This is Ed Griffin’s video explanation of topics that he covered extensively in his book, “The Creature from Jekyll Island.”
Naysayers and kool-aid drinkers will say that the author, and others like him, are conspiracy theorists and that this is a bunch of hoopla. Ok. But tell me exactly where they are wrong?
[/quote]
Sorry for the delay in responding to the challenge.
I still don’t find the concepts presented particularly interesting or compelling.
To address the specifics:
The primary problems with the argument made by the interviewer and interviewee in your video are systemic.
See below.
[quote=greekfire]
Do you believe in money that is backed by decree (fiat)…which is ultimately debt and the government’s promise to pay in the future through taxation. Or do you believe in money that is backed by something tangible such as gold or silver?
[/quote]
While there are some distinctions between value based on precious metal and value based on precious paper, the primary difficulty with trying to distinguish the two is that they are both based on social contract. Neither can be eaten or used as a tool(jewelry is an adornment and not a tool). Neither addresses anything at the foundation of the need hierarchy. That is distinct from say, rice in medieval Japan or salt in ancient sub-Saharan or Saharan Africa (or gas in the Road Warrior). Both precious metal and precious paper are based on the assumption of mutual acceptance of an otherwise largely useless item as a medium of exchange. Putting us on a standard that is underpinned by a specific commodity is as much artifice as making it strategic and arbitrary. The discussion on planning is expanded below.
[quote=greekfire]
Do you adhere to the Keynesian School of central economic planning? Or are you more in favor of the Austrian/Mises School of a more individualist, free-market economic system?
What are your thoughts on fractional reserve banking?
[/quote]
Regarding the question of central planning (not specifically Keynesian General Theory) I feel that the correct path lies in the middle. Central economic planning can be done in ways that benefit associated individuals and builds wealth or it can be done poorly and stifle quality of life. I think China in the 2000’s is an example of the former and that China in the 1960’s is an example of the latter.
Regarding Keynes: Essentializing his theses, he believes that the only time that we (or any society) maximize our production-possibilities curve is when we are fully mobilized (as in war) and that un-regulated or un-stimulated economies tend toward less-than-full employment. Ergo, if we want full production and employment it is advisable to attempt to stimulate the economy through outlays (among other means). I think elements of this basic philosophy underpinned the economic expansion of both the post-war era as well as the Reagan years.
I don’t see see early Keynes to be antithetical to most intelligent economics. I see it as essentially an expansion on the classical view (which I see as somewhat limited).
Regarding fractional reserve banking, it has been a staple of banking essentially forever (in some form or another). The attempt at regulation in the early part of the last century was kind of revolutionary in its attempt (and relative success) at mitigating the dangers of FRB (as experienced in the 19th century). Essentially money and economics are just a means by which to meet needs and move wealth. In many ways, FRB made banking more efficient. It existed when money was essentially just pieces of gold (your precious metal above). I think we owe the success of banking as an institution in large part to FRB.
As I said previously regulation and planning can be done well or poorly. I think eliminating this basic function of banking would be an unduly restrictive burden on banks. Could capital and banking still exist without it? Maybe. Its kind of like asking if democracy could exist without capitalism. Again, maybe. In both cases there is not much in the way of positive examples.
[quote=greekfire] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
To urbanrealtor: this is a hint for your hopeful response to my previous advance from this post: http://piggington.com/piggington_minipoll_if_the_elections_were_held_today_i_would_vot?page=1
…which you STILL haven’t responded to![/quote]
Yeah I figured.
I see the basic problem in asserting that the Fed is a cartel in that a cartel exists between peers. THese can be gov’ts (eg: opec) or companies (eg: SO/Sherman/Rockefeller). I cant see an institution governed by political appointees with the power of monetary policy as anything other than a government entity. Their stock is non-transferable and member banks are beholden to the political appointees. In the sense that any government is a cartel of power then I guess the speaker has a point. However, thats like calling the army a gang. It misses (and muddles) the point. You could potentially call it a public-private partnership but it would still be the most government-centric version of these.
