Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Either by freezing the monetary base and having money issued by banks that compete on a free market, and so have to issue money that is worth more to hold than competitors (in exactly the same way that devaluing the pound leads to fewer people trying to hold pounds, and selling them for other currencies instead); or by prohibiting fraudulent fractional reserve banking, and returning to a commodity based currency, with privately minted coins and privately issued money.
    See, this is a bad idea - you'll only get a tendency towards deflation as the economy and population grows. There's a reason the gold standard was dropped.
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    As for deflation, what is that? In the last half of the nineteenth century the US saw falling prices and high growth. Things getting cheaper all the time in real turms is what productivity is all about.
    Deflation of money - not necessarily good and services. Sure prices deflate, but that might have nothing to do with monetary deflation, which is a bad thing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Why? And why should the rights of ownership be inviolable?

    More to the point, if I plough a field, and then never touch it again, why should I be entitled to own it for all eternity.
    Well, you shouldn't; if something is abandoned by its owner, even libertarians have no problem saying it's up for grabs once again.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    So long as you have no savings, and live hand to mouth. Ever wondered why everyone is getting into so much debt these days and saving comparatively little?
    Given bank interest is usually above the rate of inflation, this isn't really an issue. Meanwhile deflation is hardly a more attractive option
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    Given that currency is ultimately a tradeable commodity in its own right, it is indeed almost certain that its price will change. The question is whether it should change according to how much people wish to pay for it, or according to the whims of a state agency.
    It is a commodity, but a special one. It is the only one all other goods and services are measured against. As such, it's inflation/deflation has a profound effect and it is better if this is controlled and kept slightly on the side of inflation as opposed to deflation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    No, what I'm saying is that if you plough the field and pick the vegetables that grow in the field, you are entitled to use those vegetables.
    So the best you have is temporal property rights, not permanent ones


    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Private property has existed since the Garden of Eden. It is most certainly not recent.
    Ignoring whether you believe in a literal Garden of Eden (terrifying as that would be), I'd have to say that the notion of an individual owning property rather than it being communally owned is very recent, it's not present at all in hunter gatherer communities at all, and private property rights only existed really in the past 500 years.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    So the best you have is temporal property rights, not permanent ones



    Private property has existed since the Garden of Eden. It is most certainly not recent.
    Ignoring whether you believe in a literal Garden of Eden (terrifying as that would be), I'd have to say that the notion of an individual owning property rather than it being communally owned is very recent, it's not present at all in hunter gatherer communities at all, and private property rights only existed really in the past 500 years.[/QUOTE]

    Are you arguing FOR private property? Or do you suggest that we should go back to hunter gatherer communities? I can't tell.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    Continuous inflation isnt a fact of life. Before the advent of a specific form of government interventionism, the value of money would fluctuate in both directions:



    Notice that for much of the history of the USD, deflation has been about as common as inflation. So to say that "inflation exists and nothing will change that" is simply wrong.
    To clarify, I meant inflation in both the positive and negative sense i.e. inflation and deflation as opposed to constant value.

    (Original post by Collingwood)

    'The interest part of monetarism'? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to imply, but altering the amount of money in circulation is how interest rates are manipulated by central banks. Do you think that they consent to lower or raise their prices to sub-optimal levels just because the government says it wants them to? This really isn't anything to do with monetarism (or something disputed by different factions), the central banks themselves and indeed Keynesians take this view.

    I'm talking about it because inflation is not as such the important factor. It is a tax on holding money, which I would argue is generally bad, but that isn't exactly anything special. Central banks do not set out to create inflation, it is a by-product of their manipulation of interest rates. And their manipulation of interest rates is (in my view) bad. It has all the same failings of other attempts by the state to plan the economy: the plan is almost always wrong, and when it is not honestly mistaken, it is being deliberately manipualted for cynical political gain.
    I wouldn't say interest is a by-product - it's the desired effect. The aim of monetarism is to give price stability. Interest manipulation is just a means to an end for that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emvard)
    Are you arguing FOR private property? Or do you suggest that we should go back to hunter gatherer communities? I can't tell.
    I'm doing neither, I'm merely disproving Don's assertion that private property rights are natural.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    So the best you have is temporal property rights, not permanent ones
    What do mean by permanent ones?

