NationStates Jolt Archive

How much government regulation do you think is required for a strong economy?

It looks like there are a few on here so I might get some good answers before this thread is swallowed up in the morass.

How much government regulation do you think is required for a strong economy?

It looks like there are a few on here so I might get some good answers before this thread is swallowed up in the morass.
If you're an ancap or interested may I suggest anti-state.com. I think that we have to keep human rights in mind. If you want a free economy though then you could let it work like natural selection and de-regulate it and allow the companies to build up by themselves.

If you're an ancap or interested may I suggest anti-state.com. I think that we have to keep human rights in mind. If you want a free economy though then you could let it work like natural selection and de-regulate it and allow the companies to build up by themselves.

But natural selection operates on a resource cap for the individual creatures. For example, one deer, no matter how big, can only take in so much resources. While in an economy a single corporation can dominate as much as 75% of the entire resources.

You cannot compare nature to business, the individual components are incomperable.

But I will check out those websites.

But natural selection operates on a resource cap for the individual creatures. For example, one deer, no matter how big, can only take in so much resources. While in an economy a single corporation can dominate as much as 75% of the entire resources.

You cannot compare nature to business, the individual components are incomperable.

But I will check out those websites.
I see your point. I myself am trying to find out my ecnomic views.

I see your point. I myself am trying to find out my ecnomic views.

Having your economic views figured out is a better sign of knowledge than anything else. It doesn't take much to talk about politics, but you need some smarts to discuss economics.

I am also not sure where I stand on it. I believe that the free market should be protected up until human rights may be breached. But how to do that, and where you draw the line is still quite a mystery to me.

The starting point is to decide how important the group/individual thing is.

Most of the rest follows.

Having your economic views figured out is a better sign of knowledge than anything else. It doesn't take much to talk about politics, but you need some smarts to discuss economics.
Politics is mostly just opinion.

am also not sure where I stand on it. I believe that the free market should be protected up until human rights may be breached. But how to do that, and where you draw the line is still quite a mystery to me.
Thats the problem I have. I want a free market, but do't want human rights put aside either. If you put too much emphasis on one it will harm the other.

But natural selection operates on a resource cap for the individual creatures. For example, one deer, no matter how big, can only take in so much resources. While in an economy a single corporation can dominate as much as 75% of the entire resources.

You cannot compare nature to business, the individual components are incomperable.
This level of economics looks good on paper when you're enrolled in 101, but on an enourmous scale, it looks simplistic and dangerously naive.

It completely dismisses competition, and focuses solely on a narrow portion of the overall market; the large corporation.
Most of the people benefiting from a truly "free" market would be small business owners and entrepreneurs (always ignored in such basic overgeneralizations).
The top 5% will continue to profit no matter what legislation or regulation is introduced.
They'll move to a country without these limitations on exploitation. That's just a fact.
But here at home, the severe regulations and legislation will continue to hinder entrepeneurs and small business owners pandemically.

Answer: Enough to keep business stable and moral.

Yes, but what is "enough"?

Answer: Enough to keep business stable and moral.

Two undefined terms. Enough and moral. One equation with two undefined variables is not solvable. Which term would you like to define.

This level of economics looks good on paper when you're enrolled in 101, but on an enourmous scale, it looks simplistic and dangerously naive.

It completely dismisses competition, and focuses solely on a narrow portion of the overall market; the large corporation.
Most of the people benefiting from a truly "free" market would be small business owners and entrepreneurs (always ifnored in such basic overgeneralizations).
The top 5% will continue to profit no matter what legislation or regulation is introduced.
They'll move to a country without these limitations on exploitation. That's just a fact.
But here at home, the severe regulations and liglation will continue to hinder entrepeneurs and small business owners pandemically.
I wasn't aware of that. I was often told and thought it would be corporations not small businesses. If that is the case then let the small business have more freedom, not at the expense of rights though. But I will still be highly skeptical of any system.

I wasn't aware of that. I was often told and thought it would be corporations not small businesses. If that is the case then let the small business have more freedom, not at the expense of rights though. But I will still be highly skeptical of any system.
That's because the militant anti-business whackjobs would have you believe a tiny minority constitute an entire population of capitalists.

Think of your own family. How many of the members you respect most invest in an entrepreneurial business lifestyle of some kind?
Are they evil capitalist pigs?

Do you have your own aspirations to one day own yourself, in other words, be your own boss?

If so, who's looking out for you and who's giving you the finger for being ambitious?

