Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 174

Thread: Deregulating the banks?

  1. #1

    Default Deregulating the banks?

    Hi folks, I'm having a debate with someone currently who is saying that Ron Paul wants to deregulate the banks (which is the opposite of what I thought he'd do) and they're saying that, therefore, he wants to take America back the the 1920s - pre crash.

    I obviously am not stupid and now that Paul is for sound economic policy, so trust what he says, but could someone help me some up why deregulating the banks would be better than the current system of having regulations which worked for years and then breaking those regs to extort money. I thought they were the only things keeping things safe.

    (although I guess they don't matter anyway now because banksters do what they want).



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    If we would just obey the constitution the banks would be self-regulating.

    This video by Judge Andrew Napolitano - The Story of Money is pretty good.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  4. #3

    Default

    They key is competition in currency (repealing legal tender laws).

    This would effectively neuter The Federal Reserve and the mega investment and commercial banks that have insane amounts of leverage and power over the market.

    In doing so, consumers and the general market would have the power to regulate banks as the banks would be forced to pander to us, not the other way around.

    Deregulating the banks in the current enviroment is stupid. Keeping the Fed intact and regulating a broken and downright fascist system is even stupider.

    End the monopoly on currency creation and creating beaucratic jobs to "regulate" is not necessary.

    Deregulating the banks would be one of the final steps to our movement...it is in no way the solution, in and of itself.
    Last edited by Seraphim; 03-04-2012 at 10:33 AM.

  5. #4

    Default

    Travlyr, thanks for the video. I kinda know all that stuff - was looking for something more about deregulating vs regulating. Like what Seraphim says - but would be good to have some material to reference.

    Thanks.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    If we would just obey the constitution the banks would be self-regulating.

    This video by Judge Andrew Napolitano - The Story of Money is pretty good.
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyW View Post
    Travlyr, thanks for the video. I kinda know all that stuff - was looking for something more about deregulating vs regulating. Like what Seraphim says - but would be good to have some material to reference.

    Thanks.
    Hate to say it but judge is incorrect with regards to colonial-scrips, they were often massively devalued & since Americans would pay Brits & Europeans with it, by the time, they Brits used to try to use them to buy something from America, they used to have lost their purchasing-power & that was one of the reasons that pissed British - the inflating worthless scrips
    Franklin only thought they were great because he had press & he used to get to print them, there's plenty of material out there about this on the internet & here's Rothbard talking about mostly pre-revolution currencies & scrips

    There is enormous inertia a tyranny of the status quo in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis actual or perceived produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    Hate to say it but judge is incorrect with regards to colonial-scrips, they were often massively devalued & since Americans would pay Brits & Europeans with it, by the time, they Brits used to try to use them to buy something from America, they used to have lost their purchasing-power & that was one of the reasons that pissed British - the inflating worthless scrips
    Franklin only thought they were great because he had press & he used to get to print them, there's plenty of material out there about this on the internet & here's Rothbard talking about mostly pre-revolution currencies & scrips

    Didn't watch the judge's vid yet, but you are correct about Continental dollars. This is where the saying "not worth a Continental" came from. The dollar was more stable (and paid of the war debt), but still not as good as free market money (which Trav correctly pointed out).
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyW View Post
    Hi folks, I'm having a debate with someone currently who is saying that Ron Paul wants to deregulate the banks (which is the opposite of what I thought he'd do) and they're saying that, therefore, he wants to take America back the the 1920s - pre crash.

    I obviously am not stupid and now that Paul is for sound economic policy, so trust what he says, but could someone help me some up why deregulating the banks would be better than the current system of having regulations which worked for years and then breaking those regs to extort money. I thought they were the only things keeping things safe.

