ParanoiA

I don't think that particular dynamic is what ecoli was unimpressed with. Bascule posted an hour long historical review essentially on how moving from bullion coins to paper money and banking systems blew open the bottle neck on the flow of money. But bascule was making the statement that central banking and credit did those things. That's what is arguable. That's adding too many specific elements to the concept of paper promises for one to label as "fact", as you have. Sure, that was the method employed in England, but that implies that paper money and credit alone wouldn't have done any of those things - that it required central banking. That's what bascule's statement was loaded with, and I believe that's why ecoli responded by calling it "an interesting theory". Also, I'm not an austrian and I don't think ecoli is either. I am attracted to Austrian theory because I'm attracted to systems. Particularly over managers. But ecoli and I both have shared plenty of misgivings about Austrian theory - for instance, the notion that regulations aren't necessary. Instead, I think we're doing the responsible thing every american ought to be doing - learning economics for ourselves. If you think about it, the public school system in america is making an egregious error in graduating students that aren't business and economic experts. We're a capitalist country and are largely defined by our self interested business model - yet we graduate kids that don't know what fiat money means, let alone the detail of our economic model. It's playing into the idea that an ignorant public is a controllable public. We're all a product of the philosophical economic environment that we live in presently. There isn't enough thorough economic comprehension in the public to initiate such questioning of our system, or even the elements of it. I never questioned economic models in any way until I came to this forum and was humbled by the detail some of the members here shared on the subject. I should have already known those things.

Can you just imagine the folks that are falling for this? I have in-laws that fit the target profile for this ruse, I'm afraid...

The point in reading the rest of the statement is to give enough respect to the writer, whom in this case has proven intellectual credentials, that he might be qualifed to view it with less appreciation than yourself. I think ecoli has the background to do that. So it would seem to me if you must challenge his position it would be more appropriate to give him the respect of arguing on his level rather than insult him with 'look at the score board bitch' type replies. But that's just me.

Yeah, I'm trying to overlook what appears to me to be auctorial "cheating". I really hate that. I don't like stories that essentially lie to keep you from figuring it out. Knowing there were 13 could have been quite useful for plot prediction long ago. And it almost seems like they knew that, and purposely kept it at 12. That's a big reason why Kara was so mysterious to me, I couldn't label her a cylon and explain anything. But I'm trying not to pre-judge and let this show have its way with me until the end. I really liked the harder sci-fi approach of this series and I particularly hope this will help inspire a generation of more realistically presented sci-fi entertainment. Rumor has it The Gap Series might make it to film, as the rights have been optioned, and that would almost certainly be a harder sci-fi presentation. And would likely correct Donaldson's mistakes.

Alright, then what exactly is backward in this statement? I'm not seeing any forward or backward there. To me, it clearly looked like you were being condescending in response to his apparent lack of obligatory appreciation for James Burke's and this age of man's central banking and credit theory by stating merely "it's an interesting theory". Clearly, ecoli is not impressed by reputation but rather by logical merit. Maybe I'm on a hair trigger since you've tried to marginalize our economic positions in the past using the same logic - that it's old, presupposes a zero-sum game (which it doesn't), been there done that, etc. Some of that might even matter if we were arguing for a repeat pre-1913 framework, but most of our discussions have been about elements and their impact on the whole. In other words, we can talk about free banking, full reserve verses fractional reserve banking, legal tender laws, central planning, federal reserve - all without advocating the same antiquated framework that didn't work before. Just because we're discussing fundamentals of economy, which are timeless I might add, doesn't mean we're discussing whether or not we should return to the 1907 economic design. There may be elements that resemble that time, sure, hell toilet paper hasn't changed much in a hundred years, but that doesn't mean we're going backward, that means we backtracked and found that 'dead end' sign was faced the wrong way. If I have you pegged entirely wrong, then I'm sorry.