I personally say buisness needs to be regulated on its obligation to its shareholders and employees. Buisness should also be limited on their ability to avoid potentally damaging lawsuits, if a pharmacutical company puts out a drug that causes death in some situations, the consumers should be able to put them our of buisness.

I personally say buisness needs to be regulated on its obligation to its shareholders and employees. Buisness should also be limited on their ability to avoid potentally damaging lawsuits, if a pharmacutical company puts out a drug that causes death in some situations, the consumers should be able to put them our of buisness.
You're mainly complaining about issues concerning FRAUD.
A capitalist system needs to protect it's citizens from all dishonest business practices, as these actions actually undermine the system.

Although these ideas sound good, my conflict is balancing them out. And to answer Eichen's question my grandparents own their own business and my uncle his own.

This level of economics looks good on paper when you're enrolled in 101, but on an enourmous scale, it looks simplistic and dangerously naive.

It completely dismisses competition, and focuses solely on a narrow portion of the overall market; the large corporation.
Most of the people benefiting from a truly "free" market would be small business owners and entrepreneurs (always ignored in such basic overgeneralizations).
The top 5% will continue to profit no matter what legislation or regulation is introduced.
They'll move to a country without these limitations on exploitation. That's just a fact.
But here at home, the severe regulations and legislation will continue to hinder entrepeneurs and small business owners pandemically.

Yes, the small businesses would benefit from an actual free market, in the economic sense of the phrase. But what government regulations are needed to ensure a free market?

Yes, the small businesses would benefit from an actual free market, in the economic sense of the phrase. But what government regulations are needed to ensure a free market?
The only regulations needed are those that protect consumers from fraud and force.
All others are just manipulative legislation that exploits the relatively limited resources of entrepeneurs and small businesses in favor of those with access to nearly unlimited resources.

This gives those with power the dishonest advantage above those that would lke to fairly compete.

It's anticapitalist in every way, when you consider the obvious implications of heavy-handed regulation and taxation.

What is your view on anti-trust laws and minimum wage? Also, how should the environment be effected by this system?

The only regulations needed are those that protect consumers from fraud and force.
All others are just manipulative legislation that exploits the relatively limited resources of entrepeneurs and small businesses in favor of those with access to nearly unlimited resources.

This gives those with power the dishonest advantage above those that would lke to fairly compete.

It's anticapitalist in every way, when you consider the obvious implications of heavy-handed regulation and taxation.

Is this this the actual views of the libertarian party, or are they just yours?

I have to completely disagree. The free market is maintained by assuring that no one has any power over prices. Through removing regulations on corporations you almost guarantee that they will have power over the prices.

By assuming the removal of regulations will help small businesses, you completely ignore economies of scale, foreign specialisations and regulations, and obvious marketing advantages.

You wanted an answer from a Libertarian point of view, so here it goes -

Get government out of the picture. Let the consumers decide which businesses to support and which to boycott. Individual freedom to buy a product or not to buy it, to work for an employer or work for the competition... that, my friends, is what it takes to keep the system honest. The workers and consumers decide who to support and who to bankrupt, not some political hack.

Libertarians believe in the sanctity of the contract. If an employer wants to hire a worker for $1 an hour, and the worker agrees without being coerced or deceived, it should be legal. What consenting adults do within the boundaries of employment should be as individual as what they do in the privacy of their own homes. Government has no business setting minimum wage laws. It is the responsibility of the individual worker to study hard, learn a marketable trade or skill, and earn a decent wage.

If the Japanese auto makers want to sell cars in America, they should be able to without added taxes or tariffs. If American auto makers lose market share because their cost of manufacture is too high and their quality is too low, too damn bad. Government shouldn't subsidize stupid business practices simply because they're home grown. The local auto makers either need to learn to make better products, or spend less money making them, or go bankrupt. Running to Congress and taking our tax money to keep them afloat, while having tariffs put against foreign autos is a sweet deal for Detroit - but a raw deal for the consumers. It means we have to pay more than we should for a good car, and more taxes so our local car makers can continue pumping out bad cars.

Libertarians understand that the best quality products are available for the lowest cost in a free market system. When the consumer is empowered, the system works beautifully. The more government regulates business, the less the consumer is empowered.

So what role should government have in regulating business?

1. Standardize weights and measures. When a gas station sells me 15 gallons of gas, I want to know their pumps are pumping 15 U.S. gallons, not 15 Arco gallons.