    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Ignoring whether you believe in a literal Garden of Eden (terrifying as that would be), I'd have to say that the notion of an individual owning property rather than it being communally owned is very recent, it's not present at all in hunter gatherer communities at all, and private property rights only existed really in the past 500 years.
    No, this is incorrect.

    The Native Americans (who were hunter gatherers mostly) did make extensive use of private property and ownership just (often) not of land because as they weren't an agricultural society, they didn't particularly need to.

    And Europe has always had private property. The Greeks had it, the Romans had it etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    So the best you have is temporal property rights, not permanent ones
    Someone or something is going to have permanent property rights; for most left-anarchists, it's the community, no? The question is, how does it get these rights?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Given bank interest is usually above the rate of inflation, this isn't really an issue. Meanwhile deflation is hardly a more attractive option
    Yeah, it is an issue, because central bank activity depresses (real) interest rates below what they otherwise would have been. It doesn't matter that (in Britain, at least), they don't usually pass below a psychological boundary whereby real interest rates are negative, saving is still depressed and borrowing stimulated compared to the market outcome.

    What do you have against deflation, btw? You've not explained why it is supposedly worse than inflation - surely everyone getting richer is a good thing, and everyone getting poorer a bad thing?

    It is a commodity, but a special one. It is the only one all other goods and services are measured against. As such, it's inflation/deflation has a profound effect and it is better if this is controlled and kept slightly on the side of inflation as opposed to deflation.
    Obviously it will be 'controlled', but by whom? A state agency or by people individually deciding what they think will work? Why do you think the state option is so convincing? It's failed spectacularly in every other industry it's been given to run, and banking hasn't turned out so great either...

    To clarify, I meant inflation in both the positive and negative sense i.e. inflation and deflation as opposed to constant value.
    Ah right. I think this makes your argument pretty ridiculous, then, because it can be applied to any commodity. If I said "the price is cars is certain to change, therefore it's better for everyone that the price decreases at a steady rate, enforced by the state", would you find this convincing? I think it's pretty obviously non-sequitur, and the practical disadvantages are far clearer than for the case of currency: It is almost certain that customers will either be overcharged, or the car companies will be unable to make money and go bankrupt. The chances of the state reducing the price by an arbitrary percentage each year is obviously unlikely to hit the market price.

    I wouldn't say interest is a by-product - it's the desired effect. The aim of monetarism is to give price stability. Interest manipulation is just a means to an end for that.
    I assume you meant inflation in the first sentence? If so, I'm not trying to comment on the central banks' motivations as such, but the mechanisms by which they implement their decisions. This is by creating or destroying money. Inflation is a side effect of that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Someone or something is going to have permanent property rights; for most left-anarchists, it's the community, no? The question is, how does it get these rights?
    What is it with the obsession with ownership?

    I've already said I don't believe ownership is a precondition for use.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Someone or something is going to have permanent property rights; for most left-anarchists, it's the community, no? The question is, how does it get these rights?
    You own something when you make use of it. There would presumabley be some form of local council, extremely decentralised, that would appropriate this temporary ownership. This would be made up of workers council's and be based firmly in democracy, leading to a much greater say for the average individual in how their society is run.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    See, this is a bad idea - you'll only get a tendency towards deflation as the economy and population grows. There's a reason the gold standard was dropped.
    Yes: To allow governments to inflate the money supply. By fixing the quantityt of money in circulation, purchasing power will only increase by increasing productivity: The only way you can buy more with your money is by increasing the number of goods and services that can be bought with it. That sounds like a good thing to me.

    Deflation of money - not necessarily good and services. Sure prices deflate, but that might have nothing to do with monetary deflation, which is a bad thing.
    Here are some links to articles and posts about deflation. Knock yourself out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Communist Daughter)
    You own something when you make use of it. There would presumabley be some form of local council, extremely decentralised, that would appropriate this temporary ownership. This would be made up of workers council's and be based firmly in democracy, leading to a much greater say for the average individual in how their society is run.
    And then everybody will starve or start trying to enforce property rights on resources and start trading.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    What do you have against deflation, btw? You've not explained why it is supposedly worse than inflation - surely everyone getting richer is a good thing, and everyone getting poorer a bad thing?
    Because deflation (of purely money at least) means that the value of my money will be worth more in the future than now. So why spend anything? With no-one investing or spending you end up in a deflationary spiral that's difficult to get out of just like in Japan in the 90s.

