![151027_PaulRyan-1250x650[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/zQmVZlG.jpg "151027_PaulRyan-1250x650[1].jpg")
>2012: He the most based mother fucker and more interesting than Romney
>2016: "Black Lives Matter did nothing wrong, lets not deport the illegal immigrants, ect."
What went wrong?
>>80795298
He's ok actually. He's giving lukewarm support of Trump which is what I wish the rest of the old guard republicans would do.
I get the conservatives not agreeing with Trump entirely but they are fucking up by not endorsing him.
Paul Ryan is ok in my book.
>>80795555
>paid for by the Paul Ryan re-election committee™
>based
according to who?
Biden raped him in the debates and he took a bunch of retarded gym photos where he dressed like a toddler
>>80795555
Ryan isn't even a conservative
he's like a radical leftist/jihadist who stumbled into Wisconsin.
>>80795859
>>80795762
Biden laughing like a fucking manic =/= btfo in a debate
>>80795298
JUST
He read Benji?
>>80795859
I suppose you could argue he isn't a conservative, but it's probably more from not being particularly attached to his principles and considering the necessity of his situation. I mean, the guy was citing von Mises and Ayn Rand as influences, which would be very unusual for a rhino.
You people really think that if a person act in a way that is contrary to those principles, he doesn't actually believe in them, which isn't the case. The question here is whether Ryan is effective at implementing them, at which we can all agree that he isn't. I can think of a single major compromise Ryan has made with the Administration. Does Guantanamo count?
Definition of a cuckservative.
He was only popular in 2012 because he hadn't been around long enough to be exposed as a total shill.
He tries so hard to please everyone, but in reality I think both left and right wingers hate him now.
Paul Ryan grew a beard when he betrayed the American people and theres no going back for him now even if he shaves.
>>80796334
He doesn't believe in those principles though.
If he did he would want to close the carried interest loophole, which he doesn't.
Hes a shill.
>>80795555
He isn't OK at all. He is the biggest pussy in politics. He abandons basic American principles the second someone might call him racist. Fuck him.
to him and much of the 'conservative intelligentsia', conservatism is just a doctrine of prosperity: let us slash budgets and lower taxes and everything will naturally be alright.
He's not a conservative in the historical sense, he's a leftist who simply thinks that govt. bureaucracy is an impediment on the road to that raceless, fully equal, globalist utopia.
He's an open-border anti-nationalist who'd fit right in as an EU minister. That he wants to cut corporate taxes and privatize social security doesn't make him a conservative except by America's warped, deformed definition of it. He's the epitome of the allowed opposition. Fuck him and gogo Paul Nehlen.
>>80796446
I don't know what you're talking about, but if could implement fiscal conservatism in a meaningful way, he would do it.
Everybody shitposts about Bernie being a Democratic Socialist, but he really isn't. He didn't advocate nationalizing a single industry, so he was really an extreme social democrat. If he was true to his principles, he would advocate nationalization education, airlines, Starbucks, weed shops, etc. But this isn't practical. For all we know, he's a literal commie and thought Mao did nothing wrong. But none of these are politically feasible.
>>80796780
At some point, it doesn't matter what a person's true principles are. Only what policies they would favor or implement. He's could be conservative as you could hope to get if he's a classsical liberal a la an admired thinker of his von Mises.
>>80796334
>idolizing Rand and Mises
is that supposed to be a good thing?
>>80797639
For fiscal policy, yes.
>>80795762
>"hello, fellow weightlifters"
>>80797639
>>80797756
It isn't thought.
You are just giving the control of your country to the banks and the financial system in general.
>>80797756
well you're wrong
government spending for the good of your country and your race>cutting budgets because "muh freeeedumbs"
>>80797915
this too
If you take away political power and sovereignty from the democratically elected government you only hand it over to the globalists and their international banks
the fascists in the early 20th century understood this only too well
>>80798209
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-PlqqK9B9Y
>>80795298
he's got his eye on 2020
>>80798294
>>80798445
>>80798480
>>80797915
The control they get is entirely from lending capital profitably. The only times banks have had an undue influence in public policy is when the government engaged in massive public financing.
Even now, with all the deregulation that exists in banking, (even though they are incredibly regulated industries, but not to the extent that would prevent them from owing massive amounts of land), they have strangely little influence in our lives. Interest rates are still determined by financiers independent of banks and the global economy as a whole. The most influence they could have is moving the interest rate a few percentages each way. Their interest is in lending money, not controlling the capital as such.
>>80798535
>>80795298
Lol he was badass but Biden wiped the floor with him in that debate. He got fucking destroyed
>>80797985
>government spending for the good of your country and your race
Like? Do you mean a wall? Anything else?
>>80797985
This. Fascism and traditionalism > All.
>>80797985
"freedumbs" Go to hell man. You don't deserve American Exceptionalism and to even observe American Values.
>>80795298
>2012: He the most based mother fucker and more interesting than Romney
no one ever said this
nice try you Peurto Rican half-nigger
>>80798209
>If you take away political power and sovereignty from the democratically elected government you only hand it over to the globalists and their international banks
This "political power" can still proceed from either lending money or owning property. The first is extremely limited because of the massive availability of capital in liquidity, and the second really isn't the long-term interest of banks.
>>80795298
>having left views in a white republican state is based
>>80795762
>I forgot it's number
and
>pokemon go has done more for health than obama regime
>>80798445
Not really an argument. This might be for favors and lessening regulation, but not that this result int the banks controlling the lives of the people.
>>80798540
no
banks create money from nothing (credit)
>>80798602
military, infrastructure, law, etc
there's no reason to cut budgets outside some sense of hypochondria
Even in the 80s under Reagan people realized that
>>80795298
>What went wrong?
$$$$$$$$$$
>>80798565
Wow, what a stone-cold bitch. She's completely deflecting the issue. Clinton could have been as centrist as McCain and still beat Sanders handily.
Still, her support base has little rational reason to support this aside from the media anc commentators shouting form the rooftops that it needs to happen, while not being clear on what the consequences of not doing so will result in.
Paul ryan is a traitor
>>80798754
>from either lending money or owning property
then you get oligarchy. You don't want the financial sector running your life or society unless you have a death wish.
>>80798937
>banks create money from nothing (credit)
Which wouldn't strictly happen in an rational banking system, but it's not really accurate to say they "create money," any more than if you lend you friend money, you're "creating money."
