Why do people think countries need centrally planned money?

A natural unemployment rate is a perfectly acceptable thing that needs to "correction".

 

I am glad you agree with me that centrally planned money can solve for an inefficiency rate rate known as a natural rate of unemployment in the market for labor, by simply subsidizing the least efficient to not have to compete in a saturated market for labor.

It can be viewed as a legitimate exercise of government, to resort to public sector intervention in private sector markets to better ensure the general welfare and prosperity of Commerce within our Union of several and sovereign States.

Why do you believe that solving for a natural rate of unemployment would not also solve our dilemma of official poverty when due to a simple lack of income that would otherwise be obtained in a more efficient market for labor; if that "minimum wage" also meets or beats the official poverty guidelines?

 

I don't agree with you. Unemployment is not an inefficiency.

No invervention into the market is a legitimate exercise of government.

A natural unemployment rate is perfectly acceptable.

 

fine then all the more reason to own gold

 

fine then all the more reason to own gold

 

This is exactly why the system works so well!

 

hey so long as gold stays on course in going up approximately 25% per year then Bernacke can keep producing all the reserves or currency or whatever he wants.....its OK with me

 

Perfect! Then when you want some cool gadgets like a car or a big screen 3D tv you can exchange some gold for those worthless pieces of paper!

 

but I need to spend them quickly before they devalue...hey at least in my case the velocity of money in my pocket is very high LOL

 

Like I said! This is why our system is so great! You are literally spelling it out for me! The fear of having your money devalue is what causes people to get rid of their money... which causes a massive amount of transactions, investment, and growth. Welcome to the world of high growth economics!!

 

To the extent unemployment engenders the phenomena of official poverty, it must be considered an inefficiency that would not otherwise occur in a more efficient market for labor.

Our federal Constitution delegates the power to regulate Commerce to the public sector.

Why waste our tax monies on an over thirty year war on poverty, if that form of poverty induction is acceptable?

Why quibble about the government of a State if the private sector has only done worse.

 

tell that to the people of germany in the 1920's or the people of argentina 20 years ago

 

Not really sure what you are trying to get at. Poverty is really quite relative...Americans living in poverty are kings by global standards.

 

I agree they are better off then many middle class in many other countries.

But I would hardly refer to them as 'kings by global standards' - maybe global standards of 30 years ago...but not today, IMO.

 

Unemployment must be considered an inefficiency to the extent it engenders official poverty and that lack of full employment of resources in the market for labor. Anything less than full employment can be considered an inefficiency as well.

Our federal Congress is delegated the power to regulate well, Commerce among the several States of the Union, by we the People of the United States.

Can you explain why we should even be trying to eliminate poverty in our republic for over thirty years, if that is ok for the subjective value of your morals? Since we do have a War on Poverty, why should anyone have any confidence in your sincerity, if you refuse to even have a good argument?

 

Unemployment must be considered an inefficiency to the extent it engenders official poverty and that lack of full employment of resources in the market for labor. Anything less than full employment can be considered an inefficiency as well.

Our federal Congress is delegated the power to regulate well, Commerce among the several States of the Union, by we the People of the United States.

Can you explain why we should even be trying to eliminate poverty in our republic for over thirty years, if that is ok for the subjective value of your morals?

 

why would the private sector do better in the first place

 

I am all for rights but how about those that rig the market? Should there be intervention?

 

You do know that there are many colleges that teach Austrian economics don't you?

 

Is Africa better off economically today than it was 30 years ago?
Is Latin America better off economically today than it was 30 years ago?

 

Financially?

I don't know.

Some cases yes, some no.

But they are almost all much freer then they were...and I guarantee you many would value that very highly.

Plus, China and India are far better off now then 30 years ago.

There's over 1/3 of the world's population right there.

Besides, I said 'many middle class in many other countries'...not 'everyone in all countries'.

And I said 'kings'...not just 'better off'.

 

Lol, as a sideshow philosophical bull(*)(*)(*)(*) class.

 

What other sort of money would you suggest? If states, companies or banks printed and distributed their own money it would lead to chaos. Say you're driving through Nebraska and you're from Arizona..you pull in to fill up the tank and all you have is Billy Bob's Bank of Tucson cash. The guy at the gas station tells you that he never heard of the Billy Bob Bank of Tucson.
If there is no cash or currency, and all transactions take a plastic card..isn't that virtually the same as centrally planned money? And then, if the grid has a glitch...you're virtually penniless.

 

Wrong. Your attempts at downplaying it are lame, considering you can't even defend your own position economically

 

I have defended it perfectly. You are incapable of accepting anything other than your laissez-faire anti-Govt Austrian bullcrap.

Go play with your magical gold bars and leave big boy economics to the grown-ups.