Who should run the federal reserve?

But they give an incentive to primary dealers to purchase more treasuries than they otherwise would have.

 

Okay, now you're just being obtuse.

My point is that money is a natural, emergent phenomenon that occurs on the market. There is no need for it to be produced by a central authority.

Monopolization of money is based upon violence, which is why I oppose it. Also, the idea that a central authority can determine the correct amount of money is as absurd as the idea that a central authority can determine the correct number of boots, or nails.

 

when companies print new stocks (not really printed much anymore) that is new money, they are basically selling shares they came up with out of thin air

their shares are actually like a product they are selling...

.

 

I do not dissagree. I think the solution should be to stop expansionism: I sincerely believe this - I think as the amount of people grows, naturaly for them to survive, more and more money needs to be printed, and it is not right - I think two children per family limit policy would fix that, but a complete power is needed to implement that, and I would not settle for anything less. also, I just started a thread titled digital money, because the question arises, what about the money that dissapears, gets burned etc. with digital money, you could also track down or eliminate illegal activity. it may seem like far fetched ideas to you, but imagination rules our world.

 

What do you mean "than they otherwise would have". How do you know how many treasuries they would buy?

 

Who would know best and why?

 

That's a pretty difficult question. Primary Dealers are mandated to be participants and create the market for treasuries, so I would assume they would have bought the treasuries regardless of Fed action... BUT for the Fed to keep interest rates low the Fed had to pump more liquidity in to the banking system. Basically an asset swap, when the Fed does "QE" not a single person in the private sector is any richer and banks don't have any more money to spend/loan/invest. The only thing it effects is the borrowing cost of money.

 

I should be running the Federal Reserve. Imagine being in charge of a cash cow, a goose that laid golden eggs! WOW!!!!

I'd show you how to to it!

 

You would have to pretend that you are doing a good job, hire many people to back you up, keep politicians greased at all times, eliminate those who dissobey like JFK, etc. lots of work, but bit power.

 

No, they don't. Central planning does not work.

 

OK, I'll do whatever it takes, just gimme that power!!!!!

Just kidding! lol

 

Not at all. When a company sells stock, they are selling ownership shares of their company FOR money. They are not creating money at all.

 

Ok. can you please explain how it should be decided if more paper money is needed, if let's say some of it dissapears or is lost, or burned etc. how would economy function with not enough money? I want to know clear details

 

Money is just like any other good or service. It should be priced and allocated by the market.

 

He doesn't have any ideas on what to do when a crisis happens. Because those ideas involve planning. His idea involves everyone doing what they want and the strong will survive. It's the Darwinists economic theory. No structure, no planning, no organization, just survival of the fittest. There would be no rules to issuing money, anyone can issue any money they want and it would be the peoples decision on which currency they'd want to use.

 

My ideas do not speak to survival of the fittest, though I do subscribe in some respects to an evolutionary understanding of markets, which, of course, is entirely consistent with the scientific evidence that biologists have observed. Unless you want to claim you do not believe in evolution, you must accept the fact that evolution explains humans, to include markets, which are nothing more than human phenomena. And, yes, I do favor LIBERTY AND FREEDOM as they are the most practical and rational means of economic allocation, which is why you have no problem with markets allocating cars, computers, food, water, etc.

 

Markets are not anything special. They are man made and can be evolved for betterment just like anything else. Understanding how markets fail or succeed is exactly how we have been able to constantly evolve our markets and become more and more complex. Just like everything else. Doctors now are much smarter than they were 200 years ago, scientists are smarter, engineers are smarter, there is nothing different with economists... who have learned and evolved over centuries. Even Adam Smith said the more complex an economy gets the more regulation it will need.

So you are just making up the fact that markets are something special outside of any other thing that we are able to gain an understanding of and increase it's complexity and efficiency.

 

This is confusing even to me, let alone an average person who pays little attention to the matter. how will people be able to buy things online, etc. if there will not be a solid currency? don't you think the economy will go back to stoneage? let's say I drive around to another state, and want to get gas. and they have different currency. how do I figure out how much to pay for gas and if I'm not being ripped off?

 

Once again you have totally misrepresented my argument. I did not say that they were "special", I simply said I analyze human life (to include markets and economies) through the lens of evolutionary science and that is how I have arrived at my positions in economics. You falsely accused me of being a social Darwinist and I simply corrected you by pointing out that my advocacy of markets as a pricing and allocation mechanism is not based upon "social Darwinism", though it related to the scientific work of Darwin on evolution because without an understanding of Darwinian evolution via natural selection you could not competently analyze any market phenomena.

 

He'll provide no answers because there is no structure. If you don't have whatever currency the merchant accepts than the merchant loses your business and you have to find gas elsewhere from some gas station that does except whatever you have to give them. It's the most illogical idea coming from the Libertarians. And they will swear that it will work simply because American's are magical and they would find a way to do it with out any planning whatsoever. "It will work itself out, just trust us"!

 

Darwinism does not explain what works best, it simply explains how things evolve. Central planning and organization has the ability to increase the efficiency of the market place. Being able to increase liquidity when the country needs it, having an infrastructure for the ability to transport massive amounts of production and data, having a legal system to uphold the law, a military defend the borders, etc, etc. What you are talking about is simply competition. Do you think the dinosaurs would have been better off if they organized themselves and planned for an ice age? Of course. Central planning isn't about telling you to choose Windows over Apple, it's about supporting the infrastructure, security, and economic interests of a group of individuals it represents. And learning through empirical evidence you can see what happens when certain economic events occur and what can be done to help lessen the devastation.

 

There would be multiple competing currencies offered by private firms like banks. For example, a bank could have a gold reserve and emit notes redeemable in gold. That same bank could also offer debit cards that facilitate electronic transactions denominated in gold. Due to the nature of markets and competition, currencies would become more affordable and provide more utility over time. The supply and demand aspect of it is fundamentally no different than any other consumer good or serve. Interest rates denote the price of money and supply and demand are determined by organic market processes. If you want a more technical explanation, you can research "competing currencies". Hayek and others have written about it.

 

I always provide answers to people who are not complete morons that troll threads all day.

 

9 out of 10 times it's you trolling my threads all day

 

I never said it did. I guess you just cannot be honest.