    However, if you refer to deflation in the 19th century, obviously that's far more transitory than the deflation I'm describing. However, this was just as bad - the boom and bust cycles of the 19th century made for economic instability, exactly what the central banks were set up to prevent.
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    Obviously it will be 'controlled', but by whom? A state agency or by people individually deciding what they think will work? Why do you think the state option is so convincing? It's failed spectacularly in every other industry it's been given to run, and banking hasn't turned out so great either...
    Well individuals don't control anything. The free market might 'work' but it can be extremely myopic. Hence the boom and bust cycles of the 19th century.
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    Ah right. I think this makes your argument pretty ridiculous, then, because it can be applied to any commodity. If I said "the price is cars is certain to change, therefore it's better for everyone that the price decreases at a steady rate, enforced by the state", would you find this convincing? I think it's pretty obviously non-sequitur, and the practical disadvantages are far clearer than for the case of currency: It is almost certain that customers will either be overcharged, or the car companies will be unable to make money and go bankrupt. The chances of the state reducing the price by an arbitrary percentage each year is obviously unlikely to hit the market price.
    But money isn't a normal commodity in the same way as cars. It is the only commodity that is directly and universally valued against every other commodity. Therefore it's value affects the value of everything else when most of you capital is stored in monetary values. As such, the state can't overvalue or undervalue as everything over or values and adjusts accordingly. In a free market system, you would have a currency who's value is so easily determined.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    What is it with the obsession with ownership?

    I've already said I don't believe ownership is a precondition for use.
    It plainly isn't: Thieves use things they don't own.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Yes: To allow governments to inflate the money supply. By fixing the quantityt of money in circulation, purchasing power will only increase by increasing productivity: The only way you can buy more with your money is by increasing the number of goods and services that can be bought with it. That sounds like a good thing to me.
    Except by increasing productivity on your part, you increase the value for everyone else. So where's the incentive to invest and increase productivity if everyone else's investing and increases in productivity collectively increases the value of your money far more than your efforts individually? It'd be much easier for me to just sit here on my money and watch it grow. Ideally you'd want a currency that has no inflation so you had a rigid measure against which you can compare value of objects.
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Here are some links to articles and posts about deflation. Knock yourself out.
    No need to be so patronising - I'm not going to waste my time trawling through articles on a site who's a priori beliefs are quite clearly stated.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Except by increasing productivity on your part, you increase the value for everyone else. So where's the incentive to invest and increase productivity if everyone else's investing and increases in productivity collectively increases the value of your money far more than your efforts individually? It'd be much easier for me to just sit here on my money and watch it grow. Ideally you'd want a currency that has no inflation so you had a rigid measure against which you can compare value of objects.

    No need to be so patronising - I'm not going to waste my time trawling through articles on a site who's a priori beliefs are quite clearly stated.
    Why not? How will you know that your views are correct if you ignore challenges to them?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Except by increasing productivity on your part, you increase the value for everyone else. So where's the incentive to invest and increase productivity if everyone else's investing and increases in productivity collectively increases the value of your money far more than your efforts individually? It'd be much easier for me to just sit here on my money and watch it grow. Ideally you'd want a currency that has no inflation so you had a rigid measure against which you can compare value of objects.

    No need to be so patronising - I'm not going to waste my time trawling through articles on a site who's a priori beliefs are quite clearly stated.
    Where can you find "impartial" articles?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    [on mises.org] No need to be so patronising - I'm not going to waste my time trawling through articles on a site who's a priori beliefs are quite clearly stated.
    At least they call a spade a spade. I've seen a fair few people claim to be impartial, but it's quite clear they've made up their mind already.

    Anyway, cognitive dissonance -- it's intellectually dishonest to shy away from articles and research that you disagree with solely because you disagree with it.

    *picks up Das Kapital again*
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 10, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.