FREE MARKET BANKING

Daily reminder the first country to eliminate their central bank and allow free market banking will have the highest living standards on earth within 5 years.

Massive high paying service sector jobs with dominate this country's economy to consume the goods the rest of the world has to produce for it.

The workweek would shrink to 2-3 days a week and people would retire much earlier. This will also lead to more jobs becoming available.

Everyone would have high saving rates. Houses would be inexpensive. Debt would be strongly discouraged economically.

Massive automation would take place as the cost of capital goods would be extremely cheap. This will lead to massive levels of technological innovation.

It would be extremely easy for the average person to start a business due to the cheap cost of capital goods.

Daily reminder actual free markets have prices falling all the time instead is going up.

Daily reminder America never had a system of free market banking for most of it's history. There were only patches of American history with free market banking. The panics that happened during the 1800s were due to government intervention in the banking sector. Sweden had the longest most successful period of free banking and that's what made them really rich.

Daily reminder the longest period of (relatively)free banking in America coincided with the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION where wages rose and prices fell.

Daily reminder central banks are the very reason the economy is a pile of shit and our generation is so fucked.

Basically what I'm saying is if we had a free market, the entire fucking country would be disneyland or universal studios and people would barely have to work.

Why would you NOT support this unless you were a shill that hated white people?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_business-cycle_theory
mises.org/library/save-bluefin-tuna-through-property-rights
wiki.mises.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

bump for free markets

Economists generally don't think money affects the total national income in the long-run, dude. The national income, in the long-run, is determined by technology, labor and capital. The Austrian obsession with money makes no sense.

>Daily reminder the longest period of (relatively)free banking in America coincided with the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION where wages rose and prices fell.

This "these two things occurred at the same time so one of them must have caused the other" reasoning is fallacious. Weren't you taught the scientific method and such in school?

Money coordinates production, without this coordination production gets diverted into the wrong sectors and is stagnated.

We want money to be where it can increase production and efficiency.

Correlation does not equal causation obviously.
But the typical leftist response to free market banking is that it will destroy production and result in economic stagnation is CLEARLY false as there was a massive period in american history where there was free market banking with stability and large amounts of economic growth.

Such coordination as you call it occurs in any system in which the rate of inflation isn't unpredictable. What is the advantage of free market banking over other systems? And regardless of its advantages, I don't see how you can claim that such a system would result in such large increases in standard of living.

Money generally doesn't affect long-run economic growth. To claim that free banking affects economic growth in either way, negative or positive, doesn't make sense. As far as I know, the only reason the choice of money and monetary policy is important is in relation to the business cycle and the ability to conduct stabilization policy by adjusting the supply of money.

amen brother

>Such coordination as you call it occurs in any system in which the rate of inflation isn't unpredictable.
No, it causes dis-coordination.

>What is the advantage of free market banking over other systems?
Deflation, higher living standards over time.
Less debt.
The 1950s and 60s is an example of a much better society than today.

>I don't see how you can claim that such a system would result in such large increases in standard of living.
Then why did wages rise while prices fall during the gilded age?

>Money generally doesn't affect long-run economic growth.
Yes it does.
Economic growth in the USA has stagnated over the past 30+ years thanks to central banking having total control over the economy.
increases in GDP are bullshit

GDP is not real economic growth

>Deflation, higher living standards over time.

You're attributing economic growth to money again. As far as I can tell, almost every economist accepts that the classical model of the economy applies in the long-run. Explain to me why the classical model is wrong.

>Then why did wages rise while prices fall during the gilded age?
>Economic growth in the USA has stagnated over the past 30+ years thanks to central banking having total control over the economy.
increases in GDP are bullshit

It's strange that an Austrian would rely on this post hoc fallacy so often when Austrians, especially Misesians, claim that economic theory should be entirely deductive.

bump

>You're attributing economic growth to money again.
No, I'm saying real wages go up as real prices go down. This increases real living standards.

>almost every economist
Who gives a shit, they're all delusional keynesians that have no idea how the economy works and believe that WW2 ended the depression.

>almost every economist
argument ad populum

>It's strange that an Austrian would rely on this post hoc fallacy so often when Austrians, especially Misesians, claim that economic theory should be entirely deductive.
Many austrians use deductive methods too.
Also I'm not totally an austrian.

>No, I'm saying real wages go up as real prices go down. This increases real living standards.

Money doesn't affect real wages in the long-run.

>Who gives a shit, they're all delusional keynesians that have no idea how the economy works and believe that WW2 ended the depression.

No, very few macro-economists in PhD programs these days are Keynesian. Keynesians are the ones who challenged the classical model and even they don't dispute that the classical model applies in the long-run.

If you argued that free market banking has some advantages over central banking systems, I would have been receptive. But when Austrians argue that money somehow determines the long-run performance of the economy, it's hard to take seriously.

