Why do people think countries need centrally planned money?

I disagree. Fiat currency is anything decreed by government to be currency.

 

You are taking my words out of context. I said there is no magic number that is the optimal amount of money for eternity. There is a magic number right now which will change tomorrow and the next day and the next, etc.

 

I have never said more money = more wealth. I said more can lead to more transactions which can lead to more productivity.

I have also said that if you spend more than you can produce you will face inflation.

It's a balancing act and I never say things like More Money = More Wealth.

 

How do you account for the central banks known as the First and Second Bank of the United States?

 

Go reread about the Bretton Woods agreement. It was the foreign exchange rate for dollars to gold. You or I could not exchange our money for gold. Our system was the exact same as it is now for us barring minor differences in reserve balances and Treasury accounts.

It's funny that you are calling me misinformed when you clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

 

how do more transactions lead to more productivity? more specialization of labor leads to more productivity. more technological advances leads to more productivity. more efficiency leads to more productivity. but more monetary units leading to more transactions leads to more productivity? how do more monetary units lead to more transactions?

 

I'm not sure I understand your question. The charters of both banks are historical record. The question is the motives behind the charters, and who was aligning themselves to profit off the American People.

 

You are mixing and matching talking points. I never said what you said doesn't increase productivity.

If we can produce 100 apples and sell them at $1 a piece. And we only sell 80 apples than we are running at 80% productive capacity. So we can handle $20 more in transactions.

The point you are making deals with inflation. If you pump more money in to the economy and you do not have the ability to increase production, then you have more money chasing the same amount of goods and you get inflation.

It is a balancing act.

 

I am just pointing out things that do increase productivity to contrast them with things that dont.

if we produce 100 apples and people only want 80 of them, it means we produced too many apples at that price.

you don't need more money to accomodate more production. you just need more purchasing power for your money. the purchasing power of the current amount of money will adjust to accomodate any amount of increased production. no additional money is needed.

 

Both banks were the Fed during those times by functioning as central banks of the United States, like the Fed does today.

 

So then they only produce 80 apples when they can produce 100. That means they need less labor that means there is one less job and one less income.

If there is someone willing to produce, someone willing to consume, and someone willing to work but they aren't because a lack of a medium of exchange... then you are working under productive capacity. Why would you not want 100 apples being sold?

 

What other simple solutions are there to solving for a poverty inducing, natural rate of unemployment?

 

But in your example you said people were only willing to consume 80 apples at one dollar per apple. That means that 100 apples is too many apples at 1 dollar per apple.

 

I don't understand your question.

 

We are talking in economic terms. They sell 80 apples at equilibrium as in there is no marginal return for them to sell their apples for less. So how do we get it to where there is a marginal return for them to sell 100 apples at equilibrium?

 

figure out a way to produce apples cheaper? figure out a way to make people want apples more? why do you think 100 apples should be produced?

 

I guess there are multiple definitions for the term "fiat". But Austrian economists use the definition I have declared.

 

Because it requires labor to produce 100 apples, which means someone making an income. More production means more jobs, means more income, means more demand, which in turn leads to more production.

It is all relative. If you have a stagnant money supply than people who own the money have the power rather than the people who produce goods and services. Money is just the medium of exchange, it is the oil that fuels the economy.

 

two things. wikipedia says I'm wrong, but also says I'm right. wikipedia is wrong to say I'm wrong and right to say I'm right.

 

First of all, the magic number is not changing on a day by day basis. That magic number is changing continuously at an almost infinitely fast rate. You're attempting to discretise a continuous quantity - which is a huge mathematical flaw in your logic. Conversely, that magic number is obtained naturally by the free market in the absence of government. A few guys sitting around a table cannot compute the amount better than the free market can naturally.

And even if they could, you are assuming that the Fed Board always prioritizes the health of the economy first. You're talking about guys who make decisions which priotize the benefit of their banking and corporate cronies over the benefit of all individuals equally in the economy. I disagree that this is a more effective method for acheiving that "magic" number of the continuously changing necessary money supply.

 

but there is not demand for 100 apples. those people should labor elsewhere where their produce is demanded. if there is not demand for 100 apples 100 apples should not be produced. its so simple, why don't you understand?

no one owns all the money.

 

this is definitive. /thread

 

yeah. i edited my post since i posted that.

 

Oh my gosh, you have failed miserably at economic theory.

This is a simple example of aggregate demand. You WANT more demand for apples because that requires more labor. How do you get more demand for apples? You need people who have the means in which to acquire apples.

Just like you want more demand for every other good out there. How do you get more demand? You get more income, you get more transactions, you have more people with the means in which to acquire these goods that require labor to produce.

It's all relative, and the fact you can't grasp this is mind boggling.

 

Does anyone else have a simple solution to actually solving poverty through market friendly means, instead of merely waging a War on Poverty for over thirty years? How would a truer form of AnCap solve that issue without a central bank and centrally planned money?