2. Truth in advertising. If the socket set shows a picture of 20 sockets, 2 extension bars, and a rachet, they better all be there when I unwrap the package. My new car should have the 3.0 liter engine the salesman said it had, not the 2.3 liter motor. And I don't want my kids drinking gallons of Pepsi because the label says it's good for their teeth and gums.

3. Licencing for issues of national security, public safety, and health. My neighbor is a great tinkerer, and he can build or repair just about anything. But I don't want him building nukes and selling them to the highest foreign bidder. When lives or property or national security is potentially endangered, the government has a responsibility to inspect a business for safety, and to deny licences to any business who cannot demonstrate the ability to conduct their business in a way that it doesn't endanger the rest of us.

Every other aspect of business should be left to the consumers.

Well, I've got several qualifiers for legitimate government behavior:

Of course, the night watchman theory, to protect against force or fraud. (every libertarian)

Then we have, naturally public works that do not benefit anyone singularly, things like pre-secondary and secondary education, the highway system and lighthouses also fit. (Concept straight from Adam Smith)

And of course I'm willing to help someone who's been struck by brute luck. To a level, of course.

I'm also torn on things that will help to eliminate non-relevant differences, things like sex, race, etc. I'd certainly be a friend of color and sex blind government hirings, but I don't totally know about things like affirmative action. (Friedman and Friedman, Nozick)

So, in reality I'm a quasi-libertarian, or possibly a minarchist.

-snip-

What advantages will these have over our present system?

I would like to see an economic explanation for the advantages, I am a finance major and have taken four college level econ classes, so spare nothing.

Is this this the actual views of the libertarian party, or are they just yours?
Any level of basic understanding of the Libertarian philosophy should tell you this is the hard party line of the LP.

I have to completely disagree. The free market is maintained by assuring that no one has any power over prices.
As you should know, the consumer dictates far more power over market prices (save in grossly undersupplied markets). People will sell you every excuse under the sun to dispute this, but again we wind up talking about corporate cases of fraud advocated by slick corporate interest groups.
This means government regulation is usually passed in favor of anticompetitive restrictions.

Through removing regulations on corporations you almost guarantee that they will have power over the prices.
Simplistic, at best. Dangerously myopic at worst. Are you aware that corporate welfare far outwieghs social welfare every year in government spending?

Who do you think stands to benefit? It's not the typical small business owner.
That much should be obvious.

By assuming the removal of regulations will help small businesses, you completely ignore economies of scale, foreign specialisations and regulations, and obvious marketing advantages.
No, by assuming further regulation will hinder the megalomanical goals of global corps is rediculous. It revolves around a limited understanding of their resources and options.
They'll just move the show to whatever stage has the best lighting.

The small businessman with outrageous tax obligations and costly, bureaucratic bullshit standing in his way doesn't stand a chance.
Just give your money directly to the Chinese and Indonesians instead of our citizens.
Again, this type of idealist propoganda sounds great on paper, but really it doesn't work out as well as hoped for in the real world.

So what role should government have in regulating business?

1. Standardize weights and measures. When a gas station sells me 15 gallons of gas, I want to know their pumps are pumping 15 U.S. gallons, not 15 Arco gallons.

2. Truth in advertising. If the socket set shows a picture of 20 sockets, 2 extension bars, and a rachet, they better all be there when I unwrap the package. My new car should have the 3.0 liter engine the salesman said it had, not the 2.3 liter motor. And I don't want my kids drinking gallons of Pepsi because the label says it's good for their teeth and gums.

3. Licencing for issues of national security, public safety, and health. My neighbor is a great tinkerer, and he can build or repair just about anything. But I don't want him building nukes and selling them to the highest foreign bidder. When lives or property or national security is potentially endangered, the government has a responsibility to inspect a business for safety, and to deny licences to any business who cannot demonstrate the ability to conduct their business in a way that it doesn't endanger the rest of us.

Every other aspect of business should be left to the consumers.
1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree
But still skeptical, for the most part I agree.

I would love to consider myself a Libertarian, but when it comes to Libertarian economics, I am sometimes a bit.. hm.. hesitant. Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Organized Labor seem like important things to me. Each safeguards human rights or protects it's citizens from undue poverty.

Hardcore Libertarian politics is opposed to those things, though. Eeeeeh..

As you should know, the consumer dictates far more power over market prices (save in grossly undersupplied markets). People will sell you every excuse under the sun to dispute this, but again we wind up talking about corporate cases of fraud advocated by slick corporate interest groups.
This means government regulation is usually passed in favor of anticompetitive restrictions.