>Daily reminder the first country to eliminate their central bank and allow free market banking will have the highest living standards on earth within 5 years.

Nope, they'll be leveled by a (((popular uprising))) and subsequent (((humanitarian intervention))) by the (((international community)))

>Money doesn't affect real wages in the long-run.
Yes it does, if real economic production increase thanks to free market banking real wages will increase.
The difference between wages and the cost of consumer goods absolutely effects living standards.

>No, very few macro-economists in PhD programs these days are Keynesian.
Bull fucking shit, they are keynesian lite or chigaco school. They are very very heavily influenced by keynesianism and at the very least support central banks.

>But when Austrians argue that money somehow determines the long-run performance of the economy,
Why do you totally ignore the fact that central banks can redirect capital to specific sectors of the economy?
How does that not effect long-run performance of the economy?

Money wouldn't increase real production. It doesn't change the available technology and supply of factors underlying the economy. Real wages and real prices of consumer goods are determined by supply and demand. Money is irrelevant.

>Bull fucking shit, they are keynesian lite or chigaco school. They are very very heavily influenced by keynesianism and at the very least support central banks.

No, you have an outdated understanding of the situation in macro-economics. The trend these days is macroeconomic theory built from neoclassical microeconomic foundations. For example, real business cycle theory is a neoclassical model of the economy with the added assumption of sudden technological shocks and it has laissez faire implications.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_business-cycle_theory

>Why do you totally ignore the fact that central banks can redirect capital to specific sectors of the economy?

In that case, it's not a simple matter of the choice of money and the supply of money. In this case, they're making investment decisions and that could affect the economy in the long-run.

>service sector jobs will dominate this country's economy to consume the goods the rest of the world
Stopped reading there, are you fucking stupid? That's one of the reasons why my country went into the toilet bowl in the past and we're doing our best to eliminate service sector economy and go back to industrialization which means to build more factories that highly needs robotic capabilities.

WRONG FAGGOT

If USA let their currency rise at the same time as this automation and service sector domination happened, they would have extremely high living standards and a booming economy

but they lowered interest rates and allowed for inflation

free market

Don't worry, blockchain will make the market truly free

when?

unfortunately this will not happen until real holocaust happens.

That's because you let liberals and jews ru(i)n your country.

Stupid leaf doesn't understand how economies and limited resources work. Go figure.

>DURRR I HAVE NO ARGUMENT
Every fucking time, holy shit.

Why do you love being poor?
I don't understand.

Kill yourself.

Whatever leaf, forgot to use Gadsden flag in OP I see. You keep posting this all the time, no life, sad.

USA was built on small government and private enterprise.

Only anti-american leftist cucks hate free markets.

You have zero fucking argument and you hate your own country and what it stands for.

Go move to north korea or china you brainwashed anti-american bootlicker.

Central bank supporting cucks need to have their throats slit.

Look at what happened in your home country to the Newfoundland fishery. That's what free markets look like.

You're a good goyim if you use a bank for anything other than petty spending cash, I keep all my saving in gold and cryptocurrency and I'm not even ancap

>cryptocurrency
You're a moron. Keeping your money in a speculative bubble.

>Newfoundland fishery

>tragedy of the commons
>free market

At least you tried kiddo.

better than fiat shit

Anti-free market fags need to fucking die.

You are actually retarded if you think they aren't related.

That's why I own gold too, also I've made pretty huge profits off of my crypto investments, keep sucking that (circumcised) fiat dick

No, at least it's not in a bubble and is actually holds it's value as a currency rather than a speculative asset.

>fiat
>holding value

Holy shit pick one and only one

Good for you, hope you sold them. Gold is also a speculative asset that can collapse. Stupid people buy gold, smart people buy the companies that mine the gold.

the free market means property rights
tragedy of the commons is always the fault of governments.

TRUE

As a currency. Fiat isn't meant to stuff in mattresses. It's meant to be invested. It's great if you have enough and aren't retarded.

>gold can collapse
>fiat holds value

Do you literally like in opposite world?

So you're saying the government should've regulated the fishery? This is fucking hilarious.

>like
live*

What gives gold value? What gives fiat value? I know Australians are fucking stupid, but please.

>So you're saying the government should've regulated the fishery?
No, they should have enforced property rights
ie. the free market

why is this so complicated for you?

So your plan in life is to invest as much of your capital as possible and keep almost no savings? That's a bold strategy Cotton

>what gives gold value
Well ignoring the obvious(jewelery) gold is also inherently valuable for it's use in electronics and other industrial applications

>what gives fiat value
Absolutely nothing, it has no inherent value

Nothing has inherent value.

You actually think privatizing the fisheries would have prevented a collapse? You really are retarded.