I'm familiar with fractional-reserve banking, (which I'm not opposed to), but it's the equivalent of somebody borrowing money from you, letting you keep that money while they use some of it, you lending it to someone else while keeping some of it to lend, etc. which can all be done while having the same finite set of money.
>>80796334
>>80795555
Paul Ryan's only consistent principle is sucking thick poz loads directly from Obama's big black cock.
Paul Nehlen is going to wreck this cuck forever.
>>80798540
They basically create money (not technically true but can be considered correct if we take into account credit.)
That is, apart from armed force, the ultimate power in a society.
>>80795298
he's a globalist shill traitor
>>80798937
>military, infrastructure, law, etc
Firstly, if those aren't being use efficiently, they should absolutely be cut. As a matter of principle, I think Governmetn should be limited to police protection, courts, and military, but within this context, whenever money would be better utilized by private enterprise, (i.e., create more surplus value when not taxes), it should be not be taxes. Most everybody sees that 100% or 90% of GDP taxes if far too high to have the most effective use for it and I think it should be much lower than it is not for the maximal use of it.
>>80795298
He's a fucking faggot bitch ass nigger lover. A betrayer of our people, he really has got some balls to say the shit he does.
If he died no one would care, I doubt he'd even get a second of silence.
>>80799203
>then you get oligarchy.
That doesn't follow. Police powers are still controlled by the state.
>You don't want the financial sector running your life or society unless you have a death wish.
They wouldn't run society. This is assuming the implausible scenario that they somehow monopolize all industries and property, which has never been accomplished in a free market.
>>80795298
He's been promised the moon by the globalists.
>>80799388
>They basically create money
A bank shouldn't be in a position to create money as such. Other people give them money to store which they are permitted to lend at various rates, which isn't creating money, no matter how small or large at which it occurs. The only time they can create money is when there is a fiat money supply, or that money isn't strictly controlled in its supply.
>That is, apart from armed force, the ultimate power in a society.
Not really accurate. The ultimate power in society is human labor. If all workers in the world went on strike or killed themselves, this power would appear incredibly useless and all their gold, silver, or fiat money would amount to nothing.
>>80795298
Nothing
He was never "based" or "interesting"
In 2012, he was just a young face hoping to capture the youth/woman vote, thats it
So is Ron Paul basically no longer /pol/s first or second favorite politician? Because I'm basically reading from his bible, and I'm not even a massive Paul fan.
>>80799306
>any more than if you lend you friend money, you're "creating money."
It's money up until the point there's a run on the bank
then the people find out their savings accounts are all gone.
>rational banking system
the only way to outlaw credit (money creation) is to outlaw usury which is the system Europe used to have.
But people realized that economic growth was far faster when people could easily get credit.
>fractional-reserve banking
which is actually a myth
banks don't need "any" reserves at all to lend, and in fact reserves are almost never a source of funding for loans.
The "money" you get from a bank typically comes in nothing but digital form. It's just numbers on a screen or (before computers) numbers written on paper.
>if those aren't being use efficiently,
The point of government is to provide those services not to make a "profit"
If government made a profit they'd still be taking money from the populace anyway only for more of the burden would go on consumers.
You're essentially arguing for a tax raise on the working class
>>80799701
>Police powers are still controlled by the state
In the absence of government oversight finance controls society not the police
>somehow monopolize all industries and property,
They accomplish that by seizing the government
surely you've heard of feudalism before.
If Nigel was prime minister and animpunitive mandate from the people to reorganize UK society as he saw fit, it would very similar to what I'm describing. The man is a libertarian/classical liberal through and through. He cites Mill's On Liberty as his greatest influence.
>>80800139
he's a globalist bitchboy. also a koch brothers puppet. destroyed thousands of peoples retirement in his home state
>>80796852
Nationalisation isn't allowed anywhere these days because that would mean putting the countries assets into the hand of the people.
Normally what happens is a countries population build up an asset through their taxes and hard work, globalists then swoop in and bribe/cuck the government and the asset is privatised for pennies on the dollar. Any country that tries to stop this gets the BLM treatment/color revoltion or an arab spring
>>80795298
>Paul Cuckhold Ryan
>>80796446
>Hes a shill.
>>80796452
>He is the biggest pussy in politics
>>80799110
>Paul ryan is a traitor
>>80799347
>Paul Ryan's only consistent principle is sucking thick poz loads directly from Obama
>>80799886
>He's been promised the moon by the globalists.
We have this picture of Ryan in a local gym on the wall of shame
>>80799978
>Not really accurate. The ultimate power in society is human labor. If all workers in the world went on strike or killed themselves, this power would appear incredibly useless and all their gold, silver, or fiat money would amount to nothing.
>If all workers in the world went on strike or killed themselves
Good one.
Ignoring meme situations like that money controls labor.
>A bank shouldn't be in a position to create money as such. Other people give them money to store which they are permitted to lend at various rates, which isn't creating money, no matter how small or large at which it occurs. The only time they can create money is when there is a fiat money supply, or that money isn't strictly controlled in its supply.
Good job on not understanding the system. When you put it this way it does seem to be functional. The banks can effectively contract or inflate the money supply at will thanks to the fractional reserve system by just choosing to increase the amount of money they hold.
>>80800313
>It's money up until the point there's a run on the bank
Well then there wouldn't be money any more so it's not being "created." It's obviously in the interest of any bank to to never run out or money, which they can insure to the best of their ability by having high interest rates, judicial lending policies, and higher reserve rates.
Runs on banks are concerns, but it doesn't really entail the creation of new money, unless the bank is committing fraud.
>the only way to outlaw credit (money creation) is to outlaw usury which is the system Europe used to have.
This seems confused. All finance as such would be impossible without "usury." If your friend asks to borrow $50 and you say he has to pay you back $55 in return, that's a usurious flat rate of 10%. There would be no incentive to lend money in any situation, (the Muslims get around this somewhere because Islamic law prevents it, but it's ultimately being paid more than what you lent).
>But people realized that economic growth was far faster when people could easily get credit.
A person gets credit by borrowing. Lending and credit are united elements.
>banks don't need "any" reserves at all to lend, and in fact reserves are almost never a source of funding for loans.
I don't approve of this setup and it wouldn't be legally possible, or a free market society would make this impractical. There would always been competing currencies and the currency that's backed by something will almost always be chosen than a currency that can be expanded by will by a bank impunitively
>>80795298
>Paul Ryan
>2012
>based
The fuck is wrong with this board anymore
>>80801051
>I don't approve of this setup and it wouldn't be legally possible, or a free market society would make this impractical. There would always been competing currencies and the currency that's backed by something will almost always be chosen than a currency that can be expanded by will by a bank impunitively
Commodity backed currencies are impractical.
