Open Government Still Not Here

[dre]

No, it matters very much what kind of world we make until the sun burns out.

The 'sun burning out' comment was about people complaining about sustainability of an economic system that has continued pretty much since money was invented.

Nobody that had even spent 20 minutes reading about money would claim that. Our system is brand new, less than 40 years old. Christ, the charging of interest on money has only been legal for 300 of the last 5 thousand years. Fractional reserve banking is only as old as the Bank of England. A few hundred years in roughly 10 thousand.

It would be impossible for you to be more wrong than you are. Set aside any personal opinions or predictions on the subjects... You are just flat out wrong on the basic facts. Thats what makes the comments about the sun extra stupid and pointless.

Your calls for open government are "irrational scaremongering". After all things have worked this way "pretty much ever since government was invented".

Edited May 15, 2012 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

Nobody that had even spent 20 minutes reading about money would claim that. Our system is brand new, less than 40 years old.

I would say that our 'system' began with the creation of money in Ancient Sumeria. In a sense, you could likely trace financial transactions back to that time.

Your assertion that our 'system' is 40 years old takes us suspiciously back to 1972, which is Nixon's re-election year, which takes us back to the unproven and unprovable assertion that you have made that changes he made are at the root of all economic inequity.

My advice to you is this: focus your persuasion on the core of your theories, as there are aspects that are not credible and will cause newcomers like me to doubt them.

It would be impossible for you to be more wrong than you are. Set aside any personal opinions or predictions on the subjects... You are just flat out wrong on the basic facts. Thats what makes the comments about the sun extra stupid and pointless.

I abhor simple assertions that implore us to make radical changes, that's what it's about.

Your calls for open government are "irrational scaremongering". After all things have worked this way "pretty much ever since government was invented".

That's a radical assertion that calls for simple and iterative changes, which in fact have already worked in the past.

Let's get back to a good point in this discussion. I think it's probably clear by now that you've lost me in your arguments, even given that you've said that you're not sure exactly what needs to be done - which is fair. I can also see that the system is broken, though I haven't seen anything better than the status quo, or more accurately past solutions, to address that.

The one thing I'm still interested in is the option of default... Maybe you can start a new thread about Argentina ?

[dre]

I would say that our 'system' began with the creation of money in Ancient Sumeria. In a sense, you could likely trace financial transactions back to that time.

Your assertion that our 'system' is 40 years old takes us suspiciously back to 1972, which is Nixon's re-election year, which takes us back to the unproven and unprovable assertion that you have made that changes he made are at the root of all economic inequity.

My advice to you is this: focus your persuasion on the core of your theories, as there are aspects that are not credible and will cause newcomers like me to doubt them.

I abhor simple assertions that implore us to make radical changes, that's what it's about.

That's a radical assertion that calls for simple and iterative changes, which in fact have already worked in the past.

Let's get back to a good point in this discussion. I think it's probably clear by now that you've lost me in your arguments, even given that you've said that you're not sure exactly what needs to be done - which is fair. I can also see that the system is broken, though I haven't seen anything better than the status quo, or more accurately past solutions, to address that.

The one thing I'm still interested in is the option of default... Maybe you can start a new thread about Argentina ?

I would say that our 'system' began with the creation of money in Ancient Sumeria. In a sense, you could likely trace financial transactions back to that time.

Youre moving the goalposts now. You assertion was not that financial transactions have happened since the creation of money. Thats patently obvious.

You assertion was this...

The 'sun burning out' comment was about people complaining about sustainability of an economic system that has continued pretty much since money was invented.

... and as I pointed out, our system is actually radically different. Its true that fiat currency HAS existed before. The Roman Empire for example tried to stave off its collapse by minting coins with un-precious metals. This was essentially fiat money backed by governt decree. But if the history of human commerce was condensed into a single day, then our current monetary system would have only existed for about the last 30 seconds. Its a radical and brand new experiment.

My advice to you is this: focus your persuasion on the core of your theories, as there are aspects that are not credible and will cause newcomers like me to doubt them.

Iv done that... Iv put a fair ammount of effort into boiling this all down into its various logical components and explaining each one. Iv also provided a mountain of supporting references, not from conspiracy theorists but from economists, monetary historians, and powerfull people inside the fiat empire. Iv also described and provided information on schools of monetary thought radically different than mine such as MMT. And on various occasions Iv tried to boil this all down into its root element which is what effect these different ideas have on the eco system and human development. If you believe that population growth and resource usage is unlimited then the MMT approach makes pretty good sense - Theres no need for any government that controls its own fiat currency to ever have "debt". They should ignore inflation and just create enough money to faciliate full employment. That was the origional goal of our existing system as well, but that changed over time... "price stability" is now the primary goal.

I abhor simple assertions that implore us to make radical changes, that's what it's about.