I will give you an opportunity to now explain why this is.

Simplistic, at best. Dangerously myopic at worst. Are you aware that corporate welfare far outwieghs social welfare every year in government spending?

Who do you think stands to benefit? It's not the typical small business owner.
That much should be obvious.

I do know that, and I do recognize that it is a problem, but how does that validate eliminating government regulation?

No, by assuming further regulation will hinder the megalomanical goals of global corps is rediculous. It revolves around a limited understanding of their resources and options.
They'll just move the show to whatever stage has the best lighting.

Then we install protectionist tariffs to protect the worker and our free market.

The small businessman with outrageous tax obligations and costly, bureaucratic bullshit standing in his way doesn't stand a chance.
Just give your money directly to the Chinese and Indonesians instead of our citizens.
Again, this type of idealist propoganda sounds great on paper, but really it doesn't work out as well as hoped for in the real world.

Actually, that emotive language saying to just give my money to the Chinese and Indonesians reeks of turds.

I would love to consider myself a Libertarian, but when it comes to Libertarian economics, I am sometimes a bit.. hm.. hesitant. Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and Organized Labor seem like important things to me. Each safeguards human rights or protects it's citizens from undue poverty.

Hardcore Libertarian politics is opposed to those things, though. Eeeeeh..
Libertarian philosophy just says that private companies can and will offer higher quality forms of such things. And there is no opposition to organized labor in libertarian philosophy. After all, that's just freedom of association in practice.

As a leaning-libertarian on business...

*First of all you get rid of all corporate/farm welfare.

*Get rid of the possiblity of corporate lobbying. Individuals have rights, your just a legal extension of them. Strict constitutional function, which doesn't allow fascism on federal level.

*Banking to do list (in order):Permit free-banking, allow unrestricted mergers and acquistions, phase out government deposit insurance, permit private bank notes, permit gold-based banking, repeal legal tender laws, discountinue open-market operations, close discount windows, privatize the federal reserve....Hong Kong has the freest banking in the world, and we once did.

If you don't know anything about banking, don't dispute this...study it.

*Personally, I don't care about minor health regulations...big deal. Keep them. Insurance premiums usually scare management more than anything.

*All that safety net sh*t is better as an insurance, and a lot easier to get than from the government e.g workers comp. Again, if you don't know, then don't comment. I know.

*Allow individuals to choice their medical coverage in the free market via MSA, and the burden will be taken off business as well.

*....hmm..I can't really think of any regulations to keep...in particular. Plenty of things to get rid of.

So what role should government have in regulating business?

1. Standardize weights and measures. When a gas station sells me 15 gallons of gas, I want to know their pumps are pumping 15 U.S. gallons, not 15 Arco gallons.

2. Truth in advertising. If the socket set shows a picture of 20 sockets, 2 extension bars, and a rachet, they better all be there when I unwrap the package. My new car should have the 3.0 liter engine the salesman said it had, not the 2.3 liter motor. And I don't want my kids drinking gallons of Pepsi because the label says it's good for their teeth and gums.

3. Licencing for issues of national security, public safety, and health. My neighbor is a great tinkerer, and he can build or repair just about anything. But I don't want him building nukes and selling them to the highest foreign bidder. When lives or property or national security is potentially endangered, the government has a responsibility to inspect a business for safety, and to deny licences to any business who cannot demonstrate the ability to conduct their business in a way that it doesn't endanger the rest of us.

Every other aspect of business should be left to the consumers.

Fraud and security...I agree.

Libertarian philosophy just says that private companies can and will offer higher quality forms of such things. And there is no opposition to organized labor in libertarian philosophy. After all, that's just freedom of association in practice.
I'm sorry, I should be more precise. I was talking about state-sponsored labor organization, unemployment insurance and social security. I just can't bring myself to place that much confidence in business. :(

The only regulations needed are those that protect consumers from fraud and force.
All others are just manipulative legislation that exploits the relatively limited resources of entrepeneurs and small businesses in favor of those with access to nearly unlimited resources.

This gives those with power the dishonest advantage above those that would lke to fairly compete.

It's anticapitalist in every way, when you consider the obvious implications of heavy-handed regulation and taxation.

have you met my man kevin carson (http://www.mutualist.org/)?

I'm sorry, I should be more precise. I was talking about state-sponsored labor organization, unemployment insurance and social security. I just can't bring myself to place that much confidence in business. :(

Out of curiousity..do you think the government could pay you social security if:

1)The revenues and surplus are being used for Medicare.