A currency is only stable if it is backed by the law and taxes.
>>80800313
>The point of government is to provide those services not to make a "profit"
I didn't say profit, but "surplus value." If the government had a policy of creating massive airplanes and tanks, (that didn't offer any advancements in technology or production), only to smash them together so they would be destroyed, at the cost of tens of hundreds of billions of today's dollar's, (with no military benefit), this would be a waste of resources compared to tax breaks, Keynes idiocy notwithstanding. Again, the money that is given to government is spent usually very quickly, so what is taxed is not money as such, but a claim that the government has on people's products or services by using this money to hire people or buy services, which could be better utilized by private enterprise.
>In the absence of government oversight finance controls society not the police
I'm not an anarchist, so I don't support the elimination of the state, only its confinement to activities which cannot be provided by society without sacrificing the rule of law, (i.e., police is objectively preferable to upholding the law than paid and private gangs).
>They accomplish that by seizing the government
Well the government will always have an ultimate control on force.
>>80800621
Oh. Okay, lol.
>>80800779
>Nationalisation isn't allowed anywhere these days because that would mean putting the countries assets into the hand of the people.
I don't see what your point is. Cucks like Corbyn and Sanders would openly in the former case and secretly in the latter case love to do this. They claim to be democratic socialists after all, but the former actually proposes democratic socialist policies.
>>80796334
>You people really think that if a person act in a way that is contrary to those principles, he doesn't actually believe in them
Well yes, stupid, actions speak louder than words. It's no different from Conservative congressmen who would scream gays ruin the family unit while having gay sex undercover and ruining their marriage.
>>80801627
>so what is taxed is not money as such, but a claim that the government has on people's products or services by using this money to hire people or buy services
Wat
That's what money is.
>>80800961
>Good one.
Good one, what? It was a hypothetical situation. The ultimate power from the world comes from the labor of man. If the organizers went on strike, there would be chaos, and if the workers went on strike, there would be a complete halt to everything. The power of money is convincing other people to do something because of its value to them, and its value to them is the potential it has to convince other people to do thing, and so on.
>>80800961
>Ignoring meme situations like that money controls labor.
It doesn't control it as such. People still have to voluntarily accept the price I'm offering them. They don't even have to take the highest bidder. If you're selling a skateboard to the highest bidder of two people and one guy offers $9 and the other $10, but the $10 is a jew and you're a fucking racist who hates them, you might forgot that extra dollar of profit because of your bigotry.
There are consequences to refusing offers, of course, but the ultimate and only power of money is its potential to persuade other people to do things.
>>80802049
>Good one, what? It was a hypothetical situation. The ultimate power from the world comes from the labor of man. If the organizers went on strike, there would be chaos, and if the workers went on strike, there would be a complete halt to everything. The power of money is convincing other people to do something because of its value to them, and its value to them is the potential it has to convince other people to do thing, and so on.
They wouldn't go on strike because they need to eat. Money is the simplest and most effective mean of exchange to acquire food and things you need.
It's like saying the power of a military doesn't comes from its planes or tanks but its soldiers. Which is true but the military that controls the better weapons will probably win the fight against a military that is just using sticks.
Money is just a tool like a weapon but it is a very powerful tool.
>>80796062
Actually yea it does. He was laughed at only because when asked for specifics he couldn't come up with anything.
In a 2 hour debate or however long if the bitesized version everyone remembers is him being laughed at by Biden and the moderator calling him out on his lack of details that is it.
>>80800961
>The banks can effectively contract or inflate the money supply at will thanks to the fractional reserve system by just choosing to increase the amount of money they hold.
Well then that would be fraud, which should be prosecuted. This becomes more difficult as fiat currencies become less popular in comparison to commodity-backed currencies, and competing currencies will make inflation more difficult. If the ultimate resource is gold, and a bank creates its own currency to represent a certain amount of gold, it could theoretically create an amount of its currency with an exchange rate to its gold that would exceed the amount of gold it actually has. This would create the risk that it would loan money and this money would eventually come back to them in order to demand exchange of an equivalent amount of gold, eventually exceeding their supply and creating a run on the bank, liquidating its balance, which would not be in the interest of the bank, and should be fraud.
>>80802331
>It doesn't control it as such. People still have to voluntarily accept the price I'm offering them.
If everyone could eat and have a home without working then it would be voluntary. You could also say that slaves were voluntarily working because they could voluntarily choose to die if they didn't.
Money is so important because it is an essential tool in surviving in today's society. Good luck getting food or a house without money.
>>80802731
Not illegal.
They are just choosing to not lend out any money or lend out more money. There is nothing illegal about that.
>>80801369
>Commodity backed currencies are impractical.
They lasted for quite some time in various forms in the 19th-century.
Also, a currency could be backed by currency and law, in that the derivative currency issued by a bank to represent the commodity it controls could never exceed the amount of currency it controls as determined by this exchange rate.
>>80801830
>Well yes, stupid, actions speak louder than words.
That could be due to it being politically impossible to implement the policies in which he believes.
>It's no different from Conservative congressmen who would scream gays ruin the family unit while having gay sex undercover and ruining their marriage.
Not quite, because that could be a matter of him being unable to follow his own moral precepts.
>>80802731
>This becomes more difficult as fiat currencies become less popular in comparison to commodity-backed currencies
Commodity currencies are not practical.
>and competing currencies will make inflation more difficult
Why would that happen.
> This would create the risk that it would loan money and this money would eventually come back to them in order to demand exchange of an equivalent amount of gold, eventually exceeding their supply and creating a run on the bank, liquidating its balance, which would not be in the interest of the bank, and should be fraud.
Sure but the bank could choose to take that risk if it deems it profitable enough or just wants to make some quick profit.
Privately created currencies do not work historically. There is just nothing to make them stable or dependable enough to have people save their money in them or for stores to accept them.
Money is a legal concept and as such it is backed by the government in the form of legal tender status and taxes/government contacts.
>>80795555
except that trump is a clinton plant ....
>>80802034
>That's what money is.
I'm aware of that, but I wanted to make it clear that money isn't just numbers, or paper, or electronic signals, or any inherent value of the commodity by which it may be backed. That the efficacy of money should be judged by what services it compels. No entity can capture power or labour in the power of money as such. If a king levied massive taxes on his kingdom, (assuming its isolated from other countries), every year without spending them, the effect would be a gradual decrease of prices as the economy has to correct the same supply of goods and services being traded with a diminishing supply of currency, which will result in massive deflation, as the currency isn't being traded.
