Archives for June 2014
I’m really not an alarmist, and I see a different problem with fractional reserve banking than most others do (it’s the government’s fiat monopoly on money creation and centralized policy, dummy—not that loans, per se, create new money based upon fractions and multipliers).
In very brief, fractional reserve banking can and has been carried out in a completely private manner, and money can, in a manner of speaking, be “printed in the back room” in order to make loans (create new money) based solely upon any bank’s own standard of risk, and the faith or trust of its depositors (customers). The catch is, there’s no central authority (nor ought there be) to force policy upon the bank or its customers; nor is there anyone (nor ought there be) to bail out the bank if they get it wrong and fail.
If the bank comes into hard times, then they first increase their self-imposed reserve requirement—all the way up to 100% if necessary—necessitating that they have to make their money by charging customers the true cost of banking, and not by means of earning interest on loans backed by debt risk (money creation, again). If that’s not enough, then the bank might have to sell assets, lay off workers, reduce overhead, or, borrow from another private bank (presumably, at commensurate high interest rates).
Occasional bank failures would be good and healthy. People would learn not to keep all their money in a single bank, just like they don’t keep their investment portfolios in a single stock. And, rather than an FDIC, people could purchase their own insurance (new business opportunity), at a price that bears the full cost of the risk plus a profit to the insurer.
This is economics, banking, and sound business practices 101 in a Free Market—which is why it doesn’t exist in The Land of the Free, nor about anywhere else. …Because, we live in lands dominated by thieves, run by parliaments of whores.
But what about a Gold Standard (or any commodity, or bundle of commodities)? In principle, it’s the same as with any national monetary system: force-backed authority trumps market forces. Duh. This has been my eternal quibble with “libertarians” for over two decades. It’s. State. Force. Stupid. Don’t forget that the gold standard was in play during the great depression. In fact, business and monetary shocks are amplified in a gold standard. Why? Not because of the idea that currency is backed by some commodity (fine, knock yourself out), but because it’s just a different set of “rules” the state uses to manage its imposed monopoly on money. In essence, it’s a tradeoff between inflation (little under a gold standard, lots under fiat) and central bank flexibility to manipulate markets (little under a gold standard, lots under fiat). It’s just a different rule book is all, with associated pluses and minuses for each given the landscape of a monopoly State—but completely the same in principle: force-backed monopoly currency. Also, don’t forget that inflation originated with both governments and individuals clipping coins minted in precious metals, like gold and silver.
Coin debasement is the act of decreasing the amount of precious metal in a coin, while continuing to circulate it at face value. This was frequently done by governments in order to inflate the amount of currency in circulation; typically, some of the precious metal was replaced by a cheaper metal when the coin was minted. But when done by an individual, precious metal was physically removed from the coin, which could then be passed on at the original face value, leaving the debaser with a profit. Coin debasement was effected by several methods, including clipping (shaving metal from the coin’s circumference) and sweating (shaking the coins in a bag and collecting the dust worn off).
In a free market (including money and currency), you’d be welcome to do business with any “money warehouse” or bank that you wish. Contrary to so much ignorance that prevails, a 100% reserve is not really a bank. It’s just a warehouse and your tradeable “notes of currency” are just receipts for your gold (or whatever) in storage, and you have to pay them to keep your money in safe keeping—just like you have to pay the local U-Stor-It place for years to keep all the junk you haven’t needed for years. Banking implies a fractional reserve. But, in a free market you don’t have to. You can cut your risk to nothing and just pay for storage services.
If you ask me how it could work if we had dozens or even hundreds of different currencies in the U.S., all issued by different private banks, I’ll answer with a question: how does it work on planet earth at large? You have currency exchanges, businesses that make their money on the buy/sell spread. And, you also have currency trading such as FOREX, where arbitrage is possible.
…It’s often claimed that new money created by means of loans made in a fractional reserve system isn’t backed by anything, contrasted with gold as a reserve. I disagree and have always disagreed. In meta-terms, new money is backed by humanity itself, it’s generally good nature, creativity, productivity, and good will. Principal elements include:
- Fixed assets owned by people and businesses taking out loans (houses, cars, boats, airplanes, land, capital equipment, commercial buildings, etc., etc., etc.)
- Track records of success
- Ideas and well-laid plans
- FUTURE LABOR (in the simplest sense, taking out a personal loan is to sell your future labor and productivity now, at a discount that equals the service you pay on the loan)
- A PROMISE TO REPAY (in general, humans are pretty good on their word and by far and away, most loans get paid back according to the terms of the contract)
You could go on and on, if you thought about it. Or, think of it this way: unless most humans that have ever existed were net economic values to themselves and society over the full course of their lives, we could not exist and for damn certain, not at the levels of population and opulence so many now enjoy—with increasing numbers getting on that train all over the world every day in developing countries.