    (although I guess they don't matter anyway now because banksters do what they want).
    First, you must understand that most of the mess was the result of OVER-REGULATION & government programs :
    Yes, the Glass-Steagall was repealed but it was stupid because it & FDIC were a "package-deal" regulations installed in 1933, there were two main parts to this regulation, 1) separation of commerical & investment banking 2) FDIC
    The first one was repealed & deregulated but as I've said it was a "package-deal", either they should kept both as it was or repealed both but they repealed the first which merged commercial & investment banking but FDIC was left in tact, now that is problematic, FDIC is essentially backed by Fed & taxpayers' money so with now half the regulation gone, commercial banks could take on more risks & having FDIC along with it is like telling banks - go ahead, take risks, if you make a profit you keep it & if you fail, we'll bail you out - which is why Ron Paul had voted AGAINST this "half-deregulation", both should've been repealed so that banks are on their own instead of having an explicit guarantee of Fed & taxpayers through FDIC

    Then there was the the "regulation" of Community Reinvestment Act which FORCED banks to make loans to people who were incapable of (to correct supposed racial discrimination by banks) which the banks had to make by law, they knew these loans were going to go bad sooner or later
    And then there's Freddie & Fannie, again government bodies that should NOT even exist, so banks started packaging there good loans with bad ones & passed on as much as they could Freddie & Fannie & rest they got stuck with & tried to juggle around & shift risk around through derivatives but it was a ticking time-bomb that inevitable to off & it did

    On top of all this mess, the biggest culprit, Fed kept interest-rates far too low for a long time, when Fed keeps interest low, people borrow more loans & moneysupply increases, now since the whole Community Reinvestment Act, a lot of them ended up buying homes & thereby pushing the home-prices up & up & as I've said, all those bad loans ought to backfire & they did

    So, repealing half the Glass-Steagall was government stupidity, having FDIC government stupidity, Community Reinvestment Act government stupidity, & same with Fed - & when all hell broke lose, the banks & derivatives get the blame, sure, they were participants to the process but without all the government help they couldn't have done it So thank government & their "regulations"!

    And bailouts were even worse, it's sign of corporatism & it tells the big banks that they can take whatever risks & they can keep the profits & if they fail government will bear the loss through Fed & put it on taxpayers's tax hence Ron Paul voted AGAINST bailouts

    What he'd get rid of all this messy "regulations" which really don't help & get rid of FDIC guarantee, send a message that Fed & government won't bail'em out again & possibly, if he could he'd try to get rid of "corporate personhood"
    "Corporate Personhood" laws/regulations see companies as "legal persons" so if people running them make bad decisions, only company's assets will be used to pay off company's debts & losses while those running it go scotfree so they know they can take big risks, if they make profits, they pay themselves big salaries, bonuses, etc & if the risks don't pay off then don't have to bear the loss
    Repealing "Corporate Personhood" would make the persons running the company PERSONALLY LIABLE as in, if company's assets aren't sufficient enough to cover its losses then those running their PERSONAL PROPERTY will be seized to cover them
    So getting rid of this one government regulation will how enormous impact on how banks & companies in general manage risks & no other candidate will even touch this issue because they're all bought by banks & corporations so they can't put people running them in jeopardy

    And "Regulations" in general are usually NOT to keep people safe, they're mostly created by politicians for the sake of lobbying corporations, they're just sold as "good" to the people, who probably don't even read or understand the each & every "regulation" that passes; just look at Fed, they'll tell us its so good & everything but it's just money-monopoly cartel-system





    There is enormous inertia a tyranny of the status quo in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis actual or perceived produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Didn't watch the judge's vid yet, but you are correct about Continental dollars. This is where the saying "not worth a Continental" came from. The dollar was more stable (and paid of the war debt), but still not as good as free market money (which Trav correctly pointed out).
    Judge's video mentioned about "Colonial Scrips" which are different from "Continentals", "Continentals" were issued by Continental Congress during the War while "Colonial Scrips" were issued by various states in the pre-Revolution period, they were just as worthless nonetheless That's why Founders didn't allow government to issue paper-money

    Here's a good one :
    Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value -- zero.
    - Voltaire


    There is enormous inertia a tyranny of the status quo in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis actual or perceived produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  10. #9

    Default

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxcjT8T3EGU

    Economic Cycles Before the Fed | Thomas E Woods, Jr.
    What I say is for entertainment purposes only!

    Mark 10:45 The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.

    "If you want to make a lot of money, resist diversification." - Jim Rogers

  11. #10

    Default

    Not all regulations are equal. Ron Paul wants freedom for banks to lend as they please, but STRICT regulations against fraud, wrongdoing. He wants no freedom for central banks, but all the freedom for banks which are citizen run or local communities approve of, in other words, freedom for the little guy.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    They key is competition in currency (repealing legal tender laws).
    No, it wouldn't.