>>80802948
>They lasted for quite some time in various forms in the 19th-century.
Yes because they were legal tender and backed by the law. It is the law that makes them money, not the commodity. I'm not saying it's impossible to have a commodity backed currency, just impractical because a fiat currency controlled by a national bank (that is controlled by the government) has more advantages like being able to inflate or contract the money supply depending on the needs of the economy and other useful things such as this.
>Also, a currency could be backed by currency and law, in that the derivative currency issued by a bank to represent the commodity it controls could never exceed the amount of currency it controls as determined by this exchange rate.
What money do people pay tax in? What money do stores accept? Because having to change money every time you buy something in the store (either you or the store changes it I assume) will end up being expensive your system will end up with 1 or 2 major currencies and those banks will have a disproportional amount of power no matter what the law says.
>>80802441
>They wouldn't go on strike because they need to eat.
You missed the point, which was that the power money depends on somebody willing to take it for a service. It was a thought experiment.
>It's like saying the power of a military doesn't comes from its planes or tanks but its soldiers.
Not accurate because the soldiers and planes and tanks have an inherent potential to be effective by their nature, while money gains its power only by an agreement to use it. The situation you describe would involve the implausible scenario of a entity or group of entities controlling all resources and/or currencies and that labor having no capital whatsoever, which has never existed except in extremely barbarous times and even then with control by the state.
>>80803742
>I'm aware of that, but I wanted to make it clear that money isn't just numbers, or paper, or electronic signals, or any inherent value of the commodity by which it may be backed.
Yes but the law and having to pay taxes in that currency ensures the stability of the currency.
> If a king levied massive taxes on his kingdom, (assuming its isolated from other countries), every year without spending them, the effect would be a gradual decrease of prices as the economy has to correct the same supply of goods and services being traded with a diminishing supply of currency, which will result in massive deflation, as the currency isn't being traded.
Correct, but if the deflation became too big or the money supply became too small the people would switch to trade with something else unless it was the law that the king's currency was the only one you could use and the only one you could pay taxes in.
>>80795298
He was trying to pivot the republican party to a more moderate position.
America is only 63% white now. How long do you think you can keep winning with just white votes? Literally all the minorities I know vehemently hate the right wing now.
>>80802767
Again, you're missing my point, and the scenario which you suggest to prove me wrong isn't plausible. With competing currencies, no single entity could acquire the entire purchasing power of an economy because then another currency would become more valuable.
But this is beyond the original scope of the experiment. Say one entity truly controlled all currency and every conceivable commodity which could be used as currency, (which again, isn't plausible unless he were an absolute rule), the workers en masse decided that such a situation was intolerable, so they decided to kill themselves, also en masse. The king, despite still controlling all money in the world is deprived of workers, so he has in effect become truly powerless. The power of money is still dependent on what people are willing to do to receive it, so if they refuse it or cease to exist, the power of money ceases to exist, which was my original point, not that there's some point at which money could be dispensed with as unnecessary.
>>80795298
>what went wrong
Liberal appeasement
>>80804215
>You missed the point, which was that the power money depends on somebody willing to take it for a service. It was a thought experiment.
I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that that willingness to use the currency comes from, for one the stability of that currency. If a currency can tomorrow become worthless if a bank goes bankrupt then people will be less willing to use it. The law ensures that this doesn't (usually) happen.
He was always a neocon trash, basically a hooker in congress.
>>80802896
>They are just choosing to not lend out any money or lend out more money.
I could think of scenarios in which a free-market solution would make it impossible to lend out money which represents commodities which don't exist. If I made my own bank in this system and started printing paper that represented no commodity and was cheaper to print than that services it would be expected to buy, people would eventually stop using the money. In Zimbabwe, there became a point where with reasonable units of currency, the money became less valuable than the paper on which it was printed, as they services it generally purchased was less valuable than the paper used to print it , resulting in larger and larger units being used. In Zimbabwe, they probably have no choice but to use that currency, but in a society of free-banking, citizens will always be concerned that their money will not retain their value and will be vigilant about a bank engaging in inflationary practices which destroys the value that the money should represent.
But I already suggested a way in which the objective value of money could be protected as a protection against fraud.
>>80804710
>Again, you're missing my point, and the scenario which you suggest to prove me wrong isn't plausible.
Ok sure I get your point.>>80804756
>With competing currencies, no single entity could acquire the entire purchasing power of an economy because then another currency would become more valuable.
What do you save money in? What do you pay taxes in?, etc. If those currencies are commodity backed they wouldn't change value that much. I just don't see the point of a private currency system. The point of a bank or any other private company is to make profit. If they decide to create a currency they expect to make a profit from that. For some reason I don't entirely think that this is beneficial for me.
>>80805257
Just said how the system works today.
>but in a society of free-banking, citizens will always be concerned that their money will not retain their value and will be vigilant about a bank engaging in inflationary practices which destroys the value that the money should represent.
And that's a good thing. People scared of losing their life savings because a bank chose to do something stupid or decided to rob them. Most people, like it or not, don't have enough time to pay attention to what sneaky things a bank is doing to increase their profits or read financial news.
>>80803514
>Commodity currencies are not practical.
I disagree, and I consider them to be more practical then the fiat system, as they would retain their value better. The truth is that money itself is a commodity, the value of which is the goods and services it can buy. By increasing the supply of money without increasing the supply of goods and services, (or by increasing the demand for these products without increasing the supply with more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and services), this results in the price of goods increasing, or the value of the commodity of money decreasing in relation to the value of the good and services.
Somebody could create a banking entity which would sign a contract with every single one of its account holders that it would not increase the supply of a currency, one which isn't based on any commodity. If the currency is expanded by the bank, the bank could be punished for a violation of contract. To obviate counterfeiting, a contract will be automatically signed any time this currency is used for the exchange of other commodities, in which if it is discovered that the currency was fake and created by that person, they will face a severe penalty. If not that person, person who ultimately created it will be bound by contract to face a punishment.
>>80803514
>Sure but the bank could choose to take that risk if it deems it profitable enough or just wants to make some quick profit.