Translation: The majority doesn't think this way, and it's old fashioned, therefore you're wrong. While that's a terrific argument, I think I'll stick with the academics since that's where the meat and potatoes are. You can go with the gut-punching rationalizations that got us to this point, if that makes you feel better, but I hardly think that insulting ecoli's thoughtful approach with nothing more than an anachronistic appeal is useful. Sorry, we're not impressed with the modern approach, and yes, there are plenty of economic egg heads to sing in your choir, but just like political ideologies, it's generally more about preference than performance. Today's typical American has an irresponsible expectation of life and credit and the philosophy that supports that irresponsibility is part of what is being questioned here. It's virtually impossible to get an opinion from someone outside of that vacuum. So, it's of little value when minds like Bernanke advocate this system. They are of the same school of thought that rationalized this system in the first place - that invented the freaking federal reserve. How could you think academia is not useful here? Really? You said that? Economics is quite a thick subject, prolific with terms and concepts most don't really understand. And they all build on each other, and interact with each other, in ways that experts on the material still debate about. If we're going to talk about abolishing the federal reserve, then we had better be talking about the details of its function - and that requires understanding those details...money, debt, money as debt, credit, exchange...you know, the meat and potatoes. What we need is a whole lot more academia, and a whole lot less politics.

Thanks for the link, bascule. I can't watch until I get home since they block that stuff from work. I have no doubt, though, that my appreciation for credit will stabilize. But I was asking the question to generate more questions - to reveal the structural issue with unlimited credit. The issue with central management is the lack of check and balance - we allow "rationale" to be the check and balance when we empower a central manager. Well that problem there is obvious, humans can rationalize anything - any kind of behavior. We'll keep creating debt; creating money, until we're making promises a thousand years into the future. Credit has its limits - it's a marketable promise. And it has its own potential for cyclical consequence - huge consequence, in fact. When money is created from debt, it is a lie. It is an artificial market condition, that doesn't really exist - it's all promises that cannot be fulfilled all at once. The condition requires that most of the promises be left to dangle. How many promises can we build upon, layer by layer? I understand that a certain level of this is reasonable and is necessary due to the nature of the mechanics in compensating each other on a mass scale, planning, and etc. But there is a threshold where it becomes comedic, and the paper promises don't support the weight of the system any longer. Where is that limit, in your mind?

America loves its prisoners. Enjoys casting judgement on others and institutionalizing those judgements into laws. That's why we have slavery to live down for the forseeable future, among others. And we haven't learned a damn thing from it. We still cast judgement and institutionalize those subjectivisms into laws - prostitution, gambling, drugs and etc. Freedom in the business of information exchange is a speciously symbiotic barometer of freedom in general. Sure, freedom of the press is generally coveted, but I don't find that particular capitalist business liberty to indicate much beyond the freedom to talk. Look here, we can talk all we want and disparage the president on TV, but we can't by pharmaceuticals from Canada and I can't by pseudoephedrine without an ID. Oh, I can jump out of an airplane with a specialty umbrella, but I can't smoke a joint in my garage. Freedom to pursue the news business is cute, but I'm not sure what kind of gauge that really is.

No, I think the first question I should be asking is what the goal of the economy is. Like NPTS2020 pointed out, it depends on the goal. I'm not interested in being the global superpower and growing an already-too-large and overextended empire. If you insist on maintaining your empire and your superpower international police station, then fraction reserve banking is an easy sell. You do realize the obvious and predictable inherent marriage of power and money and why a government, all of the rich, industrialized ones, chooses that kind of control? It seems inflating the money supply so easily has too many benefits for responsible behavior. It's like arguing for a credit card. None of the arguments are actually sound - they just all boil down to "well, everyone else is doing it.". And we don't want to be left out. So much for the independent American resolve. My first question is, why is credit good? If credit is good, then why isn't more credit = more good? Like all things in life, I suspect some credit is good, too much credit is bad. So how do we rate in terms of how much we depend on credit? From what I can tell, we depend so much on credit, we're in the red zone of way too much credit. I'd like to find a way to quantify the potential credit available in a full reserve banking system (or at least full reserves on demand deposits), and compare that with the credit drain presently.