I really dont know what to say to this. Iv made it clear on numerous occasions not only that Im not imploring us to make any changes, but that that it pretty much impossible. Iv explained how the last few major changes have come about and what caused them, and they were not strategic decisions. The market reacted to events. Im not an activist Im an observer.

Let's get back to a good point in this discussion. I think it's probably clear by now that you've lost me in your arguments, even given that you've said that you're not sure exactly what needs to be done - which is fair. I can also see that the system is broken, though I haven't seen anything better than the status quo, or more accurately past solutions, to address that.

Its ok if Iv lost you in the arguments, but until recently youve at least kept an open mind and talked about the subject like an adult. Thats why I was perplexed by your posts yesterday. They were un-hardner like.

As for whats better than the status quo... I outlined a system that I think would work pretty well in another thread. The basic rules of our banking system were designed prior to the IT age. Almost everything commercial banks do today could be done with a piece of computer software for a tiny fraction of the cost. They assess credit worthiness... You can download a simple API to get this information from the private companies that track it for a super low price. They administer the collection of payments which is extremely easy and cheap to do today. And they take action against deliquent borrowers, which for the most part has already been socialized. Tax payers fund the infrastructure (the courts) that banks use for this.

But we dont know what will come next. We are entering an unprecidented time. Our current system has operated in a rapidly expanding environment. But our population will peak at about 11 billion within the next 50+ years then decline to about 5 billion... a completely different paradigm will be required.

The one thing I'm still interested in is the option of default... Maybe you can start a new thread about Argentina ?

Ok I just might do that. But this is actually a really good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_economic_crisis_(1999%E2%80%932002)

In the meantime Ill stop derailing your thread. Despite my toungue in cheek sarcasm this is a very important and worthy topic.

Edited May 15, 2012 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

Youre moving the goalposts now. You assertion was not that financial transactions have happened since the creation of money. Thats patently obvious.

You assertion was this...

I disagree. Our 'economic system' goes back to that time. You can probably exclude economies that are blocked off from access (such as the Soviet Union) from then, but other than that - the system is pretty much that.

... and as I pointed out, our system is actually radically different. Its true that fiat currency HAS existed before. The Roman Empire for example tried to stave off its collapse by minting coins with un-precious metals. This was essentially fiat money backed by governt decree. But if the history of human commerce was condensed into a single day, then our current monetary system would have only existed for about the last 30 seconds. Its a radical and brand new experiment.

I disagree. The essentials of our system have existed for thousands of years. The idea that fiat money is a radical change that constitutes a different 'system' is an opinion... IMO.

Iv done that... Iv put a fair ammount of effort into boiling this all down into its various logical components and explaining each one. Iv also provided a mountain of supporting references, not from conspiracy theorists but from economists, monetary historians, and powerfull people inside the fiat empire. Iv also described and provided information on schools of monetary thought radically different than mine such as MMT. And on various occasions Iv tried to boil this all down into its root element which is what effect these different ideas have on the eco system and human development.

You have done me a great favour by educating me in this way, and I do appreciate it.

If you believe that population growth and resource usage is unlimited then the MMT approach makes pretty good sense - Theres no need for any government that controls its own fiat currency to ever have "debt". They should ignore inflation and just create enough money to faciliate full employment. That was the origional goal of our existing system as well, but that changed over time... "price stability" is now the primary goal.

Economic systems are supposed to make life better for people, generally. I would put that as the primary goal. If resources are scarce, the system already has built-in controls to deal with that but maybe there are other ideas that can be discussed.

I really dont know what to say to this. Iv made it clear on numerous occasions not only that Im not imploring us to make any changes, but that that it pretty much impossible. Iv explained how the last few major changes have come about and what caused them, and they were not strategic decisions. The market reacted to events. Im not an activist Im an observer.

Its ok if Iv lost you in the arguments, but until recently youve at least kept an open mind and talked about the subject like an adult. Thats why I was perplexed by your posts yesterday. They were un-hardner like.

I'm open minded, but also I abhor ideas that are overly simplistic, or that paint grand conspiracies. I'm not saying that you're doing this explicitly, however I get a whiff of that sometimes in your arguments and I react.

That aspect of my personality is as much me as my supposed open mindedness. I think there are complex problems out there, and there are simple ways to categorize and model them but you can get in trouble with those models very easily too.

This is *only* an analogy, but racist thinking is an example of over simplified and sometimes conspiracy minded models for the reasons behind problems.

As for whats better than the status quo... I outlined a system that I think would work pretty well in another thread. The basic rules of our banking system were designed prior to the IT age. Almost everything commercial banks do today could be done with a piece of computer software for a tiny fraction of the cost. They assess credit worthiness... You can download a simple API to get this information from the private companies that track it for a super low price. They administer the collection of payments which is extremely easy and cheap to do today. And they take action against deliquent borrowers, which for the most part has already been socialized. Tax payers fund the infrastructure (the courts) that banks use for this.

