be happy to pay tax, but that is irrelevant. The point is you MUST pay it.
If you refuse, at some point someone will be pointing a gun at you and locking you up or shooting you.

Just as a simple theif might point a gun at you and demand money.

Just because the majority rule has decided everyone should pay tax, and the guy pointing the gun has a uniform that doesn't make it any less of a theft.

Maybe you could meet me halfway EB. Abolish the power of the federal government and give the power to the states. Or maybe go a bit further and not allow the states to have power either but give the power to the local council organisation.
That way if someone feels like their local taxes are too high, they can easily go to another area.
Competition always makes the best product, in this way we will see which policies the people really prefer.

The cause of depressions: Part 3

The terrible problem with modern economics is that it does not see the peculiar breakdown of the entrepreneurial function at times of economic crisis and depression.

In the market economy, one of the most vital functions of the businessman is to be an "entrepreneur," a man who invests in productive methods, who buys equipment and hires labor to produce something which he is not sure will reap him any return.

In short, the entrepreneurial function is the function of forecasting the uncertain future.
Before an investment the entrepreneur must estimate present and future costs and future revenues to work out his profit.
If he does well and better than his competitor he reaps the profits, the better his forecasting, the higher his profits.
If he is a poor forecaster he will suffer losses and soon be forced out of business.

The market economy, then, is a profit-and-loss economy, in which ability of business entrepreneurs is gauged by the profits and losses they reap.
The market economy, moreover, contains a built-in mechanism, a kind of natural selection, that ensures the survival and the flourishing of the superior forecaster and the weeding-out of the inferior ones.
For the more profits reaped by the better forecasters, the greater become their business responsibilities, and the more they will have available to invest in the productive system. On the other hand, a few years of making losses will drive the poorer forecasters and entrepreneurs out of business altogether and push them into the ranks of salaried employees.

NO, your arguing for a society where the voiceless are downtrodden, and where the rich get richer, where the $ (or gold bar, whatever you want to use) is almighty.



Once again, crap.... Whats the definition of tyranny?


You say it's either total freedom or anything else is Tyranny... Your Quote... "To wish for anything more is tyranny." Rubbish, it's not just one extreme or the other, there's a lot of grey inbetween, once again, over-dramatisation and demonising by trying to attach labels.



Rubbish... I know someone who has never filled out a tax return in his life, no one has ever pointed a gun at him and he is not going to be shot, again... Over dramatising for effect.

I think you need to go find a little island somewhere that you can do your own thing on...