    As long as you have to pay your tax in the currency of the government, the currency of the government will continue to be the money - everything else will merely be another commodity - exactly as we have it today.

    Money is the economic good most desired in a market place.
    In today's market, there is one, and only one desire that touches almost every man woman and child that is directed universally - taxation.

    That which solves paying taxes will be desired by everyone - and that is the US$.

    If a whole basket of currencies or commodities was dumped by God above into the market over night - repealing the tender laws - over night, only one would remain to be seen as money, and that is the US$.

  13. #12

    Default

    Paul,

    The intrinsic value of all economic goods is zero.

  14. #13

    Thumbs up

    Paul
    Repealing "Corporate Personhood" would make the persons running the company PERSONALLY LIABLE as in, if company's assets aren't sufficient enough to cover its losses then those running their PERSONAL PROPERTY will be seized to cover them
    Check!

    Corporations are not people.

    All Corporations, which exist to limit liability, are in their root and essence, evil.
    Last edited by Black Flag; 03-04-2012 at 01:50 PM.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    No, it wouldn't.

    As long as you have to pay your tax in the currency of the government, the currency of the government will continue to be the money - everything else will merely be another commodity - exactly as we have it today.
    If I hire a roofer to repair my roof, and I pay him 30 pieces of silver, then how is the government going to know how much income he earned? Does he have to pay taxes on his 30 pieces of silver? Why? If he keeps them for 10 years and the Federal Reserve System inflates FRN 10x, does he have to pay capital gains tax on the difference of what they were worth and what they are worth in 10 years? Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Money is the economic good most desired in a market place.
    Irredeemable fiat "The Federal Reserve Note" loses value everyday. That characteristic alone makes the FRN NOT the most desired economic good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    In today's market, there is one, and only one desire that touches almost every man woman and child that is directed universally - taxation.

    That which solves paying taxes will be desired by everyone - and that is the US$.
    The States by law, the supreme law of the land, "No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" Gold and silver are the most desired economic good according to law. I desire that as well because they do not lose value over time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    If a whole basket of currencies or commodities was dumped by God above into the market over night - repealing the tender laws - over night, only one would remain to be seen as money, and that is the US$.
    Commodity money will out compete FRNs as soon as HR 1098 passes. It would be wise to get out of FRNs immediately. Sound money, fully redeemable will liberate the people.

    Here is how: Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money By HON. HOWARD BUFFETT
    U. S. Congressman from Nebraska
    Last edited by Travlyr; 03-04-2012 at 02:20 PM.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  16. #15

    Default

    Sweet lord this stuff is quite complex... it's no wonder the country is in a mess when the nitty gritty is the only way to really know what's going on - the surface value of much of the main issues forces speculative conclusions. I base my support of Ron Paul based on a trust that is put together through building a picture of him and his consistent actions, it's obvious who's a pawn and who isn't. But some people can't decipher such qualities in a person - and they won't be voting Paul.

    Having known almost nothing about US politics back in 2008, I could still tell that Obama had something dark in store for America. While everyone else was crying and thinking that the utopia had come. People are easy to read. But try and use that in a debate.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyW View Post
    Hi folks, I'm having a debate with someone currently who is saying that Ron Paul wants to deregulate the banks (which is the opposite of what I thought he'd do) and they're saying that, therefore, he wants to take America back the the 1920s - pre crash.

    I obviously am not stupid and now that Paul is for sound economic policy, so trust what he says, but could someone help me some up why deregulating the banks would be better than the current system of having regulations which worked for years and then breaking those regs to extort money. I thought they were the only things keeping things safe.

    (although I guess they don't matter anyway now because banksters do what they want).
    The market is more free than it ever has been, to such an extent that it has been free to buy our, and other, governments. You have to separate commercial and investment/merchant banking, so that taxpayer dollars doesn't back speculative activity under the same financial "roof." We have to return to Glass-Steagall banking regulations, and then build our way out of this mess.

