Company store.

[mididoctors]

First off congratulations and thanks to all who have contributed to creating this debate and proposal for financial reform.

From a socio-political perspective I wonder whether such a system in time may concentrate power into the hands of of credit creators and produce a mega indentured work force bound to the mega company store... which has historical precedent on a smaller scale. There are some dystopian [and non trivial] dangers with this idea.

Now AFAICS the use of this system is somewhat politically agnostic and does not preclude any manner of different  regulatory frameworks including [if we choose] a world with no corporations, or not! This agnostic open framework quality attracts me to the idea.

I think any new monetary system  shouldn't be thought of as a panacea for human ills. its role is remedy specific failures in the current monetary system and its inescapable maths. What s permissible in behavioral terms is a political and moral debate which operates on top of a transparent monetary system that does not in off itself dictate the nature of any political struggle/debate.

does that make sense to anyone?

[Jordan]

It doesn't make sense too me.  Have you studied Austrian economics yet?  I think if you do you'll see that what you're positing isn't very likely if at all possible. For a quick (hour long) lecture on the topic, I recommend the following video:

Competition and Monopoly by Dr. Benjamin Rogge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APr6exqcHgE

Being only a hour and giving only a few examples and ideas, it merely scratches the surface, but can give you an idea about the some of the Austrian views and in particular your concern about the concentration of power in a free market - which, IMO, would be the result of the use of competing alternative currencies, unregulated by a government.

To learn more I recommend F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Surfdom", or Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson".  For many more books, some of them free, have a look at the Mises Foundation website - http://mises.org.

[mididoctors]

It doesn't make sense too me.  Have you studied Austrian economics yet? 

Hayek is everywhere.

I am somewhat underwhelmed by any school of economics as they barely survive contact with reality

I think if you do you'll see that what you're positing isn't very likely if at all possible. For a quick (hour long) lecture on the topic, I recommend the following video:

Perhaps I need to rethink the question.  I will watch the video

[mididoctors]

RE Rogge

thanks for the link entertaining.


I think I have an innate mistrust of ideas that stretch to fill a void or cover up contrary evidence and insight.

Benjamin Rogge falls into this category for me. While I take on board many of his notions concerning the changing sizes of market share and perhaps the notion that almost complete monopolies still have to operate as thou other competitors exist despite their absence, I find his assertion that the consumer is not controlled or manipulated as boarder line juvenility. Nor is the base assumption that competition actually produces by default a good outcome ever questioned. Even [by whatever structure or means] we achieve it.

I do not dismiss out of hand that monopolies or oligopolies may find it impossible to create the dystopia scenario I outlined. Its just I am not sold on the sort of reasoning that emanates from these market philosophies such as Hayek.

what is more interesting is how the coercion is not correlated with manipulation and elite power in the Hayekian mindset despite that the Popes of these economic schools have seeked to bend both the market and governments to there way of thinking in a non transparent manner

The market of 2nd hand ideas

I find nothing wrong per sae with persuasion as I think it is integral to the political nature of humankind I just find it a self contradiction when viewed from a market/freedom perspective. To do so requires seizing power by the few and that is exactly what Hayek attempted to do with some rather odd consequences  IMO.


All that aside I still find the Digital coin mechanism compelling...

[Jordan]

Aplogies for not geting back sooner -- holidays and kids ya know!   

RE Rogge

thanks for the link entertaining.

Yes, a good talk for sure, I've watched it a few times.

I think I have an innate mistrust of ideas that stretch to fill a void or cover up contrary evidence and insight.

Benjamin Rogge falls into this category for me. While I take on board many of his notions concerning the changing sizes of market share and perhaps the notion that almost complete monopolies still have to operate as thou other competitors exist despite their absence, I find his assertion that the consumer is not controlled or manipulated as boarder line juvenility. Nor is the base assumption that competition actually produces by default a good outcome ever questioned. Even [by whatever structure or means] we achieve it.

I do not dismiss out of hand that monopolies or oligopolies may find it impossible to create the dystopia scenario I outlined. Its just I am not sold on the sort of reasoning that emanates from these market philosophies such as Hayek.

what is more interesting is how the coercion is not correlated with manipulation and elite power in the Hayekian mindset despite that the Popes of these economic schools have seeked to bend both the market and governments to there way of thinking in a non transparent manner

The market of 2nd hand ideas

I find nothing wrong per sae with persuasion as I think it is integral to the political nature of humankind I just find it a self contradiction when viewed from a market/freedom perspective. To do so requires seizing power by the few and that is exactly what Hayek attempted to do with some rather odd consequences  IMO.

All that aside I still find the Digital coin mechanism compelling...

Austrian economics isn't an attempt to create a 'utopia' (which literally translated means 'nowhere'), it is an attempt to create a vibrant society wherein people, individually or in groups, cannot EASILY take control and put their will over others.  Unless you have good evidence to the contrary, central control schemes that embody Keynesian economic theory ARE easily controlled and manipulated by the few and this destroys the incentive to save and invest, thus creating the consumer society that in turn is easily manipulated and controlled.

The KEY difference is that in one system people are manipulated through advertising and to some extent propaganda, but in the other system people are ultimately controlled by the use of force and coercion.  Personally, I'll take the potential to be deceived over the heavy hand of the state and its propaganda that it's doing what its doing in our best interest.

Aside from the theory and consequences of both Keynesian and Austrian views I'm not aware of any other economic system, that doesn't go back to the first principles of one or the other.  If you are I'd like to know about it    What I guess I'm saying is, you're either for individual choice including the potential for failure of each individual in a civil society that respects natural law ( for my definition of natural law see here: http://earthsociety.org/freedomaustralia/2010/11/natural-law-rights/ )  OR you are for having some central 'authority' body save you from yourself -- and biology and history are very clear here - biology tells us that we need diversity and central control is the opposite, biology also tells us that we have inherent genetic self interest and this means putting man over man in any way will result in eugenics. History shows us that this happens, time and again. Ultimately no man or authority knows the future, no matter what they may claim, hence all eugenics is about control -- putting the genes of the authority over the genes of those who are not in authority. It is not about what is best for society. For me, this is the nail in the coffin for Keynesianism.  Again, if know of a system/philosophy that is better than the Austrian system in terms of allowing diversity and preventing eugenics, I'd love to know about it.

Cheers

[mididoctors]

I think fixed ideological positions on anything is a out dated concept especially in economics which "tends" to analysis conditions in a series of static snapshots rather than [as in reality] a complex folding and dynamic process that defies description until after the event.

I see a time and place for all forms of economic modeling from the open market to the command economy.

This idea you are either for or against is a primitive reading of how IMO human affairs should be conducted because I see no contradiction in holding both views [or some variation of] at different phases of a particular problem. This inability to embrace the common sense of eclecticism is a failure of our time. But once embraced allows one to move in thought off the end of the spectrum of ideas and embrace radical change.

ie digital coin