I capitalized points 5 and 6, above, for this very reason: the quite remarkable value of human beings to themselves and others, per se, over the course of a lifetime. Unfortunately, we live in a world where a minuscule less-than-1/100th of a percent of “elected” rulers take credit for every good and lay blame elsewhere for every wrong.
I’ve been paying attention to Doug Casey, on & off, for over 20 years. I encourage you to take 45-minutes to watch these two videos; the first, a 15-minute interview about the documentary, then the documentary.
You’ll have to provide an email to watch the 30-minute documentary for free. You don’t even have to subscribe to the ongoing email/newsletter list, and they vow to not sell or divulge your email. I did this yesterday and have yet to receive any email from them.
If you’re still not convinced, they have three 1-2 min clips of the documentary on their YouTube Channel.
Pay particular attention to Casey’s admonitions to not waste your time trying to “fix the system.” It’s unfixable. Rather, learn to profit from it as is. So, that implies sound, diversified investing. But he also admonishes you to “diversify politically.” Pay attention. That’s my primary personal objective, currently.
An interesting TED I watched yesterday and recommend.
I think it might be about 80% what I think about it all.
The ‘‘Metabolic Winter’’ Hypothesis: A Cause of the Current Epidemics of Obesity and Cardiometabolic Disease
Raymond J. Cronise, BS,(1) David A. Sinclair, PhD, (2,3) and Andrew A. Bremer, MD, PhD (4),*
The concept of the ‘‘Calorie’’ originated in the 1800s in an environment with limited food availability, primarily as a means to define economic equivalencies in the energy density of food substrates. Soon thereafter, the energy densities of the major macronutrients—fat, protein, and carbohydrates—were defined. However, within a few decades of its inception, the ‘‘Calorie’’ became a commercial tool for industries to promote specific food products, regardless of health benefit. Modern technology has altered our living conditions and has changed our relationship with food from one of survival to palatability. Advances in agriculture, food manufacturing, and processing have ensured that calorie scarcity is less prevalent than calorie excess in the modern world. Yet, many still approach dietary macronutrients in a reductionist manner and assume that isocalorie foodstuffs are isometabolic. Herein, we discuss a novel way to view the major food macronutrients and human diet in this era of excessive caloric consumption, along with a novel relationship among calorie scarcity, mild cold stress, and sleep that may explain the increasing prevalence of nutritionally related diseases.
I like to think Ray is a friend of mine. We’ve had heated email exchanges that have been over the top in vitriol over a few years. OTOH, I recall our first phone convo a few years back and he told me to look out for potatoes.
And look where I am.
…Ray did a successful campaign to get enough money donated (about $3k) to get the paper free download for all, so do him the courtesy of reading it.
Back up to the mountain retreat at 4,000 ft elevation.
Returning next Thursday afternoon. I have a number of blog posts planned, in the works. Lots of book editing. It’s 90% rough drafted, 1/3 – 1/2 manuscript ready for the publisher. Dumped all 21 chapters into a single file yesterday and 12-pt type with 1″ margins, it comes to ~450 pages. 157K words apart from the citations, 174K with the citations.
Because, if you do that, eventually, they’ll go after Ice Cream Trucks (to protect the chillins—you have to protect the chillins).
Fine Gael senator Catherine Noone today warned that the “persistent use of chimes” of ice cream vans represent an “aggressive form of selling”.
Ms Noone said she has been contacted by parents who claim ice cream vans visit their estates up to five times per day.
The Dublin senator said she believes the “pester power” of these vans are adding to the issue of child obesity.
Speaking in the Seanad, Ms Noone admitted that her call for regulation will be met with humour.
But she said the impact of these vans on obesity among children is very serious.
“As I talk about it, it does seem frivolous on the face of it. But it relaters to an issue of pester power,” Ms Noone said.
“The reality is children are very interested in sugar and very addicted to it in lots of instances. It’s not that I’m anti-ice cream but the persistent use of chimes in public streets and in estates is an aggressive form of selling and it wouldn’t be countenanced in any other industry.”
Seems that not all of the Puritans got on the boats way back—America being proof you ought never let too many in boats at one time.
Let’s not disappoint Ms. No One, and meet it with a splash of humor.
Women are human beings, and consequently have all the natural rights that any human beings can have. They have just as good a right to make laws as men have, and no better; AND THAT IS JUST NO RIGHT AT ALL. No human being, nor any number of human beings, have any right to make laws, and compel other human beings to obey them. To say that they have is to say that they are the masters and owners of those of whom they require such obedience.