2)Their CENTRALLY-REGULATED banking system [America] has a choking high interest rate, and there's a massive bank failure...and business suffers for decades.

3)External banks stop buying our debt. The interest of the debt is equal to half of the revenues.

4)World war 3.

I happen to think 3 out of 4 will happen if things don't change. And we'll sink further down the rabbit hole.

Number four is possiblity of all that. Perhaps people would pay more attention to logic if they knew that was coming. Rome fell the same way or atleast these were some of the factors, relatively.

Yes, but what is "enough"?

well, we dont have enough right now. i find it funny that republicans are all about free trade and what not, but when a french heliocopter company wants to sell civilian copters to Iran all the sudden free trade is, gasp not neccessarly good! i just saw a peice on the news about that.

If I were to put it on a scale of 100, 0 being completely authoritarian and 100 complete freedom, I would put economic freedom at somewhere between 75 and 90. The actual results would depend on the weight given to various limitations.

I am totally against corporate welfare, subsidies, tarriffs, unlimited IP/Patents/Copyrights, and double taxation. I am for environmental protections, and for very limited inheritince laws.

Basically, I want the market to be free, as free as possible anyway, but for it to remain so, I feel it's necessary to place some limits on it. Otherwise individuals and businesses will abuse any power gained the way they always have. That's at least the sum total of human history. One person or company's rights always end when they infringe upon the rights of another, in the same way that they do in civil rights.

If you really care, I can list out specifics. The goal for me would be to provide a relatively fair playing feild, where people are free to rise and fall according to their efforts, wishes, and abilities, and are not limited unecessarily by the law.

Corporations should not be equal to people. A lot of patent and copyright issues cite the natural life of a person. Guess what - corporations don't DIE. They go extinct, leave no inheritors, and their IP is caged -forever-.

On top of that, corporations do not deserve political voices nor political power. Corporate money should not be spent by private citizens to imbalance the field in favor of a corporation.

Sufficient power held by a corporation should end up with the corporation being regarded as a Power (at least quasi-sovereign) and governments et al should feel free to regard intentional acts against themselves or their people as, at the very least, crimes, or perhaps even acts of war. (Note: this requires a legal code based on baseline ethics, not dogmatic morality. Needless to say, the American system would not be one sharing this particular bit.)

I am totally against corporate welfare, subsidies, tarriffs, unlimited IP/Patents/Copyrights, and double taxation.

Yes.

I am for environmental protections, and for very limited inheritince laws.

Yes on rational enviromental protection...and inheritance shouldn't be an issue. A live trust would just transfer the wealth.

The only regulations needed are those that protect consumers from fraud and force.
All others are just manipulative legislation that exploits the relatively limited resources of entrepeneurs and small businesses in favor of those with access to nearly unlimited resources.

This gives those with power the dishonest advantage above those that would lke to fairly compete.

It's anticapitalist in every way, when you consider the obvious implications of heavy-handed regulation and taxation.

So industries that off-load environmental costs on the public (who may not even be stockholders or consumers of those industries) do not need to be regulated - even though they are created a huge cost to others?

As a leaning-libertarian on business...

*First of all you get rid of all corporate/farm welfare.

I come from a farming family. I have seen that there really is no profitability in small time farming. But to end farm welfare would mean that farming magnates would completely control the flow of commodities in this nation. There really is no simple answer to this, but I think that the only wise solution would be continued government intervention or complete government control.

As for corporate welfare, we are in agreement. There is some consideration over jobs, as strong corporations tend to provide the most stable jobs, but I don't think they are in need of welfare.

*Get rid of the possiblity of corporate lobbying. Individuals have rights, your just a legal extension of them. Strict constitutional function, which doesn't allow fascism on federal level.

Agreed

*Banking to do list (in order):Permit free-banking, allow unrestricted mergers and acquistions, phase out government deposit insurance, permit private bank notes, permit gold-based banking, repeal legal tender laws, discountinue open-market operations, close discount windows, privatize the federal reserve....Hong Kong has the freest banking in the world, and we once did.

The government cannot relinquish control over the monetary supply. It would lead to bad things right now. We are overloaded with debt right now, and the privatization of the fed could cause the dollar to plummet. Without deposit insurance banks would be able to to default on its accounts, and there would be a very similar depression to the 30s.

As for the gold-based banking and a repeal of legal tender laws, I don't see a real need for those, maybe you could explain. Private bank notes I have no problem with.

