Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

all humans and animals are born territorial so owning land legally is a peaceful way to organize this process.

 

sure but we want to minimize their monopolistic bureaucratic involvement in land just like everything else.

 

we have 70 million private residences in America. Is 70 million a handful of rich??

 

so 70 million homeowners is feudalism??

 

wrong of course. a monopoly is when one company controls a product or product group and there are few substitutes. land is not a company and it has no volition with which to control a product or group. Sorry to rock your world

 

so 70 million home owners in America rob and enslave everyone else? Submoronic idea at best. In fact the more govt is involved with land the poorer a country will be. Private land is the key to securing capital for business growth.

 

"Countries employ the UN mechanism when it in their best interest"

In their own "best" interest?

Of course..... and they are able to do this because international rule of law does not yet exist.

That would require eg, a UNSC of 7 or 9 of the most technologically advanced and populous nations, eg, the present 5 + Japan, Germany, India and Indonesia, without veto (analogous to a supreme court with 9 judges) able to guarantee the application of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights - in law - around the globe.

The advantages would be numerous and significant, not the least of which would be the alleviation of Kim Jong-un's paranoia about an attack from the US, which is the reason for his desire to develop a nuclear-armed ICBM.....

(A UNSC as outlined would guarantee Kim's security, enabling even him to see reason.....)

[BTW, the UNSC as outlined would not have powers in relation to any nation's internal affairs, so the usual red-herring trotted-out by haters of the concept of international law, namely 'world government', is a lie.
North Korea could remain communist if it wished, and the US could still make its own decisions on gun rights and abortion rights, as at present.]

As for Israel, the world indeed owes the Jewish people a homeland, as was decided by the UN in 1947, but the UN wasn't able to guarantee the peaceful existence and security of its new 'baby', which has consequently proved to be very troublesome indeed. UN res 242 (or even 181....)should have been enforced in law ages ago ( as with many other conflicts around the globe).
=======
But I am most interested in the economic possibilities that flow from the establishment of international rule of law, such as diversion of resources from the arts of destruction to the arts of creation, and the sustainable development of wealth and prosperity in all nations.

For example:

Look at James and Longshot, who are unable to get their heads around the idea of another method of money creation, other than the one that presently exists, as shown in the following quote:

"i think he's assuming people agreed to surrender their wealth to pay for free universal education

Could you, as a professor of economics, please explain to them that money printing would be legitimate (ie need not violate basic principles of Econ101) in certain circumstances, given an integrated global financial system overseen by a World Bank - thus enabling sustainable economic co-operation between nations - as would be possible with a regime of international rule of law?

[No wonder the G-20 talk-fests arouse protests whenever they are held. The last one in Brisbane urged all governments to increase growth by 2%.....but many nations have since then suffered declining GDP's, and persistent (especially)youth un/under-employment remains unacceptably high around the globe].

 

Let's not go overboard. "The International Rule of Law" is a nice notion, but it simply does not exist. For a law to exist there must exist all three entities to write, legislate and implement it. Just like in any nation on earth.

There is no constitution to lay the ground work - how do we elect a World Executive, a World Legislature and a World Judiciary?

In fact, we are far closer to the last one than many recognize, but for it to function it must be requested by a nation to do so and as regards a specific item of a treaty-agreement signed by all parties. And, even then, it has no "powers of execution" of its decisions, meaning no "mandate of arrest" for a nation.

We are long, long way from that ever existing. We can't even get national democracies right for the moment - our own requiring a major rework to put down "gerrymandering" and the "Electoral College" both perfectly useless and anti-democratic.

The UN is the best instrument ever in the history of mankind on an international level to allow nations a common means of discourse and arbitration of differences amongst them. (And, yes, the organization of armies to address the recalcitrant. It works, when applied. See here.)

But the UN leaves much to be done to improve itself operationally - and all nations must agree to the enlargement of its powers. That cannot be done, however, without the agreement of all country members - and they can do nothing without a plebiscite approving such amongst its citizens. No country's national political-management can devolve powers to a superior entity without the approval of its citizens.

