Natural economic order

scineram:

Private individuals in their personal freedom lend money at interest.

This is just an assumption. It does not have to be.

Certainly not when money is taxed, and if you don't like taxes, when money is backed by food supplies. If wealth of the majority increases by banning interest, and the majority sees that, they will enforce it, because it is considered harmfull.

I cannot get a loan if I cannot pay interest. The majority is too smart to miss this.

You do not want to go all the way, and question everything.

Your believes will be shattered as were mine.

If you have a tax on money, and you have deflation, zero interest is very attractive.

Now you go to the bank and get 3% while the FED screws you by adding money supply 15%

So where do you want to invest?

A. economic growth 0%, interest 3%, inflation 15%
B. economic growth 5%, interest 0%, deflation 5%

I will take the B option, just being a dirty capitalist myself

niphtrique:

It is better not te engage in endless argument. If you state that Silvio Gesell is a socialist, I know enough

No you don't. You made a lot of nonsensical assertions which you can't back up. Claims such as "In reality such a place will be much like Somalia or Afghanistan", when referring to anarchy, show that you don't know what you're talking about.

Just like you don't know what you're talking about with your cranky theories about money and interest.

Whether you realize, or want to admit that Gesell was a socialist is irrelevant anyway.

"In 1919, [Gesell] was called to take part in the Bavarian Soviet Republic by Ernst Niekisch. The republic offered him a seat in the Socialization Commission and then appointed him to the People's Representative for Finances."

niphtrique:

..But now is already known that economic growth will be higher and the financial system will be more stable, when the charging of interest is forbidden..

If no one can charge interest then no one will want to lend money.  The economic impact would be devestating.

CaptainMurphy:

If no one can charge interest then no one will want to lend money. The economic impact would be devestating.

I do not agree and i already explained why.

Your country has been destroyed by debt and interest, and so is mine.

The current system is dead. There is no spirit left.

If you examine the Wörgl case, you may see how strong it is. It started with 1 village, 6 villages followed, after that a town started, and then the whole of Austria wanted to implement this. Only the government blocked the experiment, threatening to use the military.

If Austria had implemented this and it also was a succes like it was in Wörgl, the rest of the world would have done the same within a few years.

Juan:

No you don't. You made a lot of nonsensical assertions which you can't back up. Claims such as "In reality such a place will be much like Somalia or Afghanistan", when referring to anarchy, show that you don't know what you're talking about.

Just like you don't know what you're talking about with your cranky theories about money and interest.

Whether you realize, or want to admit that Gesell was a socialist is irrelevant anyway.

"In 1919, [Gesell] was called to take part in the Bavarian Soviet Republic by Ernst Niekisch. The republic offered him a seat in the Socialization Commission and then appointed him to the People's Representative for Finances."

You may accept this as my opinion. Gesell was a practical man. If socialists gave him an opportunity, he would surely take it.

It is true that he wrote things about redistributing wealth and land reform, so i can understand you are calling him a socialist. But his words i posted here are also indicating that he was not.

Land reform and redistributing wealth are left out in the monetary theory of the Natural Economic Order. Land reform and wealth distribution are political questions, i do not like to debate.

Political debate is impractical. I do like to talk about efficiency, because it can be objectively calculated and tested. It all comes down to the question: Is the theory correct or is it not?

Why don't we have no tax on money, 5% growth, 3% interest, and 1% deflation.

scineram:

Why don't we have no tax on money, 5% growth, 3% interest, and 1% deflation.

If you were a math student or graduate, you could calculate it. It can not happen in the long run. Interest can only be paid for by expanding money supply and debt in the current system.

But math geniuses can make entertaining instructive videos too. If you take the time to watch this, you will get the point:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

niphtrique:

It is true that he wrote things about redistributing wealth and land reform, so i can understand you are calling him a socialist. But his words i posted here are also indicating that he was not.

I agree he wasn't a complete socialist and had sympathies with some of the features of the free market. The problem is that he didn't mind using violence to suppress the features he didn't like...

With respect to you theory, I don't really see what the disagreement between you and the Austrians is.

niphtrique:

Jon Irenicus:

No, I mean you can lend anything out, e.g. a car, and expect more (e.g. the car plus some corn) in repayment for what you lent out, given that you were deprived from using the good during the time it was lent out.

As I have said before, capital should earn interest. That is only natural. A car is a form of capital.

Jon Irenicus:

Money is not unique in this regard, and in the case of commodity money there is no difference at all.

If money is a commodity, it is a form of capital. But there is a twist. If you assume money to be a commodity, you assume money to be capital. As we have seen, money can be anything, even only an agreement. Natural money should therefore not be capital.

If commodity money were used then all credit transactions would be of the type : A lends capital to B and B pays back capital plus interest using a commodity, say...gold

The problem with the current system is not interest, but fiat money...

niphtrique:

CaptainMurphy:

If no one can charge interest then no one will want to lend money. The economic impact would be devestating.

I do not agree and i already explained why.

Sorry I did not read the whole thread.  Which post are you referring to?

 

 

I think the the monetary theory of natural money and Austrian theory have much in common. But that was what i wrote already somewhere in the beginning of the thread.

In principle we agree on: people should be free to choose and markets must determine the best form of money.

Only what the best form of money is, there is disagreement. But this is not a disagreement in principle, because we all think people must be free to choose and markets will decide.

Given the Wörgl experiment, and how explosive it was, i assume the money of choice will be some form of free money. If you examine the story, you can see that the existing system was just a hartbeat away from death in 1933. It was only the Austrian central bank blocking the introduction of scrip countrywide that was saving the system. If it was introduced in the rest of Austria, and it had the same kind of success, as it had in Wörgl, the 6 villages and the town, the rest of the world would have copied it within a few years.

A new Wörgl can happen again any moment now, because we are in the same type of crisis. What i did was trying to figure out wat the best form of free money will be. If we know in advance what the most efficient type of money is, or we have already thought about this, we are better prepared for the things that may come.

 

It was an experiment, historicaly unprecedented. Because the market never chose it.

In 1847 the London Communist League (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels) used Hegel's theory of the dialectic to back up their economic theory of communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure. The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision. When we remain locked into dialectical thinking, we cannot see out of the box.

Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels' grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. The Marxist's global agenda is moving along at breakneck speed. The only way to completely stop the privacy invasions, expanding domestic police powers, land grabs, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. This releases us from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.

http://newworldrhinos.blogspot.com/2007/11/naomi-klien-shock-doctrine.html

niphtrique:

scineram:

Why don't we have no tax on money, 5% growth, 3% interest, and 1% deflation.

If you were a math student or graduate, you could calculate it. It can not happen in the long run. Interest can only be paid for by expanding money supply and debt in the current system.

That's the problem with the current system - is that money is not free. Once people are free to choose their own money- there is no exhaustion of the supply of money because people will simply choose something else to use if theoretically all the gold in the world just dissapeared. If a lender makes a loan knowing the buyer cannot pay it back with interest- well the lender loses from his investment as he should.