There is a sharing policy at my son’s preschool. It’s a parent-run co-op, so we have to have policies like this so that we will all handle situations relatively the same way. The policy is that a child can keep a toy as long as they want to. If another child wants the toy, they have to wait until the first child is done with it. We’ll even “save” toys for the child if they have to go to the bathroom, go to the snack table, etc. so that it won’t get taken before they’re done. This applies to anything in the yard or school that can be played with, including swings and monkey bars.
At first, it didn’t really occur to me to wonder why this was the policy. I just went with it, because that’s the rule, and it didn’t seem like a big deal to me. The kids all know the rule, so outside of maybe their first two weeks at the school, they don’t throw a giant fit when you tell them, “You can have it when Sally Jo is done.” But lately I’ve been noticing a totally different attitude toward sharing in other places we go, and I’m starting to really know exactly why this is the school’s policy.
You all remember the bullshit:
“It’s Sally Jo’s ‘turn,’ now.”
“You ‘have’ to share.”
“Don’t be ‘stingy.'”
…Et cetera. Continuing:
I don’t agree with the approach of the mothers in either of these situations. I think it does a child a great disservice to teach him that he can have something that someone else has, simply because he wants it. And I can understand the desire to give your children everything they want; we all have it. But it’s a good lesson for you both to learn that this isn’t always possible, and you shouldn’t step all over other people to get these things.
Furthermore, this is not how things work in the real world. In your child’s adult life, he’s going to think he’s owed everything he sees. This is already happening in the next generation. I read a fascinating article about how today’s teens and 20-somethings are expecting raises and promotions at their jobs for reasons like, “I show up every day.”
If you doubt my reasoning, think about your own day-to-day adult life. You wouldn’t cut in front of someone in the grocery checkout line just because you didn’t feel like waiting. And most grown adults wouldn’t take something from someone, like a phone or a pair of sunglasses, just because they wanted to use it. […]
It’s hard, as with so many things about parenthood, but let’s teach our kids how to cope with disappointment, because it happens. And we won’t always be there to fix it for them. Let’s teach them how they can get things they want through diligence, patience, and hard work.
Well, I got a typical commie collectivist in Facebook comments, Jonah Zelinka:
Whenever a kid doesnt want to share, I calmly explain to my daughter than the other kid is a new-aged cheapskate neo-con addicted to objects instead of the need for friendship and things that actually matter.
My daughter shrugs and goes on sharing her stuff.
If you have to teach your kid sharing is wrong, then do we really want this kind of sick society where we cling to pieces of plastic and oil products that we have to war over just to have?
I bet no one is playing with that sorry-ass kid and it is not his fault, it’s his mother’s.
Plus, it wasn’t his car, it was the playground’s. Teaching kids sharing is more important than driving around some plastic piece of shit with your feet, that is not a skill; sharing is.
Did you see what he did, there, in typical commie fucktard lying fashion?
“If you have to teach your kid sharing is wrong…”
…Alright, let me unpack this for any who still don’t get it. Forced sharing is commie, collectivist bullshit and the root of virtually all social problems the world over. The state forces you to share—not your home, car, clothes, TVs, iPads and beds—but it steals 25-50% of your time via your income/productiveness, and shares it with the cannibals.
See, “sharing” is the primary in this kinda sycodouche, rather than it being the natural outgrowth of good will as social animals.
“What have you done for me lately?”
Sharing is sublime, creative, division-of-labor animal behavior and you see it everywhere animals live in social groups. It’s completely natural and is the principle way that any individual learns to become integrated with a group he or she wishes to belong to.
But it is not a primary, and that’s the critical distinction. It’s simply a form of trade: value for value. Forcing kids to share, for the purpose of teaching them to share is merely socialist, commie indoctrination—that their life’s justification is the granting of the arbitrary claims of others. It’s credo? They want it; or, “From each, according to their abilities; to each, according to their ‘needs.'” They’re born with a life mortgage. Original Sin, I guess.
There’re many levels to this mind disease, too. For example: teach them to not be discriminating: it’s better to share your stuff with the kid you hate, rather than the one you love.
The kids will learn to share on their own. They’re social animals, so they must. Not letting it proceed totally naturally—where a kid doesn’t naturally learn for himself that over-sharing and under-sharing have associated social costs—is just typical total commie-sociailist bullshit, fit for for socialist-commie fucktards.
Tell me in comments what are your favorite ways to share. My top 2:
- Cooking, thereby creating engaging situations for a few people, be they friends or family.
- Writing this blog, 10 years, nearing 4,000 posts and counting (and 85,000 comments).