I don't see that happening in anybody's lifetime at present ...

 

Thanks for the reasoned reply.

International rule of law - an ideal for which men can strive to achieve.

But the back-sliders, mostly on the right it seems - eg, I heard a widely respected foreign affairs editor of a conservative national newspaper saying "nobody takes the UN seriously these days".....the back-sliders should be called to account and exposed whenever and wherever they are pushing their own entirely self-interested, backward looking ideologies.

As for economics, the public can observe that the professionals in the discipline don't agree on cause and effect, and, eg, whether supply-side or demand side policies will achieve the 'best' results (however defined), and moreover, are entirely unable to predict the timing and severity of economic downturns, or even agree on the cause(s) after the event (even though 'hindsight' is supposed to reveal all...).

Unlike scientists, who can inform us exactly where Jupiter will be in relation to the earth, in 100 years and ten days time....

But I have been informed by an associate professor of economics that, in a system where there are unused available resources, activation/utilisation of these resources by means of money printing (eg, if funding is unavailable for political reasons) - such money creation will not cause inflation. Hence my postulation of free universal education.


Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe HG Wells.

 

As a generalization, I think the above notion is impracticable. In some specific instances it can work.

Money printing (which essentially means Central Banks offering large lines of funds at low interest rates) does help matters. This "Quantitative Easing" does ameliorate Demand (which sustains Supply and therefore Employment). But I doubt most economists are overly impressed either in the US or Europe with QE.

But, in light of a Congress in the hands of the Replicants who refused all Stimulus Spending after 2010 (when they took over the HofR), there was not much other alternative at the Fed. In Europe, Germany kept the Central Bank under a tight-rein. Why Germany?

Because Germany has one helluva lotta funds to lend due to the fact that it is not in dire economic straights. So, it has an undeniably strong say about how much of German-available euros are given on loan by the Central Bank for "Quantitative Easing" in the rest of Europe ...

 

all countries print money and it does not violate basic principles. Where did you think money came from if not from printing???

 

thats because stimulus of the housing market almost caused a international depression. A recession or depression is the time it takes the Republican free market to correct the distortions in the free market caused by liberal interference.

 

From some suitable commodity, usually silver and gold.

 

liberalism is the only thing preventing world peace. There can be no peace as long as liberals like ISIS, Communists, Nazis ,Liberals, Kings, etc are fighting to control central govt. Peace is only possible when liberals accept our Founders ideas that central control of people is the source of evil on earth.

 

paper money does not come from gold , it comes from printing although it may be backed by gold

 

yes and Germany half killed Greece Spain Portugal Italy France by loaning too freely to them to get high
interest rates.

 

devil's advocate:

why would banks want to sit on the money and let the capital's usefulness go to waste?

 

because only so much money can be invested and earn a return. After that you are investing in bridges to no where, the loans don't get paid back, and your bank goes bankrupt.

 

loans get paid back day-in and day-out

in regards to your reference to "only so much money"

central banks have credit tools to influence the money supply

 

you mean most loans get paid back but there is a steady stream of banks going bankrupt

 

you mean central banks decide how big the money supply ought to be. If its too big the money gets wasted and the economy becomes less efficient and goes into recession.

 

It's typically a multi-step process to get to fiat money.

First individual banks issue banknotes redeemable in specie. Then the central bank issues banknotes redeemable in specie. Then the central bank banknotes become the only banknotes. Then the central bank refuses to redeem its banknotes, and you're on a full fiat system. Oh, and somewhere along the line legal tender laws are passed.

 

our subject is whether paper money is printed routinely . He didn't know that it was, apparently. Do you know the subject now?

 

central banks base their decision on monetary science and basic economic principles

when the supply of money is equal to the demand for money, the value remains the same

fiat money can be gold or paper; as history shows, gold doesn't work well as a national currency

in the usa, legal tender laws were passed to keep keep our money stable and prevent fluctuations in value

it works in concert with this:

Federal Reserve Act

Section 2A. Monetary policy objectives

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section2a.htm

 

nice cut and paste but what is your point????