In conclusion, I am embracing the chaotic Jello-o like nature of money because I have found that is the best way to deal with that risk.
[/quote]
What is at issue is the role of government in protecting and sustaining private money, beyond the deposits in chartered banks.
I would agree there is no good role for government in restricting private money creation, fine with that.
But isn't the central issue the contingency role of government in private money protection?
Unless you correct me about my phrasing of your viewpoint, I will interpret one implication of it as endorsing and embracing the government protection of 100% of all privately created money, whether there is or is not, pre-crash, any significant statutory authorization for doing that.
Is this blanket protection fair, warranted, durable, and practical for the long term? Or, does it enrich well informed gamblers, socialize risk but not rewards, and disrupt periodically and profoundly the lives of a great many ordinary people?
In today's New York Times, an article claims that most people think the economy is rigged, based on 30 focus groups, or something like that. This is profoundly unhealthy for a democracy. I would agree that the economy is rigged, and I cannot embrace that state of affairs.
I think the universal government protection of all private money is a major aspect of the rigging, but of course not the only factor.
Wasn't it Ayn Rand who wrote: "Don’t bother to examine a folly--ask yourself only what it accomplishes." Multiple crashes, I would say [and Morgan Rick's thesis].
[/quote]
What is at issue is the role of government in protecting and sustaining private money, beyond the deposits in chartered banks.
I would agree there is no good role for government in restricting private money creation, fine with that.
But isn't the central issue the contingency role of government in private money protection?
Unless you correct me about my phrasing of your viewpoint, I will interpret one implication of it as endorsing and embracing the government protection of 100% of all privately created money, whether there is or is not, pre-crash, any significant statutory authorization for doing that.
Is this blanket protection fair, warranted, durable, and practical for the long term? Or, does it enrich well informed gamblers, socialize risk but not rewards, and disrupt periodically and profoundly the lives of a great many ordinary people?
In today's New York Times, an article claims that most people think the economy is rigged, based on 30 focus groups, or something like that. This is profoundly unhealthy for a democracy. I would agree that the economy is rigged, and I cannot embrace that state of affairs.
I think the universal government protection of all private money is a major aspect of the rigging, but of course not the only factor.
Wasn't it Ayn Rand who wrote: "Don’t bother to examine a folly--ask yourself only what it accomplishes." Multiple crashes, I would say [and Morgan Rick's thesis].
Statistics: Posted by Carsson3 — Wed Feb 21, 2024 3:16 pm — Replies 26 — Views 2701