Deregulating the banks?

[enoch150]

I would say the greatest threat, and the difference between now and other times in human history (up to ~100 years ago) is overpopulation and the fact that humans have essentially run out of places to migrate to.

As wealth increases the and the survival rate of offspring increases, the rate of population growth slows down. This is the US population growth rate, from census to census:



As the wealth of the world increases, you will see the same effect.

[dancjm]

Government regulations are written for big business. Banking regulations help the banks, medical programs help the insurance and big pharma companies, media regulations are written by the communications industry etc. Lobbyists and corporations literally write the regulations today.

The market is a stronger regulator than the government.

[Cutlerzzz]

You aren't going to find anyone to admit to being a Keynesian on this forum. And since I think almost everyone on the forum sees the major difference between Austrian and Chicago as the existence of a central bank inflating the currency, you aren't going to find any anyone willing to claim that label, either.

There are actually a few Voluntarist Chicago School Economists.

[WilliamC]

As wealth increases the and the survival rate of offspring increases, the rate of population growth slows down. This is the US population growth rate, from census to census:



As the wealth of the world increases, you will see the same effect.

To an extent I agree with you but just because there is a correlation between wealth and decreased childbirth in some populations does not mean that this will be true for all populations.

I would like to hope that there is a way that individuals can be given enough resources and freedom to rationally decide to limit their fecundity for the good of the entire species, but that sort of ethical thinking is many levels removed from the mentality of most people on Earth today who are worried about having enough to eat or clean water or the ability to survive whatever war or disease is currently killing off their neighbors.

More likely is that governments will do what they always do and kill large numbers of their own citizens. After all, it's what has worked in the past

[WilliamC]

Grain has intrinsic properties that make it valuable to people (it's edible and tastes good).

Gold has intrinsic properties that make it valuable to people (it's scarce, divisible, visibly attractive, doesn't oxidize, conducts electricity, etc.)

Gold and grain are valued by people for their intrinsic properties. They do not have intrinsic value to themselves. How much people value those properties, relative to the intrinsic properties of other items, may change over time, depending on people's needs and wants.

Yes, gold has always been valued by people. But people determine the value based on their desire for its properties, the value is not intrinsic to gold. For example, let's say today you could trade 1 ounce of gold for either 10 barrels of oil or 20 bushels of grain. A year from now there is a massive famine. A year from now you could still trade 1 ounce of gold for 10 barrels of oil, but 1 ounce of gold only can purchase 1/2 of a bushel of grain. It's the intrinsic properties that people desire, in this case, something edible, which give things value.

I simply say that the intrinsic value are simply those intrinsic properties which people assign a value to. What makes gold unique is that while the trade value of gold, measured against other objects, changes through time, gold always has a non-zero intrinsic value over any arbitrary length of time, unlike most any other economic commodity. I am not aware of a culture or society in human history during which possession of gold was not equated with possession of value or wealth, but I don't know everything.

[Steven Douglas]

As wealth increases the and the survival rate of offspring increases, the rate of population growth slows down. This is the US population growth rate, from census to census:



As the wealth of the world increases, you will see the same effect.

This is an interesting chart, because each plot point is based on a percent of change relative to the previous total, rather than just raw number increases. The population is actually increasing - just not exponentially, as many truly moronic fear-mongering academics like to project - which enables these idiots to project and predict that "at the current rate of growth" (by percent of previous totals, as if that was possible) we should all be standing shoulder to shoulder, covering the entire earth in a ridiculously short period of time. I don't have the chart now, I'll look for it later, but if you just look at raw numbers, you see a relatively linear, not exponential, increase in the population. That's what you're really looking at with a chart like this reads in a way that implies a reverse of exponential growth, or a decline in the population, when it's really just a linear increase, and not very dramatic at all.

[Black Flag]

Austrian and Chicago.

Not claim "Chicago" I assume - meaning most would align with the Austrian arguments?

So I'd be wondering about those who claim to follow Austrian theory while at the same time hold non-Austrian definition of money and value.... since it is these very definitions that are the fundamental root of all Austrian theory.

[Travlyr]

I'm a sound money guy. Liberty, Peace, and Prosperity.

Bankers have no business running governments.

[enoch150]

The population is actually increasing - just not exponentially, as many truly moronic fear-mongering academics like to project - which enables these idiots to project and predict that "at the current rate of growth" (by percent of previous totals, as if that was possible) we should all be standing shoulder to shoulder, covering the entire earth in a ridiculously short period of time.

A math problem I had in school a long time ago:

There are 5,280 feet in a mile
There are 27,878,400 square feet in a square mile

Alaska has 586,412 square miles
Alaska has 16,348,228,300,800 square feet

There are 6,998,683,681 people in the world.

Dividing...

If every person in the world lived in Alaska they would have 2,336 square feet each. And the rest of the world would be empty.

Overpopulated, indeed.

[Black Flag]

I'm a sound money guy. Liberty, Peace, and Prosperity.

Bankers have no business running governments.

Government has no business running banks or anything else, actually.