Yes because there would be a market of property rights for fishing grounds.

this

OP is just posting random nonse he read on some random blogs.

This guy gets it.

A market for the fishing grounds wouldn't prevent overfishing, you moron.

Better defined property rights is pretty much the accepted solution to tragedy of commons problem taught in microeconomics, dude.

read this and get back to me

mises.org/library/save-bluefin-tuna-through-property-rights
wiki.mises.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

many thigs hav inherent value. your life. tamed slaves.

many goods are competely fungible.

dont be stupid

>guys, we need to like, end the fed! they are jewish terrorists! all money is owned by rothschilds! d-do i sound like i know what i am talking about?

free market banking alone will not make a uptopia. for a utopia, we need to selectively breed our offspring to be super-intelligent with sperm donation eugenics.

I'm not reading anything an unstable manchild who tells me to 'kill myself' to. You have your own issues to work out, leaf. I know what tragedy of commons is, and I don't need your read about your puerile system that somehow tries to circumnavigate limited resources while somehow making everyone rich.

>Cost of a house in Britain goes from 3 times the yearly average salary to 50 times
>Minimum wage isn't enough to support yourself unlike the 1950s
>"Money doesn't affect the long run hurr"

Take a wild fucking guess when we dropped the gold standard

Listen to what you're saying. You're saying that the real prices for goods and services aren't determined by supply and demand.

pinochet

Typical liberal, obfuscating and running away from the conversation instead of confronting the argument. Quantitative easing and the inflation of of house prices is directly caused by the federal reserve.

you should kill yourself
how do you not understand how tragedy of the commons works

it's the fault of a lack of well defined property rights

read the links
retard

allowing central banks more power caused wage stangation

not free markets

>Quantitative easing and the inflation of of house prices is directly caused by the federal reserve.
THIS

GOD DAMMIT HOLY SHIT

You're retarded, man. I'm probably more pro-free market than you are. Pretty much nobody rejects the classical model of the economy in the long-run. You're a crackpot.

...

You're a leaf, so I can forgive you for lacking IQ. You've yet to explain how having a free banking system will achieve a higher standard of living.

A higher standard of living already does most of what you've said it does (e.g. 2-3 days a week, etc.), but you've not made the link.

Look at Somalia: they're technically an anarchist country. I'm sure they got private banks of some sort over their and it hasn't worked for them.

ou are a kike. here is suppnly and demand in cash, liquidity, loans and others as well

burn every jew alive

>You've yet to explain how having a free banking system will achieve a higher standard of living.
There is empirical evidence
It's called the gilded age.
Living standards for the working class dramatically increased during this time.

Why not try this now?

Get gassed.

>Look at Somalia: they're technically an anarchist country.
they are a failed SOCIALIST state that is controlled by their regional government and militias.
Not even close to a free market, Europe is more free market than them.

bump

stop reading zerohedge or whatever crap you read.

you are making the same thread every few weeks, and you are simply on the wrong track. in the op, you are mixing terms like money, central banks, economy, free markets all together, very incoherently. there is no proper, clean thought. no one understands what point you are even trying to make. most of all, you seem to have no proper understanding of the concept of "money".

my suggestion is that you read a bit about the purpose of money, how it comes into the economy etc. you need to get the basics straight. start with the wikpedia article.

if you can point out some mayor mechanics that can be changed to boost economy that no one figured out yet i am all ears.

People on Sup Forums really should be careful trying to draw conclusions from historical evidence or observing the world as it exists. The current situation in Somalia, for example, doesn't really tell you much about the effect of any particular policy because there are countless number of factors that differentiate Somalia from other economies. And we can't be sure that any particular policy or set of policies or institutions were responsible for rising standard of living during the Gilded Age because we can't observe what would have happened during the Gilded Age if those policies were different.

>stop reading zerohedge or whatever crap you read.
Because it angers you?
we are correct?
You are leftist cucks

>you are making the same thread every few weeks
Because it redpills people and they realize I am right.

>no one understands what point you are even trying to make
lol
countless people do
you seem to be too unintelligent to understand even basic economic concepts.
try getting an IQ test, I'm sure you would fail

if you are too dumb to understand this conversation I would suggesting closing the tab

please summarize in one sentence what you are proposing.

>free market banking policies coincided with massive increases in living standards for the working class
>but we CAN NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TRY THESE POLICIES NOW!!

How does it feel to be retarded?

Free market banking
making all keynesians lose their jobs

I'm guessing you never learned how to conduct experiments in school.

The expiriments were already conducted
it was called the gilded age

we learned that free markets benefit the working class on a massive scale

living standards increase more than any other leftist shithole

kill all leftists

i think you are trying to say that money should not be lend by the central banks to banks / central banks should not set interest rate.

i fail to see what mayor effect this would have on the economy, give than money is primarily used only for transactions, and short term storage of value.

its true that the existence of money provides huge efficiency gains to the economy (fungibility, no barter trades etc), but playing around with interest rates doesn't really change transactions, or short term value storage. all the stories about fed policies creating bubbles are blown out of proportion. think of money as the role of oil for an engine. its important that its there, but you cant make the engine run better by optimizing the oil.

by the way, no one is forcing anyone to use money. if it is so bad, use something else.

It's pretty funny that you Austrians/pseudo-Austrians on Sup Forums are so careless about drawing conclusions from historical evidence. Mr. Praxeology Mises is rolling in his grave.

Sounds like a great plan friendo

because it works

t. jew

Again, running away from the conversation. The laws of supply and demand can't naturally occur when the federal reserve fucks with them.
By controlling the interest rates with government printed money and top-down control, this impacts all the other banks as well. Any chairman of the federal reserve will tell you that they do this on a regular basis.
Paul Krugman said we needed a housing bubble to replace the tech bubble that was about to pop.
So they know they can create a government made artificial boom in the economy, at the price of instability.
What do you think the word 'bubble' means?

So the banks are more willing to give out loans, and bigger loans as well. Real estate agents also know that their customers' wallets are thicker now, so they end up building bigger homes and charging more.
So only big, fancy homes are being built, because poor people now have cash in their pockets due to government fuckery.
And then, it turns out these poor people can't afford the big fancy house, and so they default on their loans. Everything goes belly-up.


So no, the natural laws of supply and demand did NOT take place. Government fuckery took place, and created an economic crisis.
Do some goddam research.

>So no, the natural laws of supply and demand did NOT take place. Government fuckery took place, and created an economic crisis.
Except they actually DO take place. The government keeps artificially boosting demand. This clashes with limited supply. As a result, bubble forms (in the stock, bond and property markets). A textbook example.

>the laws of supply and demand can't naturally occur when the federal reserve fucks with them.
some government entity provides a random ass asset, on their terms, and forcing nobody to use it.

you feel fucked over? dont take the credit, dont issue the credit, use another currency or gold instead, (i.e. make use of the free market).

it doesn't even matter if there is a bit of "too much investment" at some point or not due to monetary plocy. it all evens out in the long term. what people call "bubbles" are the most normal thing. markets go up and down, its what they do.

this whole subject is often perceived by people who have no economic education as super important, because there are important sounding discussions about it everywhere. these discussions take place because everyone uses money, so it effects everyone a tiny little bit. the overall effect on the economy of monetary policy, which is the subject of this thread, however is small.

>some government entity provides a random ass asset, on their terms, and forcing nobody to use it.

retarded yuropoor who knows nothing about how our federal reserve works or how interest rates work
Europeans physically cannot understand that society is largely self managed and does not need a government to rule over them

>society is largely self managed and does not need a government to rule over them
society is self managed, and has the option to use money provided by the government. society can also choose not to. do i got that straight?

I can do that too.
retarded Muricuck who knows nothing about how markets or the economy work
You clearly need a government to rule over you, I'm surprised you remember how to breathe on your own, faggot.

This is why I said you don't understand how an economy works, because you don't.

>some government entity provides a random ass asset, on their terms, and forcing nobody to use it.

Housing isn't "random ass" muhamed. Everyone needs a place to live. The government and top economists recognized housing as one of the biggest, most important industries in the entire economy. Only someone as uneducated as you would think it's "random ass".

And even though I am not forced at gunpoint to purchase a home that I cannot afford, my house is still affected by all the other people purchasing homes. When the crash happened a decade ago, everyone's homes plummeted in value, even if they had managed money responsibly. Not to mention, people losing their jobs everywhere.

>it all evens out in the long term. what people call "bubbles" are the most normal thing.

A business cycle goes through quick, tiny recessions and booms, ensuring no big downfall occurs, and no growth happens too fast. Government fuckery creates long, extended periods of both. Bubbles are not natural, they require a strong government to keep from popping. Again, only someone as uneducated as you would think that is natural.

Poland is a useless shithole that leeches off EU gibs. Your only redeeming factor is your catholicism.

It surely is no coincidence that the countries (e.g. Russia, Iran, China, North Korea) not under the globalized central banking system of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), are constantly being attacked by the media and political policies. Only when the head of the BIS snake is chopped off, will any real progress or change become possible. Until then, we will all continue to devolve and pay interest to print our own currencies, like idiots.

>Housing isn't "random ass"
We are talking about money. You clearly are retarded, didn't read the rest of the post. Have some random pic.

>We are talking about money

money isn't random ass either, and money and housing are extremely correlated in government action.

You're a german. You're used to your government destroying your population and your livelihood.
Typical liberal, running away from the conversation instead of confronting the argument.