I couldn't disagree more or be any more insulted. It does have to be intentional or conscious to be offensive since that's the whole POINT of language in the first freaking place - to convey ideas that a person MEANS. If a person says something they don't mean, then it's an inaccurate exercise of language, an inaccurate representation of what someone meant. Poor exchange of ideas, but not offensive action. Sure, one can accidently say something that can be interpreted by another as racist, and therefore be offensive, but the offense was not "meant" or "created' by the offender - it's purely an inferred offense. This cartoon should not have run because there are plenty of people empowered with running that paper that have a duty to their market to catch the potential offense that wasn't "meant" nor "created" by the paper or the cartoonist. They should apologize. One of them, should perhaps be fired. The cartoonist should tell everyone else to blow it out their ass if they don't like it. He knows what he meant, and shouldn't accept anyone else telling him what he meant or telling other people what he meant. If I was him, I would draw a book of them and sell them just to piss off all of the nitwits that like to pretend as if they're free to infer the worst of motives and then act on their delusions by over compensating for white guilt and taking it out on the artist. Artists should never squirm in the face of controversy or compromise their message just because society is too uncomfortable and cowardly to handle it. The New York Post cartoon proves americans are still overrun with whine bags and victim politics. Perhaps a country of adults might work better for this sort of thing. Abolutely. We're all free to respond just as we're free to initiate. And I'm glad we haven't had that downward spiral where we start rationalizing restricting speech. Now to work on society. Getting people to drop their feelings from their shoulders and getting them to stop pretending they're justified in being offended about messages that are just "gray" enough to make a case out of in the right courtroom - the pop culture court of public opinion. The most egregious, inaccurate, inept judgement by a collective ever manifested. We have an entire branch of government to dodge that joke - just for that very reason.

I do appreciate your larger point about persecuting political ideology disguised as "criminal activity" and such and your references to the fall of the Roman republic do not fall on deaf ears. With that in mind, maybe it would help if you could give an example of the kind of behavior from the former president that you believe would warrant an investigation. As you say, we can't extricate politics from the investigation of a former president, but I'm fairly sure you don't mean to conclude an investigation can never be done because of that nature.

I'm not familiar with that smell; I could never get their little legs apart. I know, I know, stupid joke. But I firmly believe that childish joke kept me from getting fired once. Of course, I ended up getting fired a few months later but still...

Well, if I understand correctly, one of the arguments for fractional reserve banking is elastic money supply; seasonal spikes in demand for credit. But it would seem a weak argument considering the systemic consequence of inflating and deflating the money supply. The whole practice is just so disturbing when you consider how injection by the feds amplifies the potential money supply by 10 - 1 billion dollars creates 10 billion dollars of new debt, or money. By only being required to keep a 10% fraction of demand deposit value in reserves, in theory each bank simply loans up to the max. Bank A loans 900 million to bank B, which loans 810 million to bank C, which loands 729 million to bank D and so forth until you end up with a total of 10 billion dollars floating around out there among the various banks. Again, this is potential, not necessarily reality, and there are valid arguments that counter the notion that banks respond directly to injected money. Full reserve banking would eliminate bank runs and panics, but I suppose create a hazard for responding to crises where a huge sudden demand for credit cannot be answered. Or can it? And what about full reserve banking for demand deposits only? That would seem to address the fear of bank runs since all of that money is there, yet still retain a smaller (and arguably more manageable) pool of money that can be used to answer spikes in demand for credit.

Honestly, I think they meant to imply monkeying around with the stimulus package. But considering the background of our historical references to black folk and "porch monkeys" and apes, there's no way to avoid that interpretation. It was stupid on their part to run this cartoon. With a little creativity they could have tweaked it to eliminate the racist implications. Art is subjective so the artist must be willing to go where he/she feels they need to go. But the paper is a business and they are not bound by artistic purity, so it should have been trashed, I think.