The terms by which a bank will lend its money will be set in the contract to its account holders, by which they will determine if it is worth the risk to lend money to this bank. Banks with lower margins will naturally offer a greater interest rate or lower holding fees for the funds deposited by the account holder with a lower factional reserve rate, so the account holder will determine how much risk is involved and whether it is worth the extra income or lower bank fees. If the bank violates this, it would an act of violation of contract, and it would be enforced to a similar if not more rigorous degree to which regulations are applied to modern banks.
>>80806080
>I disagree, and I consider them to be more practical then the fiat system, as they would retain their value better. The truth is that money itself is a commodity, the value of which is the goods and services it can buy. By increasing the supply of money without increasing the supply of goods and services, (or by increasing the demand for these products without increasing the supply with more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and services), this results in the price of goods increasing, or the value of the commodity of money decreasing in relation to the value of the good and services.
Sometimes an increase or decrease in money supply is needed for example in the times of an economic crisis. You could of course let it solve itself naturally or you could alleviate it if you control the monetary system. This can be done if you have a system that is effectively in the hands of the government.
>Somebody could create a banking entity which would sign a contract with every single one of its account holders that it would not increase the supply of a currency, one which isn't based on any commodity. If the currency is expanded by the bank, the bank could be punished for a violation of contract. To obviate counterfeiting, a contract will be automatically signed any time this currency is used for the exchange of other commodities, in which if it is discovered that the currency was fake and created by that person, they will face a severe penalty. If not that person, person who ultimately created it will be bound by contract to face a punishment.
I see how your system could work but I just don't see any advantages for it over a fiat system in the control of the government. And even a predictable system with a limited amount of currency can change value dramatically (see cryptocurrencies and other such things). Your system would need to be commodity backed to ensure stability.
>>80803514
>Privately created currencies do not work historically.
I would disagree with this historical assessment, but I would say equally that there are eminent flaws in the fiat currency system whereby the currency is directly or indirectly controlled by the state, in which a central bank is told to serve the often two conflicting masters of full employment and stable money supply, with inflation rates forcing lenders and account holders to modify their investment schedule and standards in order to beat the gradual and unstoppable destruction that is inflation.
>>80803514
>Money is a legal concept and as such it is backed by the government in the form of legal tender status and taxes/government contacts.
I disagree with with the prescriptive element of this statement and the descriptive element is false. There's noting inherent in the nature money that entails that it is backed by the government. The form of money I've been advocating up until now would not require government backing except as it enforces contracts, though surely, if they made a law in which no entity could create currency which they do not legally control, this would perhaps be more effective, though not necessarily necessary.
>>80804146
>Yes because they were legal tender and backed by the law.
The means by which the money is made to be stable or not subject to inflation is not particularly important. I think it could be accomplished purely through contract law, while statutes were used in the 19th century, to which I would not object. My only desire is that banks should be free to create and issue this currency and that some mechanism exists to present it from its value being destroyed by inflationary actions, which doesn't require a single currency in each country.
>>80806735
>I would disagree with this historical assessment, but I would say equally that there are eminent flaws in the fiat currency system whereby the currency is directly or indirectly controlled by the state, in which a central bank is told to serve the often two conflicting masters of full employment and stable money supply, with inflation rates forcing lenders and account holders to modify their investment schedule and standards in order to beat the gradual and unstoppable destruction that is inflation.
Give me a few examples of a private currency working well.
I suspect you are talking about the 70s-80s inflation in the US?
The problem with the current system in the US is that it is not completely controlled by the government (at least in my opinion) because of the fractional reserve system allowing banks to control it and the Fed not being entirely "government".
The only real currency that was created by the US government itself were the greenbacks during the civil war (and they were counterfeited heavily by the British).
>>80804146
>It is the law that makes them money, not the commodity.
Well, that's not strictly true. Cigarettes were used as money during certain situations in wartime, in which cigarettes, an objective commodity that could be consumed, was traded for other goods and services. If any law is establishing the value of the money, it would be property law, though even this isn't necessary for money. The only thing necessary is a commodity, (a material that could be traded for another), is used as a storage of value and is traded for other commodities, which merely requires that people are using it for that purpose. The rule of law could not exist, but as long as people were using a commodity to trade for other commodities and as a storage of value, it is money.
>>80807244
If your goal is to move monetary power from the government to private hands then sure, I just don't see why you would do that.
>>80806984
The government is, directly or indirectly, the people so it does make sense for the people to control their own currency. And the importance of the government in assuring the stability of the currency are the taxes that are paid in that currency. That is one of the main elements of why people use the currency and therefore enable it to be money.
If you are able in some way to ensure that your currency is used by all people in an area or are able to create a system in which exchanging money is free or extremely cheap and fast(while also ensuring that there is some stable currency to save money in) then there is no reason for private money not to work, I just don't see a simple solution to those problems.
>>80804146
>able to inflate or contract the money supply depending on the needs of the economy and other useful things such as this.
And I don't allow that such actions are necessary, but even if they were, there would be nothing stopping a bank of offering a commodity to be used as money with the promise that they will inflate and deflate it as necessary, with the warning to anyone who takes this money that it may be gradually worth less than they thought after they have received it. I think many people would find this to be a rather inferior form of money to one that is either backed or derived from another commodity, or one who's supply will never be created or destroyed. I believe that there's very little the supply of money can do to regulate an economy, (though hyperinflation can lead to the inability to save and invest), but much more important is the interest rates. There will be less of a need to one currency expanded or deflated once people are free to trade or exchanged with any currencies they wish, provided they are accepted. The monetarists were incorrect in thinking that inflation could provide anything more than short-term economic activity, but they were correct in stressing so much important on the stable supply of money.
>>80807618
Sure but I don't think the prices are very stable with that kind of currency and there is a limit to what you can do with it as I've said, for example you can't control the money supply or someone could stock up on cigarettes (considering the amount doesn't change) and artificially deflate the prices while sometimes spending some to get more services for cheaper or he could spend them a lot of them at once to create a perception of an inflation if he wants to sell something.
>>80808177
>And I don't allow that such actions are necessary
Doubt I can convince you otherwise in a short time then.
>The monetarists were incorrect in thinking that inflation could provide anything more than short-term economic activity
Sometimes a short term burst in economic activity is all that's needed to avoid or alleviate a crisis.
>>80804146
>What money do people pay tax in?
You can now use your credit card to pay in most major currencies, with a small exchange fee, in which the currency in which your funds are held is automatically exchanged into another to be accepted by a merchant. It surely isn't implausible that this could be easily done, especially considering how multiple different currencies will create a larger currency market, bringing the transaction rate to even lower than it generally is today.
