Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (111973)	5/24/2010 8:55:08 PM
From: maceng2	1 Recommendation Respond to of 116555

O.K. Deficit spending can occur with a hard currency, but is much more likely to occur with a fiat monetary system. There is some evidence in the field to support my argument :-) usdebtclock.org we have another piece of evidence in the UK debtbombshell.com I have read up a little on currencies and money. I liked this video. brasschecktv.com There is various ways a "run on the bank" can be prevented, I don't think using a fiat monetary system improves the reliability of banks at all. The system I suggested allows for as much local control (local currency) as you like. The existence of a world wide super currency would actually promote it. Exchange rates operated by the free market would determine the value of the local currency. It could lead to all sorts of efficiencies that benefit the general population. A simplification is needed. Marry that to a simple form of tax law (real free world trade would promote a better form of taxation, the less taxed more easily earn a profit) There would be less bankers and bureaucrats probably, but somehow we could live with that -g- Standards of living and cultural differences could simply compete toe to toe. I doubt the imbalances would be any worse then already exist today. What's there not to like? O.K. it would be a big scary change but we are lined up for one of those anyway.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (111973)	5/25/2010 12:28:11 AM
From: John Metcalf	1 Recommendation Respond to of 116555

"many various kingdoms would borrow money in order to finance their wars, palaces, and internal infrastructure." One of the wisest related remarks is that if you lend to the King, you have to have a way to collect from the King. Historically, that has been by financing the King's adversaries. With stakes on both sides, the lender adjusts terms to manipulate each borrower. Consider France's finance of the US Revolution, and their subsequent finance of the Confederacy. Were either of these principled positions, or were they betting their book? Does deficit matter? Nah, only power matters, to the victor or loser, in such times. A state of equilibrium between nations should be desired by all people. Throughout history, governments have not demonstrated an ability to maintain equilibrium. Yeah, right.