    Also think of the national debt of the US...say its a lolworthy 100 trillion with entitlements...now compare that to an estimated 4.6(4600 trill) quadrillion dollar denominated derivatives bubble...now laugh really hard at Ron Paul's idea of cutting 1 trillion off our budget. Furthermore it is insane to cut entitlements, or any other part of the budget under the guise of "saving money" or it being "cost effective." The real disease isn't budgets of Nation State's worldwide, its the speculative hordes of capital that have systemically destroyed and bloated the entire monetary system. Thus the only choice is to exert your sovereignty over the private speculative money that is bankrolling fascism all over the planet. If you don't have sovereign control over your money, the creation of credit to monetize, and the exchange rate there-of, you have NO sovereignty in the face of imperial private interests.
    Last edited by -C-; 03-04-2012 at 02:39 PM.
    "There's no problem with living a double life, it is the triple and quadruple lives that get you in the end. " -Yuri Orlov

    "You wanna be a dead hero, or a live coward?" -John Dillinger

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Paul,

    The intrinsic value of all economic goods is zero.
    You don't even know what intrinsic value means. Intrinsic is just "whatever it is, in and of itself", quite separate from market, or exchange value, or desirability, which by definition are extrinsic.

    An egg is an egg. It is comprised of __________, which has _________ physical properties. That is the intrinsic value of an egg.

    Rinse and repeat using anything else to find its intrinsic value.

    As for RP wanting to deregulate banks, that's both a myth and an over-generalizing misdirection. People think "regulate" and automatically, often erroneously, think "restrict", or "control". Even the words regulation and deregulation have been bastardized, as there are banking regulations that EMPOWER and FACILITATE fraudulent behavior on the parts of banks. So "deregulation" in such cases would be calling for the removal of such empowerment, and replacing those "regulations" with real prohibitions on fraud.


  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    You don't even know what intrinsic value means.
    Sorry, Steven, but I do absolutely know what "intrinsic" means, and what "value" means.

    And there is no such thing that has intrinsic value.

    Value is a human application. It is a human concept.

    If a human does not value something - it has no value. Period.

    An egg has no value if a human does not value it.

    If I do not value your egg - it has ZERO value ... to me. And all your wailing and frothing won't change that fact.

    Now, you could value a clump of mud, and you would assign some measure of that value... for you. But that mud might have a different value...to me, anything from ZERO to a whole bunch.

    But there is NOTHING in mud that makes it have an intrinsic value beyond your measure of it or my measure of it.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    If I hire a roofer to repair my roof, and I pay him 30 pieces of silver, then how is the government going to know how much income he earned?
    Oh, my.... you believe if the government doesn't 'know' about an income, it will not demand a tax on it?
    Many people are in jail who believed such things....

    Does he have to pay taxes on his 30 pieces of silver?
    According to the IRS, yes.
    Why?
    Because, according to the IRS, that is "earned income"

    If he keeps them for 10 years and the Federal Reserve System inflates FRN 10x, does he have to pay capital gains tax on the difference of what they were worth and what they are worth in 10 years? Why?
    Consult your accountant ... because I am not one, so this is my lay opinion.

    He must claim the market value of the silver -in FRN- as on the day you paid him, and pay the appropriate tax on that amount - whether or not he sells the silver.

    If he holds on to them for 10 years, and sells them, he must pay tax on the difference between what the FRN value was on the day you gave it to him and what he sold if for ... as a capital gain.

    Irredeemable fiat "The Federal Reserve Note" loses value everyday.
    Irredeemable infers they are redeemable into something first.
    What do you believe you can redeem FRN into?

    That characteristic alone makes the FRN NOT the most desired economic good.
    No, the reason the FRN is the most desired economic good in this economy is that you have to pay your taxes with them (and other legal tender issues - as per Steven)

    The States by law, the supreme law of the land, "No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"
    That is the "States" as in Montana or New York.
    That is not the Federal Government, which is in Washington D.C.

    Gold and silver are the most desired economic good according to law. I desire that as well because they do not lose value over time.
    It really matters what time you think you are measuring it from.

    If you bought it in 1980 and sold in 1999, you would have lost your shirt. (850 down to 250)

    Which raises a question:
    You keep saying "it keeps value over time"... but what are you comparing it to? If you don't believe in FNR, why do you use FRN to value the price of your gold?