I don't agree. I'm not going to bust my butt looking for excuses for politicians. They all have their reasons, and Bush had his as well. It's no excuse so I'm not sure why it's relevent to even mention it really. First of all, love that opening statement, very true. But I think waitforufo's point has more to do with the branches of government playing their roles. It could be argued that it's not the job of each position in government to restrict one's self as much as it is to push the limits of their office, counting on the counter and subtending roles of other offices to oppose them respectively. Not sure I entirely agree with that, or that I'm even interpreting him correctly, but I do see the sense in the executive office pursuing its mission statement passionately and vigorously; pushing the limits of their strength to administer the people. This is entirely subjective, so justice is a moving target depending on the observer. Other offices and structures are empowered to check the reach of that office and one could say that happened, to a point. So, the mere fact that the Bush administration tried to "overprotect" the people, which Madison and his buddies warned us about (tyranny will come in the form of a foreign enemy, that sort of thing...) is not, in itself, a bad thing, so long as we check that overprotection. (Incidentally, this is why folks like me are so angry at congress, because they did not check the president in his bid to war with Iraq; Bush made his moves while congress appeared shell shocked). So, when we talk about criminal investigations, I'm not interested in the President's attempts to overprotect, I'm interested in unethical wrongdoing. Did he seek to subvert the constitution, or did he seek to flex the constitution? One implies a contempt for the document he is sworn to uphold, the other implies a respect and arguably a duty for testing the limits of his office. We see this with Obama's message to local governments concerning the bailout money as well. Is Obama abusing his office to put local Mayor's on notice and "call them out"? Or is he using his office, as he put it, "the full power of this office" to fulfill his duty? I think the latter. I do trust that he will flex his office to do good. And I depend on the other nodes of government to check him, respectively. And that's why I think Bush should be investigated. He's done enough to earn an eyeballin'. I also think that's why intent does matter in the context of assessing criminal behavior. I does not matter in the context of assessing if it's good or bad for our country. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged First of all, none of that is a relevant rebutall of the context. You charged that democrats were not steered by special interests and I countered that they are. Now you're providing what you believe to be a really good reason to like those interests. Well, that's nice, but it's also moving the goalposts. But I'll play. Environmentalism is quite profitable (ever heard of carbon credits? what a joke...) and is being used to justify arbitrary taxation to adjust human behavior, same with smoking cigarettes. The precious "children" are being exploited to justify taking money from smokers - weird, strange, but dramatic associations to keep the public from fighting it. It's a subjective value judgement imposed by the government, accepted by the republic, since none of us learned anything from our shameful history, to promote subjective governing and moral policing. Freedom is an obstacle for those who put these interests ahead of our notions of rights and privilege. Welfare checks to the "entitled" losers is quite profitable (think Section 8 housing) and a shrewd investment in a voter base that outnumbers the rich minority voter base, particularly when you add the rest of the poor that receive some kind of federal assistance. And even moreso when you consider the entitlement effect on all of the lower classes in general. There's certainly plenty of money in all of the things you mentioned, as there is with most anything the government services, but that doesn't dismiss the voter base that supports all of those things and sees the profit as a byproduct, just as carbon credits don't invalidate the sincerity of environmental issues.

Full reserve banking certainly looks great on its face and seems the responsible method. But here, my lack of depth concerning the creation of money is subverting any attempts to grasp this concept: I don't really understand that. So, in trying to understand the mechanics of how money is created, or metaphorically "printed", it seems it is based on debt. This almost makes sense to me, but not really. Here's the crux of my confusion: That is just not intuitive to me at all. If I borrow money from the bank, then aren't they just handing me money - kind of like a really shrewd trade deal on my part? And when I pay it back, with some interest, then aren't they just getting the assets right back, with some profit, thereby profiting from the trade? Where's the "creation" happening? Now, that would make sense if the bank didn't really let go of that money, rather just promised the money in the form of some receipt, thereby gaining the advantage of lending more money than they actually have, similar to guaranteeing all demand deposits while only keeping a fraction of those reserves available for demand. Anyone have a grasp on this that wouldn't mind explaining what I'm missing here? We all go on and on about printing money and diluting the money supply, creating inflation - those are concepts we understand. But I have to admit, the mechanical particulars of how money is really created escapes me, and I'll wager some of the membership too. I think it would help to understand that before we can realistically analyze the federal reserve beyond the obvious issues with central planning. Edit: Apparently I'm just hard headed. This explanation at mises.org clears it up: http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1118

First of all, good post, I entirely agree. On this bit, it could be interesting to see how the general public feels about it. We're all a bunch of geeks that really get into thinking and critiquing our philosophical conclusions, but I wonder how normal people would think about it - all 3 seconds of it.

Very thoughtful. I can somewhat relate in that my personal judgement is entirely separate from my political one. I advocate rights of the mother superceding the child, only as a matter of law and because at least at this point, it seems only proper the decision be left a personal one. But my personal judgement is a moving target from day to day. I see that slide show on Samuel's story, I see pictures and hear stories that prove some degree of personhood, or startling resemblence of it, and I just can't nail down a sense of right or wrong. Well, I guess that's not true, because my gut tells me it's wrong. I could not kill that child and I'm thankful my wife and I have never been in that situation.

I don't think Obama = more of the same. However, I think this particular subject of rendition is more of the same. I'm not passionate about it since I'm not an advocate for zero torture, but I do feel the need to point it out to folks that were highly critical of American policy that supported it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That reeks of infinite Obama affinity. You're really going to toss out Bush-started-it? Give me a break. It's either right or it's wrong and no intellectual acrobats are going to change that. They are controlled by extreme groups that scorn the constitution. Are you kidding? Smoking bans. Homosexual unions. Environmentalism. Anti-war advocates. These aren't things I'm against (other than smoking bans), but they do qualify as special interest groups that influence the democrat party ideology and energy, and do have scorn for the constitution. I do too, actually, in some respects, but the point sticks. You're making the same mistake repeated by many liberals. That there isn't a constituency out there in total support of the war and advocating traditionalism in all of our institutions. If you continue to believe that republicans are brainwashed by a minority opinion then you're underestimating the will of the country. Both parties are influenced by special interests, which can undermine their constituency, but they can never outright ignore their constituency - they have to pander to them, at least verbally. Party ideology can be traced to those who voted them into power.