>What money do stores accept?
Do you really have this problem in real life? Have you ever traveled with a credit card. I don't see what the problem is. Ultimately, a small number of currencies will emerge that are more popular than all the rest, such as today with the dollar, the euro, the yuan, etc., which will be the basis of most people's funds. There are numerous different credit cards associated with different banks, but attached to different popular kinds of credit card companies, making it very convenient to pay almost any charge across the world regardless of your bank, (in most case). The same would apply here with different bank and different currencies.
>>80804146
>Because having to change money every time you buy something in the store (either you or the store changes it I assume) will end up being expensive your system will end up with 1 or 2 major currencies and those banks will have a disproportional amount of power no matter what the law says.
It would be about as expensive as using credit cars. Because any commodity could become the basis of a currency, the currency markets will be much larger, making exchange rates negligible. Again, if his were really a problem, people would have their funds in multiple of the most popular currencies that would be accepted anywhere, currencies so larger that the true exchange rate would be negligible.
>>80808789
Yes but that fee is actually not very small if you consider that you will most likely have to do this every time you buy something. I just don't see the point to have 1% of your economy going just to exchange currencies.
He decided it would be nice if republicans won a presidential election again in his lifetime.
>>80804146
>those banks will have a disproportional amount of power no matter what the law says.
What do you mean by disproportionate power? Wells Fargo, ICBC, JP Morgan, and CCBC control about half the banking industry and their power doesn't really amount to having massive amounts of capital to manage. The same could be argued by the amount of power held by central banks. I suppose the difference is that one set exists for the supposed public good and the other set exists for profit, but the massive private banks that exist today have been able to weather most storms and probably aren't in any greater danger than entire countries.
>>80804473
>Yes but the law and having to pay taxes in that currency ensures the stability of the currency.
The stability of a currency is the products and services that back it. If the largest banks in the world converted all their funds to a private currency, it would be larger than most currencies used by countries. By this logic, any country would be foolish to have its own currency because of comparatively little exchange in done in them, but we see, despite fluctuations, that the scare for most currencies is overstated, and that currencies are really only threatened when there is a boom and bust cycle involving the economy in which this currency is primarily used, or the currency has massive fluctuations in quantity as a result of counterfeiting, (virtually unheard of), or changing the supply of money, (which can effectively be done by artificially lowering interest rates, but I won't go into that). As long as the services and good backed by an economy don't lose their demand in an abrupt manner, the currency will have few major fluctuations. The larger the currency is, the more difficult smaller fluctuations will alter value, and as I said before, the largest banks in the world could create currency much more stable than most currencies.
>>80809494
>What do you mean by disproportionate power?
They have more political power and "donate" more money to the political system more than any other sector (except healthcare, which is why the US healthcare system is a mess). For this they obtain lots of benefits such as massive deregulation before 2008 and
>but the massive private banks that exist today have been able to weather most storms and probably aren't in any greater danger than entire countries.
They've received massive "loans" and bailouts in 2008, most of them wouldn't have survived without them and you should agree that they don't deserve to stay in business because of their fuck up.
>>80810126
> If the largest banks in the world converted all their funds to a private currency, it would be larger than most currencies used by countries. By this logic, any country would be foolish to have its own currency because of comparatively little exchange in done in them
Yes, if that currency were recognized by the governments where you are trying to use it.
> The larger the currency is, the more difficult smaller fluctuations will alter value, and as I said before, the largest banks in the world could create currency much more stable than most currencies.
Yes. If it is well regulated and there is very little potential for abuse by the banks controlling it, it could work.
>>80804473
>Correct, but if the deflation became too big or the money supply became too small the people would switch to trade with something else unless it was the law that the king's currency was the only one you could use and the only one you could pay taxes in.
That doesn't follow. Gold is still a very popular commodity and has only continued to increase in value in comparison to other commodities.
I will allow that maybe it's too difficult to imagine having a single physical commodity become the basis of a major world currency, (though because the transfer of this currency will always effectively be electronic, I don't allow that it would be difficult), so I will assume a purely electronic commodity, which for the sake of example, isn't any less secure than modern money in electronic form as recorded electronically by banks.
They have produce a single unit of this currency, which we may call widget. Widget can be perpetually and infinitely, (in an indefinite series), divided into to units of equal size while retaining as a value the portion of the whole unit which they represent. Another unit will never be created by any entity of this currency that will not have had its origin from this one unit. Ergo, the total sum value of all the currency will still be equal to one unit. The creators of this unit decide that they will need one million equal parts of this one unit for their banking operations.
>>80804473
One million are created and they each have the value of one-millionth of a unit. The creators lend this unit to people while holding other currencies, and having an exchange rate of a quantity of b currency is equal to one millionth of a currency. Any person who returns a widget to them will receive a quantity of b currency equal to the number of millions of widget that they have given. This could apply to banks as well. A property of this currency is that anyone can subdivide this electric currency into however many units they want, but the number of units created and their sum quantity will always equal the quantity of the dividend. This happens after a while and after weeks, months, or years, this currency is everywhere and in units far smaller than the original creation or division. People throw around billionths, or trillionths, or quadrillionths, etc. of this currency for trade. No value is too small to be represent by this money which can take any value at all by division as long as the quantities of the widgets that are created are equal to the qualities of the dividend.
There are various various to this practice. Perhaps they could be traded like stocks, by which the creators of the widget would decide that there will be this split of widgets or a merger, while nobody's total value of widgets does not change, with this being done so people don't have to constantly divided their money.
This is a thought experiment how a currency that is fiat, but unchanging could fit all the needs of any economy. Because the money cannot be truly deflated or inflated, the value of the money will always be determined by the products which could be potentially be purchased by the currency.
>>80812116
>>80812172
Yes you can divide an electronic currency forever.
Historically gold could only be divided to a point.
Your system could probably work but I just don't see the point of having a complicated system that private entities would control instead of a simpler system controlled by the government and can also be used to solve economic emergencies. But I guess we just disagree on the role of the government in the economy and the power it should have in general.
>>80795298
Paul Ryan is a lefty Jew in conservative clothing.
>>80796422
Get a load of this nigger.
>>80804756
>I'm just saying that that willingness to use the currency comes from, for one the stability of that currency.
Not quite accurate, as somebody could chose to trade for a currency because of its stability for a speculation or investment on the basis that it will either deflate or appreciate in relation to other commodities.