    It would be wise to get out of FRNs immediately.
    You still need it to buy your food, so "getting out of them" is not necessarily good idea....

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    No, it wouldn't.

    As long as you have to pay your tax in the currency of the government, the currency of the government will continue to be the money - everything else will merely be another commodity - exactly as we have it today.


    Yes, yes it would. The government is there to serve the people. If the debts incurred by the government no longer represent the people, the people have the power to RENEG on that debt. End of story.

    Money is the economic good most desired in a market place.
    In today's market, there is one, and only one desire that touches almost every man woman and child that is directed universally - taxation.

    That which solves paying taxes will be desired by everyone - and that is the US$.

    See above.

    If a whole basket of currencies or commodities was dumped by God above into the market over night - repealing the tender laws - over night, only one would remain to be seen as money, and that is the US$.


    You underestimate the power of FREEDOM.

    Force is the ONLY thing that is propping up the USD and all other fiat currencies. Once the legal tender laws are removed, the legal use of force EVAPORATES. Therefore, the demand for dollars would plumment (both internationally and domestically).

    As bonds flew back into the USG treasury - the outstanding cash needed to pay off the debts would be printed and a massive devaluation would occur as capital moved into MARkET CHOSEN MONEY.

    ll

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post

    Yes, yes it would. The government is there to serve the people.
    ...hahahahhahhahhahha....

    Whew! ...haven't laughed that hard for awhile....

    The government is NOT there to serve the People - it exists to accumulate as much power over the People as it can, right up until it consumes itself....
    If the debts incurred by the government no longer represent the people, the people have the power to RENEG on that debt. End of story.
    Debt and taxation are two, different things.


    See above.
    Yep, see above - taxes is different then debt.

    You underestimate the power of FREEDOM.
    Actually, that is why the dollar would win out - because of freedom - none of the other currencies have any motivation over desire to pay taxes.

    This is why the tally stick was money in England - because it paid the King's tax... etc.

    Force is the ONLY thing that is propping up the USD and all other fiat currencies.
    Agreed - called the taxman.

    Once the legal tender laws are removed, the legal use of force EVAPORATES.
    Do you believe the US government would suddenly not need taxes?
    Therefore, the demand for dollars would plumment (both internationally and domestically).
    You can use any currency in the whole world to transact with - nothing is stopping you.

    As bonds flew back into the USG treasury - the outstanding cash needed to pay off the debts would be printed and a massive devaluation would occur as capital moved into MARkET CHOSEN MONEY.
    Or, more likely, the US government will merely not pay out the T-bills and default.

  23. #22

    Default

    **SIGH**

    Government is SUPPOSED to be there for the people. I didn't say it was right now. But since many people believe that, as they wake up to the fact that the State is rapping them - they will revolt. You're thick if you didn't catcht he drift of my post.

    Taxes have EVERyTHING to do with debt - all government debt is contigent upon it's ability to tax.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Sorry, Steven, but I do absolutely know what "intrinsic" means, and what "value" means.

    And there is no such thing that has intrinsic value.

    Value is a human application. It is a human concept.

    If a human does not value something - it has no value. Period.
    Your error comes in not realizing that value has multiple meanings, and that economic value and intrinsic value are two completely different constructs - which you have erroneously conflated, using either the economic or emotional/human definitions for value. It's not.

    If there were only economic and emotional definitions for value (two very different meanings as well), then I might be inclined to agree with you that there is no such thing as intrinsic value, because neither of those types of values can be intrinsic to external things. Both the price (in whatever) and desirability (in whomever) are forever extrinsic to the thing considered. The reason I can't agree with you, however, even with this clarification, is that desire for a thing is a value that is intrinsic, however fleeting, to each human - even though it is not intrinsic to what is external to them.

    I put an object in your hands. You tell me, or write in a notebook, what you are holding. Not what it does, or how it is valued economically. Just what it is. What are its defining characteristics. Those physical properties are its intrinsic values.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    **SIGH**

    Government is SUPPOSED to be there for the people.
    Who told you that????