*Personally, I don't care about minor health regulations...big deal. Keep them. Insurance premiums usually scare management more than anything.

I say that health coverage should be a universal human right, but that is for another thread.

*All that safety net sh*t is better as an insurance, and a lot easier to get than from the government e.g workers comp. Again, if you don't know, then don't comment. I know.

What safety net shit? Is this a private workers insurance?

*Allow individuals to choice their medical coverage in the free market via MSA, and the burden will be taken off business as well.

I don't like this MSA idea, as I doubt that MSA's will be too easy to manage for the lower working classes.

What advantages will these have over our present system?

I would like to see an economic explanation for the advantages, I am a finance major and have taken four college level econ classes, so spare nothing.

First of all, my apologies for not answering this last night. I saw the question then, but it was bedtime. Not that I'm home from work I'll provide a few examples of the advantages of free market economics over government regulated economics.

Apple computers is a great example of how a company can inspire an industry. Before Apple, computers were very expensive, slow, and had only limited capabilities. There wasn't a lot of diversity. IBM had a monopoly on business computers back then.

Then came Apple, and IBM started losing market share. Apples were faster, more user friendly, and more powerful than IBM products.

So IBM adapted. It poured more money into research and development to make computers that were faster, more user friendly, and more powerful than Apples.

This created competition between all the companies who wanted to sell computers, and the consumers are the ones who benefit. The computer I'm using right now is probably 100 times more powerful than any desktop from 10 years ago, and I paid less than $1000 for it. My other computer is a year newer than this one, twice as powerful, and cost less than $500. Competition makes computer better and cheaper every year.

Would IBM have pushed computing power and speed and friendliness up while pushing costs down if Apple hadn't threatened their market share? No way!

My second example is nearly the same as my first one. Just substitute "Japanese cars" for Apple and "American cars" for IBM. The efficiency, cost, reliability, and value of Japanese cars won them market share. Detroit got better as a result. Today cars have better safety features, better efficiency, and better reliability than the cars our parents drove. The consumer wins again.

My third example is a negative one - the former Soviet Union. Government regulation made the Soviet Union the economic success it is today. Enough said.

And my final example began during the second World War. During the war, prices and wages were froze by government regulation. Innovative companies still needed innovative employees, but how could they hire them away from the competition if prices were frozen?

The answer was benefits. Companies who wanted the best people attracted them by offering the best benefits. Employer subsidized health care, paid vacation time, maternity leave, dental and eyecare plans, daycare for children, and all the other perks employees enjoy today were created by employers to attract quality employees. None of these perks began as government regulations.

The truth is we could do away with government regulations and not hurt employees at all. The reason employers don't slash minimum wages or benefits isn't because government regulations don't let them. It's because all their employees would leave them and go work for the competition. My sister left her job as manager of a Holiday Inn when they cut her health care program. She now manages a Marriot.

Both consumers and employees are better off when they have the freedom to make their own decisions. Both are worse off when government regulations limit their choices.

I hope this answers your questions and I thank you for being open minded enough to ask these questions.

How much government regulation do you think is required for a strong economy?

It looks like there are a few on here so I might get some good answers before this thread is swallowed up in the morass.
Basically regulations against force or fraud, coining money, maybe one or two more things otherwise - the rest is up to the employer and employee to sort out.

The government cannot relinquish control over the monetary supply. It would lead to bad things right now. We are overloaded with debt right now, and the privatization of the fed could cause the dollar to plummet. Without deposit insurance banks would be able to to default on its accounts, and there would be a very similar depression to the 30s.

As for the gold-based banking and a repeal of legal tender laws, I don't see a real need for those, maybe you could explain. Private bank notes I have no problem with.


No insult, but it doesn't seem like you know a lot about free-banking and it's history. I was writing you a full explanation, but my computer stalled, and I don't think I'll doing that again. Read 'Breaking the Bank', by Richard Salsman...some of the books in his bibilography are very good as well, but his book is very simple to understand for anyone that doesn't have a background in banking.

I would search the net as well. I wish I could recall a site that was very detailed in it's explanation of the difference. If I come across a relevent one I'll IM you (if I have capabilty).

I don't like this MSA idea, as I doubt that MSA's will be too easy to manage for the lower working classes.

This is to prevent others from it.....? It just promotes low usage when not necessary, and emergence funds when needed. Demand changes medical coverage quite a bit, and the greatest way of hedging that is influencing low consumption.