But aside from currency speculation or investment, most people look for their money retaining their value and being accepted, (as well as willing to save as opposed to consume). You don't really indicate what determines the stability of a currency, which can be determined by numerous things. Naturally, it all boils down to supply and demand, in which low demand for a currency with unchanging supply will result in the value of the currency falling, (or in modern economic terms, inflation, or when the stability of the currency is threatened, hyperinflation). The value of currencies, like securities, is based on expectation. If a subject believes that the commodities he can hold or use now will be require more of a currency he is holding to obtain, he, assuming he is confident or daring enough, will make the trade of the currency for the commodity. This process repeated sufficiently demand for commodities. This can result in supplier of commodities that could be exchanged for this currency believing that the currency will be worth less at a later time then it is now, resulting them in increasing the exchange rate of their commodities for the currency. This is a reciprocating process. This can result in the currency depreciating not only against physical commodities, but also other currencies. It is to be recognized that all currency exchange must ultimately be backed by some commodity.
>>80813613
>Not quite accurate, as somebody could chose to trade for a currency because of its stability for a speculation or investment on the basis that it will either deflate or appreciate in relation to other commodities.
Then it's not used as a currency.
>But aside from currency speculation or investment, most people look for their money retaining their value and being accepted
Which I would define as stability, both in value (retaining value) and definition (it's money because it is accepted for goods and services)
>It is to be recognized that all currency exchange must ultimately be backed by some commodity.
Sure, at the end a currency is worth something because it allows you to obtain things.
>>80795298
I don't like him. He's like a less handsome version of Romney as far as I can discern, although admittedly, I don't know much about him other than that he seems like a normal republicuck.
>>80796422
>>80796446
>>80796452
If I lived closer to his home town, I would volunteer to work for *ANY* candidate (Democrat or Republican) trying to unseat Paul "Traitor" Ryan from his congressional seat.
I know very little about Paul Nehlen, but if he's against The Bearded Traitor then he gets my support.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZjUTlD8LUY&feature=youtu.be
>>80804756
The simplest example is two people two provide commodities in exchange for currency. The value of the currency given today for a service is only accepted on the expectation that it can be traded at another time for another service. No matter how longer the system becomes, the relationships stay exactly the same. If subject A is willing to spend 1 unit B for commodity C on that subject D is willing to accept because he knows he can purchase commodity E from subject A for 1 unit B, then assuming this price is acceptable to B and there is nothing to prevent this transaction, it will commence. But suppose subject D thinks that soon, something will happen that will prevent subject A from providing subject D with commodity E for 1 unit B, and it will instead cost 2 units. Assuming this trade occurs only so that subject D can get commodity E from Subject A in that time period, he will see that can not make the previously mentions transaction and achieve the same goal. His response will be, then, to raise the price to 2 units for the commodity C to tell to subject A. Thus, on a very macro level, applied to entire economy, the source of flotations or inflation of currency becomes apparent: when the those who would accept a currency believe that the primarily users of the currency will not be able to provide other commodities at the same rate, the demand for this currency lessens because it will be able to buy fewer commodities.
>>80804756
The solution, on the contrary, is showing how beneficial private currencies can become once they aren't attached to any particular economy, much like the currency of countries. The more ubiquitous a currency is, the less susceptible it is to economic fluctuations in individual parts of an economy. Consistently when an economy is going into a recession in modern economies, the purchasing power of the most ubiquitous currency begins to fall for parts of economies in which the currency is less ubiquitous, even if there is deflation, lessening of purchasing power which isn't actually stopped by central banks, but actually encouraged. The argument against having banks with trillions in capital from creating and spreading currencies would apply much stronger to individual and small countries having their own currencies.
>>80805345
>What do you save money in?
The system would be too complex to describe, (though perhaps I already did it), for a currency derivative of another commodity, so assuming the currency is fiat, it would be stored in much the same (technical) way that modern currency is stored, though it isn't stored as such, but recorded, (again, not too familiar with how this is done, but this technical aspect has already been accomplished).
>>80805345
>What do you pay taxes in?
I think I already effectively answered this. It will be a combination of certain currencies being so ubiquitous, or the currency market being much larger because there will be so many competing currencies that transactions costs will be lower. Assuming inflation or deflation isn't a concern, people will chose the currencies with the lowest total transaction costs to pay for other commodities, (including the service of not being arrested for tax evasion), leading to competitively lower transaction costs, similar to how people chose credit cards, in which only one is necessary in most situations and it makes little difference which one is chosen.
>>80805345
>If those currencies are commodity backed they wouldn't change value that much.
I don't know what you mean by "much." Modern currencies are effectively not backed by a commodity, though in a sense they are backed by the potential commodities people who hold that currency expect desire to purchase now and in the future. They would change as much as modern currencies do, though there would perhaps be probably much less fluctuation because more people would hold the same currency because not every single country would have its own special currency and force its citizens to use one currency.
I don't see the significance of this, only that it is good that it doesn't change value, except to currency speculators and investors who would potential profit, but would have to use massive amounts of capital to do so, again making the demand for currencies at times incredibly large and decreasing exchange rates and thus transaction costs.
>>80805345
>I just don't see the point of a private currency system.
I've given numerous indications of what the benefits might be, but I'll give some more.
1. An option for those who believe that they don't approve of the central bank policies behind all currencies.
2. Not wanting a currency tied to any particular country and thus not watching the currency heavily affected by the economic fluxuations of a particular economy.
3. More competition to find the best mangers of a currency and the best currency policies, not having them influenced by government policy that might not be consistent to maintaining wealth
4. Seriously, nigger, look up why bitcoin is such a huge craze. You may not a agree with their reasons, but if private individuals should have the right to create currencies, so should banks and any entity, as longer as there are reasonable protections against inflation and fraud. If it were that a serious concern, we would force all countries to follow a certain monetary policy with their currency unless they destroyed the economy, yet Zimbabwe has been free to fuck up its currency with little damage to anyone but themselves, which, again, would be much lessened is people in Zimbawe could use any currency they wanted that couldn't be inflated by the government and have its wealth destroyed.
>>80805345
That government only functions by stealing through stealth the wealth of the people by printing the currency they're forced to use, buying products cheaper that they would have before prices have been corrected to reflect the expansion of the money supply, and having the prices raised that the Zimbabwe citizens have to then effectively pay. All the governments to this to some extent and it would be preferable to have a currency that would be virtually impossible to significantly inflate because such an amount of capital for short-selling does not exist, (to which not even the pound was safe as Black Wednesday showed), and that it would fall in value as the entire economy fell, which would result in more of an equilibrium.