    I didn't say it was right now. But since many people believe that, as they wake up to the fact that the State is rapping them - they will revolt. You're thick if you didn't catcht he drift of my post.
    The State has, is, and always will be 'raping' the People - that is the only thing it does.

    Taxes have EVERyTHING to do with debt - all government debt is contigent upon it's ability to tax.
    No, it is not.
    No modern national government with a central bank needs taxation, nor does it need taxation to get into debt.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Your error comes in not realizing that value has multiple meanings,
    No, your error is missing what sign is on the door.
    This is economic and politics, not physics.

    It's not.
    It is so.

    If there were only economic and emotional definitions for value
    Go back out the door, read the sign on it, and come back in.

    is that desire for a thing is a value that is intrinsic, however fleeting, to each human - even though it is not intrinsic to what is external to them.
    Ok, so let's see what you just said:

    A desire - a human trait that humans, and not rocks, have...
    for a thing - a physical item in this universe...
    is a "value".

    Now, if there is no human desire for a thing, there is NO value.

    The thing, without a human desire, has no value and no intrinsic value.

  27. #26

    Default

    Steven

    So, have you read Menger's definition of value?

    Whenever I hear someone say that something has intrinsic value, I am sure he has a totally confused, crackpot theory of economics in general and monetary theory in particular.

    There is also no such thing as intrinsic value.

    The meaning of the word "intrinsic" is always difficult to pin down.
    It means "autonomous."
    It implies there is something 'fixed within in something'

    But there is no such things as these in economics.


    Carl Menger's in 1871 had an insight that economic value is imputed by each individual.
    Without the individual, there could be no such imputing of value.
    Further, each individual imputed his own value into things - independent of anyone else.

    You caught up to 1871 yet, Steven?

  28. #27

    Default

    fuck sake, can't we just all agree that the universe is made up of love and everything is massive complex holographic fractal construct for infinite multidimension conscious growth... jeez.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    The meaning of the word "intrinsic" is always difficult to pin down.
    It means "autonomous."
    It implies there is something 'fixed within in something'

    But there is no such things as these in economics.
    Oh yeah? Well, the next time you buy apples, or anything else, sold by weight or volume at the grocery store, you will be charged a price. That price will be its market value (in that particular market, should you pay that price) times its intrinsic value, of whatever it is times the number of pounds, ounces, gallons, liters, etc., which represents the intrinsic value (physical properties times the quantity) of whatever it is you are buying.

    Intrinsic values are very easy to pin down - if you know what they are, and which ones you care about. You identify and make choices based on intrinsic values all the time without even realizing it. Small, medium or large? Hamburger or cheeseburger? Paper or plastic? Macintosh or Granny Smith? Gold or silver? In economics, intrinsic values are how we identify what it is we are paying for, and by what metric (1 car, a dozen eggs, 50 sq. ft of white vinyl tile, a half gallon of milk, etc., all of which are intrinsic values, autonomous/inherent to the object of consideration). In accounting, the intrinsic values are the entries in the QTY and Description columns.

    EDIT: You could buy a little card with a picture of an apple on it, and while it may be useful for something other than food, it won't be nutritious, and it won't be the same as food, because it doesn't have the same intrinsic value of a real apple (i.e., an actual apple, of a given weight of a given variety, complete with color, shape, skin, flesh, core, stem, fiber, vitamins, natural enzymes, etc., all of which are its intrinsic values)

    Isn't that a wonderful marriage of physics and economics? Without physics to describe some of the all-important intrinsic values, you might not know what to pay, and they might not know what to charge! Oh, and "per each" leaves us only with the intrinsic value of "one" (of a given thing, it's intrinsic value still being whatever it is - egg, apple, loaf, etc.,) times the price per each. Even then the price will still have a relation to various intrinsic values - like price per pound, oz., gram, liter, gallon, etc.,

    Stick that in your economic crackpot pipe and smoke it.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 03-04-2012 at 10:00 PM.

  30. #29

    Default

    This is why I'm a voluntarist/an-cap.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    This is why I'm a voluntarist/an-cap.
    ^This. 100%. Anything less is...barbaric. Brutish. Blind to individual rights, artificially organized by brute force and compulsion, and to that extent, not civilized at all.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •