Paul Cuckhold Ryan

>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?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=q-PlqqK9B9Y
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

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.

>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

Ryan isn't even a conservative

he's like a radical leftist/jihadist who stumbled into Wisconsin.

...

Biden laughing like a fucking manic =/= btfo in a debate

JUST

He read Benji?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

>idolizing Rand and Mises

is that supposed to be a good thing?

For fiscal policy, yes.

>"hello, fellow weightlifters"

...

It isn't thought.
You are just giving the control of your country to the banks and the financial system in general.

well you're wrong

government spending for the good of your country and your race>cutting budgets because "muh freeeedumbs"

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

youtube.com/watch?v=q-PlqqK9B9Y

he's got his eye on 2020

...

...

...

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.

...

Lol he was badass but Biden wiped the floor with him in that debate. He got fucking destroyed

>government spending for the good of your country and your race

Like? Do you mean a wall? Anything else?

This. Fascism and traditionalism > All.

"freedumbs" Go to hell man. You don't deserve American Exceptionalism and to even observe American Values.

>2012: He the most based mother fucker and more interesting than Romney

no one ever said this

nice try you Peurto Rican half-nigger

>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.

>having left views in a white republican state is based
>I forgot it's number
and
>pokemon go has done more for health than obama regime

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.

no

banks create money from nothing (credit)

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

>What went wrong?

$$$$$$$$$$

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

>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.

>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.

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.

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.

he's a globalist shill traitor

>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.

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.

>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.

He's been promised the moon by the globalists.

>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.

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 Sup Forumss first or second favorite politician? Because I'm basically reading from his bible, and I'm not even a massive Paul fan.

>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

>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.

he's a globalist bitchboy. also a koch brothers puppet. destroyed thousands of peoples retirement in his home state

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

>Paul Cuckhold Ryan
>Hes a shill.
>He is the biggest pussy in politics
>Paul ryan is a traitor
>Paul Ryan's only consistent principle is sucking thick poz loads directly from Obama
>He's been promised the moon by the globalists.

We have this picture of Ryan in a local gym on the wall of shame

>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.

>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

>Paul Ryan
>2012
>based

The fuck is wrong with this board anymore

>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.

>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.

Oh. Okay, lol.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

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.

>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.

>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.

Not illegal.
They are just choosing to not lend out any money or lend out more money. There is nothing illegal about that.

>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.

>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.

>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.

except that trump is a clinton plant ....

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

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.

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.

>what went wrong
Liberal appeasement

>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.

>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.

>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.>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.

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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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).

>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.