>>80795762
yfw paul ryan curls in the squat rack
>>80805345
>The point of a bank or any other private company is to make profit.
And the point of an entire country is to what? By this logic, nobody would ever own the currencies of other countries because they might effect policies that are not in the interest of those who hold the currency outside the country, as surely, you aren't the one they mean to bennefit. The US dollar is by far the most widely used reserve currency, yet every time the money supply is expanded, (by whatever means), it lowers the value of their reserves and the US is effectively robbing their value by stealth.
>>80805345
>If they decide to create a currency they expect to make a profit from that.
By this logic, you shouldn't use banks at all.
>>80795298
he was never based even in 2012
He does nothing but bend over for every leftist agenda item; he wants everything they do, except slightly slower and with more Shabbos goy-ing for super pozzed mega corporations and people like Soros, because "muh free market values"
>>80805345
>For some reason I don't entirely think that this is beneficial for me.
Look, this has been a racked discussion, but I think there are numerous benefits to having more competing currencies, especially ones with no inflationary policies. One could effectively do this by buying commodities themselves which in theory would be less likely to change in value because no government in imposing an inflationary policy on them, (unless it's manufacturing the commodity), but unfortunately, commodities can be extremely variable in prices. While one day, you might gain more than you invested, the other, it might be significantly less than you need, which is much less likely to happen to currency only because of how larger they are and how their usage doesn't change, unlike oil, cow, gold, silver, etc.
>>80795555
Go to sleep Paul Ryan.
>>80805345
>For some reason I don't entirely think that this is beneficial for me.
Then don't use it. While it is a compromise, let banks create currencies that people think would be better managed than those by central banks, i.e., no inflation and not tied up with questionable assets and other currencies for political reasons little to do with insuring the value of money.
Honestly, if there were only state owned banks in existence, all these arguments with little variation could be made to apply to them. If a bank is small, it's unlikely to massively distort money by through fraud. If it's large, it becomes that much more difficult and far more people interested in keep the practice legal.
Ryan is an attractive man but he seems to lean left on most issues.
Doesn't really think Islam is a problem.
Supports immigration.
Allows Obama unconstitutional shit to pass.
Sorry but he is a Republican like George Bush was a Republican.
A true RINO.
I mean you all hate Ben Shapiro here right?
Shapiro looks like a fucking conservative KING compared to Ryan and its clear that neither like Trump.
So go ahead and replace Ryan with Shapiro please. That'd be a huge upgrade. Also unlike Ryan our Benji wouldn't bend over for Obama AT ALL.
>>80806733
>Sometimes an increase or decrease in money supply is needed for example in the times of an economic crisis.
And I don't allow that to be effectual. People apparently forgot in their drunken rationalization to have the most short-term mindset possible in trying to fix economies during recession that in embracing the "New Economics" as a license to spend as much money on projects of no apparent productive value and inflate their money supply as much as possible in order to stave off the deflation bogey man that Keynes recommended that counties create surpluses during booms which they can use to spend on stimulus programs or lower taxes, so as to have a less violent boom and to have less deficit spending, and that monetarists recommended having high interest rates high during booms so as not to create inflation. But this never is regarded because these supposedly well-considered policies by governments supposedly applying Keynesian or monetarism is basically an admission that they are utterly desperate and any economic activity has to be had now. There are exceptions to this, (like Thathcher's inconsistent implementation of monetarism), but the basis for most governments policies really don't have the strong basis that people usually think they have. Obviously, spending more money and having low interest rates and better for immediate short-term growth, but an economy cannot spend or lend its way out of a economy without serious repercussions.
>>80806733
>You could of course let it solve itself naturally or you could alleviate it if you control the monetary system.
This wouldn't be necessary because interest rates naturally decrease during recessions and it's often apparent that it was unnaturally lowed, (by a central bank), interest rates during the boom the caused or exacerbated the recession. Most busts that aren't caused by something unforeseeable, (like a natural disasters or war), can be alleviated by, during the boom, interests rates naturally increasing, encouraging saving, and discouraging consumption, which makes the boom last shorter and less violent and frees up more capital when interests rates are lower in a recession or bust to take advantage of lower prices.
By the way, I wasn't talking about monetary policies during recessions, but comparing commodity-backed currencies with fiat, (actually more like modern fiat currencies). My comment did not apply particularly to times of recession, but generally, because inflation is always happening. It's hardly comforting that, during a boom, when policy like this is not only unnecessary but counteractive, in three years a person's retirement fund is wiped out by nearly 10%, which could easily happpen with inflation 3% above interest rates. Here, there isn't even the excuse of "stimulus," for a recession, because it's happening during a boom, while a recession could wipe out their fund even more.
>>80806733
>This can be done if you have a system that is effectively in the hands of the government.
Oh, you mean like Hungary in the mid-1940s with a daily inflation rate of 204 percent a day, Zimbabwe in 2007 with a daily inflation rate of 98 percent a day, Yugoslavia in 1992 with a daily inflation rate of 65 percent, Weimar Germany in 1992 with a daily inflation rate of 21 percent, Greece in 1941 with a daily inflation rat of 14 percent, etc.
>inb4 extreme examples
>inb4 you're naive enough to think nothing like that could possibly happen where you live
Please, if you want to take the risk, go ahead. As Soros and Buffet recently said, cash is the worst asset they could hold, but for many people, stocks are too risky, funds pay shit above inflation or are too risky, commodities aren't practical or are too risky, futures are too risky, etc. and you're basically sitting there, taking it up the ass on inflation because there's one shit sandwhich that is government currency, and we all have to take a bite. Bullshit. The risk to you personally by me or millions in having a private, circulating currency is negligible, even if there were little to no regulation, even though there could be heavy regulation, which would be better compromise than than what's had now, which is nothing.
>>80806733
I explained it pretty thoroughly, leaf. If you want to pick certain parts apart, go ahead. But don't have me type my fingers to the bone just for you to shitpost and say, "Well, I know you gave your reasons, but I don't see your reasons,"
>>80806733
>And even a predictable system with a limited amount of currency can change value dramatically (see cryptocurrencies and other such things).
So what? It's less likely to change because a government is at war and need to pay for it with money it doesn't have, savings account holders be dammed. It's also less likely to fluctuate than if you live in a shit country, which an extraordinary number of people do.
>>80807375
>Give me a few examples of a private currency working well.
Bitcoin, Litecoins