I did think that was a nifty idea on one level. You *have* imagined how economic activity could be governed in the computer age, which is a good way to generate discussion at least. I often imagine systems of on-line kharma points and good deeds exchange systems, too. ( I'll admit my ideas are castles in the sky, too. )

The main point of all of this goes back to "who shall bell the cat". A good model would involve some kind of iterative solution. Can you rephrase your idea with a phased in approach ?

But we dont know what will come next. We are entering an unprecidented time. Our current system has operated in a rapidly expanding environment. But our population will peak at about 11 billion within the next 50+ years then decline to about 5 billion... a completely different paradigm will be required.

I'm glad you said that. What it means is that we'll have a completely different set of challenges, and even more reason to be optimistic.

Ok I just might do that. But this is actually a really good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_economic_crisis_(1999%E2%80%932002)

In the meantime Ill stop derailing your thread. Despite my toungue in cheek sarcasm this is a very important and worthy topic.

Time for a new thread, actually. I never imagined this one would go more than a page or so; I only want the idea of Open Government to stick in the MLW zeitgiest....

[dre]

I disagree. Our 'economic system' goes back to that time. You can probably exclude economies that are blocked off from access (such as the Soviet Union) from then, but other than that - the system is pretty much that.

I disagree. The essentials of our system have existed for thousands of years. The idea that fiat money is a radical change that constitutes a different 'system' is an opinion... IMO.

You have done me a great favour by educating me in this way, and I do appreciate it.

Economic systems are supposed to make life better for people, generally. I would put that as the primary goal. If resources are scarce, the system already has built-in controls to deal with that but maybe there are other ideas that can be discussed.

I'm open minded, but also I abhor ideas that are overly simplistic, or that paint grand conspiracies. I'm not saying that you're doing this explicitly, however I get a whiff of that sometimes in your arguments and I react.

That aspect of my personality is as much me as my supposed open mindedness. I think there are complex problems out there, and there are simple ways to categorize and model them but you can get in trouble with those models very easily too.

This is *only* an analogy, but racist thinking is an example of over simplified and sometimes conspiracy minded models for the reasons behind problems.

I did think that was a nifty idea on one level. You *have* imagined how economic activity could be governed in the computer age, which is a good way to generate discussion at least. I often imagine systems of on-line kharma points and good deeds exchange systems, too. ( I'll admit my ideas are castles in the sky, too. )

The main point of all of this goes back to "who shall bell the cat". A good model would involve some kind of iterative solution. Can you rephrase your idea with a phased in approach ?

I'm glad you said that. What it means is that we'll have a completely different set of challenges, and even more reason to be optimistic.

Time for a new thread, actually. I never imagined this one would go more than a page or so; I only want the idea of Open Government to stick in the MLW zeitgiest....

The main point of all of this goes back to "who shall bell the cat". A good model would involve some kind of iterative solution. Can you rephrase your idea with a phased in approach ?

Oh man, thats so hard. As I said before Im not sure there IS a set of politically doable steps, and the people that control the global fiat empire have so much hold on government I think thats just not gonna happen. See for example how the ECB is forcing Greece to amend their constution. The bankers can now make national laws. And in most countries the governments financial arm is staffed almost completely with commercial and investment bankers.

I suppose a modest first step would be for more countries to follow Canadas lead and sieze their central banks. Many of them are totally privately owned and controlled which is a recipe for failure. Within 3 years of Iceland privatizing its major banks they had loaned into existance more the fifteen times Icelands GDP and destroyed icelands currency. But even this modest step would be extremely hard.

A second step could be for government to issue its own currency to pay its own employees and bills. This is still monetary expansion that derives its value by stealing purchasing power from all other holders of dollars, just like when the bank does it but at least the government would not be in "debt".

A third step would be to re-organize the system so that the government takes their constitutional responsibily to issue currency back from the banks, and the banks focus on banking. Once this was done most banking regulations could be removed, and central banks themselves could probably be phased out.

Then maybe at some point we could get back to sound money again... Not money based on some arbitrary commodity like gold or silver, but money based on the real economy and the goods and services in it. The market place can determine how many of each specific good or service a "dollar" could buy, then a computer system could use that to calculate the ammount of dollars required to facilitate the exchange of actual goods and services, and in theory you would have price stability.

But none of this is going to happen.

One thing that probably WILL happen is the implementation of a new unit of international economic account similar to what Keynes origionally wanted. Theres growing support for this within the international community and especially from Chinas central bank.

[Signals.Cpl]

Sir can I ask you a question, I am from blah blah newspaper and ....

"No comment".

Exactly I don't want my name and face in a newspaper about how somebody somewhere hates the military and wants to twist everything I say. If someone asks questions I can answer without issue sure I can be polite and answer but should they start going in with questions I feel uncomfortable answering I inform them that if they have any further questions they can direct them to the Unit PR officer who will then direct them to Brigade PR officer who will happily answer any and all questions they may have.