Actually, it came from Pangloss. But if you think democrats = good, and republicans = bad, then I'll be honest, I don't have the energy to go there. Both political parties maneuver and screw each other residually; they put the fun in dysfunctional. I'm just challenging what I see as a partisan point of view. I'll say it again, I too believe Bush should be investigated. If I disagreed with torture the way bascule has in previous threads, I would also be quite vocal about my displeasure in Obama's retention of outsourcing torture so we can enjoy the symbolic status of being torture free - that's sneaky, secretive and abusive. And that's exactly what Bush is accused of being.

Ecoli - I'm curious about your thoughts on the potential for banking runs and panics in a free banking system, assuming that's the implied alternative to the federal reserve. Or do you have other ideas?

I don't get the logic here. There's nothing they are doing that would compare to that kind of irrationality. Free Healthcare (free being a misnomer of course) is a political issue and one that I'm firmly against. Are you challenging my notion of welfare for my kids too? Or did I completely miss your point? Having a political position that can potentially create hardship for those you love is not a conflict of interest, nor is it batshit crazy. Personal responsibility is a big deal with religion, and that particular value is quite valuable. In fact, those who practice personal responsibility are the ones paying for the bailout. They're the ones you don't hear about because they take care of themselves. That's not true. Their value system is stuffed full of hypocrisies and double standards, but it's also stuffed full of good values. Brainwashing humans into believing incredible myths and stories that challenge them to adhere to a common value set works incredibly well when they believe it. The ten commandments are a nice set and will promote a cooperative society if they are adhered to. But that subverts individuality and advancement of the human condition. We think too much to believe it. We question things and we can't live a lie, so it's useless for us. Their value system doesn't work side by side with a free secular movement. We don't want to conform to a pre-engineered state of mind and expectation of life. So, we poison their efforts, and likewise they poison ours. I believe that is why advocating abstinence, and promoting god in our institutions doesn't "work" - conflicting value systems converging on impressionable young people. Personally, I'm glad about that because I don't want their value system, but I don't think we can say that following it doesn't work. And I do believe their moral code is consistent with child welfare. I think ours is too. Imagine that, both of us can care about our kids yet disagree on how to achieve it. I'm curious about what you think. You've been asking alot of questions, not much in the way of statements, so I'm wondering what you're up to...care to share? I'll freely admit being moved by pictures of 6 week old fetuses. How can we say that isn't a human being; a person? And note that I said nothing about abortion in that question. I'm glad. Last time we had a good discussion on it and I remember comparing a fetus to a tumor and you were pretty colorful about disagreeing with it. Didn't want you to think I didn't pay attention.

I already stated the reason I threw that "red herring" out there. I'm pointing out how you care about Bush's injustice more than Obama's, which lends support to the idea this is about political revenge, not actual issues with right and wrong. Remember that? That was the line in the other thread that got you started on this one. Seems relevant to me. Otherwise, you wouldn't be giving Obama a free pass to torture people in other countries. You can disagree, this is all purely opinion. But I think if you really cared about right and wrong, and the constitution, you would be just as sick about Obama and asking about any possible criminal charges that could be brought against him. But I don't think you will, because you have no political revenge to settle with Obama.

People always get punished AND rewarded, through no fault of their own. Inflation hurts the poor, more than anyone else, instigated by the federal reserve most of the time and is generally a calculated economic decision (not a deliberate evil mind you, I'm sure it's with good intent). All of us effect each other already, by market forces. We punish and we reward via supply and demand and how we participate in it. With or without the federal reserve, or central planning this will happen over and over again. Until of course, we gain knowledge from our investment failures and all make perfect decisions. I won't hold my breath...

So that will be your next thread? Hint: I'm demonstrating how this is about partisan politics. You don't care about torture in the same way you care about listening in on personal phone calls, claiming the constitution as your dividing line. That appears to be weak reasoning. I could be wrong, but that smells purely political.