Nice article and I'm agreeing with you. I do believe in Global Warming. I think there is substantial evidence to prove that the Earth is warming and there is an increase in "Greenhouse Gases." Unfortunately this is then concluded that "Greenhouse Gases" (like CO2, a naturally occuring, important gas) is the reasoning behind Global Warming. I am not going to agree with this conclusion. I am not convinced that we are the cause of Global Warming, though I think it is safe to assume that we are contributing to it. But my opinions aren't really the point of my comment. I am commenting that it is mass hysteria that is driving this movement and people aren't thinking about what they are saying or what are the repurcussion for their actions. Having a clean environment is beneficial to our health and mental state, but I'm not willing to double the cost of my expenses to accomplish it.

I buy organic produce because I think there's something to the idea that the chemicals in fertilizers and pesticides can't be good for you. I'm willing to pay a little more for it. I also take the metro to work to save 2,600 dollars a year, I think mass transit is important, and it's good for the environment. I don't mind that it doubles my commute time because I don't have to fight traffic the whole way and stress myself. Instead I read or take a nap. Yet again I'm diverging. The point is that if it cost me 2,000 a year to take the metro instead of saving me, you bet I would stop taking it. And if I had to pay an extra 3 dollars for organic food versus the 50 cents to a dollar, you bet I'd stop. Either way, it's my choice what dollar value I assign to these principles.

It's really my health that I'm concerned about. My health is related to my environment, but not dictated by it.

Responses to paragraphs or points, rather than the topic as a whole:

1) What are pogs?
5) From everything I can find to read (and I've read a lot on the subject), the only climate or environmental scientists that don't support the position that humans are at least partially responsible for global warming due to carbon emissions work for the polluting companies, the government, or their loyal supporters. I don't often jump to conclusions but that says something about the validity of the debate.
8) Regulation would always be ideally free from government, but if you take the position that government's sole purpose is to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property from being infringed upon by others, the government can and should protect people from polluters that harm people, such as toxifying the air and water and destroying private or community property.
10) To say any business changes are a punishment ignores that "going green" is often cheaper and less efficient than maintaining the status quo.
11) Schooling for one's children should always be the parent's choice, but it is not comparable, because a child's education or lack there of does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else. Pollution can cause harm to others.
12) Impose fines so great that polluting no longer becomes a cost of doing business but a real deterrent. Enforce fines. Give a transition period for compliance, but use a solid time frame and enforce that time frame.
14) Again, it is only an assumption or debate because the offending parties disagree with teh peer reviewed scientific conclusions. It is like calling Evolution a theory because Creationists refuse to accept it. Both Global Warming and Evolution were discovered without agenda, but are limited in their acceptance due to a very strong agenda from their opponents that threaten their authority or profit.
17) Clearly, the current government is not capable of creating a reasonable, responsible solution. A Libertarian government might, but that would require libertarians to understand the harm done vs the imposition of regulations on business. 99 times out of 100, government need not interfere. I think this is 1 time it is their legitimate duty.
18) It just might take the people to do it, and I would prefer that over any current government solution. A better government solution exists, but a better governemnt sadly, does not.
19) Lest we invoke our Second Amendment rights to safeguard from that fate.

I'm less convinced than ever that global warming is due to greenhouse gases. To everyone interested in this particular aspect of the topic at hand, I recommend the article by Sir Christopher Monckton of the UK's Sunday Telegraph, entitled "Apocalypse Cancelled". The URL is http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

Be sure to click on the link at the top of the article which says, "Download Christopher Monckton's references and detailed calculations" which will give you a PDF file of his entire analysis on the subject.

While "green" is a complex topic, I believe in general that the right thing to do is to ask ourselves who is initiating force, as well as who wants to initiate force. Then, once we've identified the sources of initiated force, we should reject their positions in favor of voluntary alternatives.

The scientific evidence for anthrogenic global climate change due to greenhouse gases is solid. Predictions of what will happen in the future not so solid. Regardless, we libertarians need to start offering very specific suggestions of what we think should be done, or else we will be ignored in the decision making process.

Mike Laursen Wrote:
> The scientific evidence for anthrogenic global
> climate change due to greenhouse gases is solid.

Not so much. http://www.functionalisminaction.com/2007/07/new-axis-of-evil-russia-canada-israel.html
http://www.functionalisminaction.com/2007/05/global-warming-scientific-process.html

> Predictions of what will happen in the future
> not so solid.

Painfully so. Have you read the open letter from Christopher Landsea?
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

> Regardless, we libertarians need to start
> offering very specific suggestions of what we
> think should be done, or else we will be ignored
> in the decision making process.

We already //are// ignored.

To actually address the point of making suggestions, unfortunately the only L(l)ibertarian solution we can offer is one that will be deeply rejected by the core of the ecological movement: market adjustments and incentives.

The reasoning behind this is exactly the same reasoning that is causing the abject refusal, in some corners, of Branson's Earth-Prize.
Example:
http://primordial-blog.blogspot.com/2007/02/virgin-earth-challengetechnology-vs.html
Philosophical material on neoLuddism & bioLuddism from the oppositional perspective:
http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/communities/environmentalists/

Mike Laursen: In addition to what IConrad cited, please read the articles I cited, and you'll see that the case for "anthrogenic global climate change [being] due to greenhouse gases" is highly porous and not in the least solid.

A couple of quick comments:

1. The earth has been warming for tens of thousands of years (since the last ice age, actually), with a couple of slight slight blips such as occurred in the early to mid eighteenth century;

2. Mars is also warming (?); and

3. Correlation is not causality (A law of both science and logic of which most people seem painfully ignorant).

Having said all that, it seems to me that Libertarians in particular have an obligation to be particularly sensitive to environmental issues; if we claim that the market and personal actions can and will solve problems, we need to be in the forefront in demonstrating such.

In conclusion, even if observable warming is not man-made, anything we can do to mitigate it may end up saving very large government expenditures and preventing substantial obtrusive government actions down the road.

Andrew,
Your entire position is based on the everyday citizen making the right choice and thus regulating companies through economic means. But this is all based on the assumption that the average citizen is inteligent enough to make a decision. Most citizens are not like us. They do not watch the news, read the lp website, or study the latest research. For instance, most americans refuse to buy toyota, and instead buy dodge because they believe dodge is an american car. The reality is most chrysler products are produced in canada or mexico, and most toyotas are produced in the US. I think for your utopian vision of consumers making the right choices to happen, we would need massive consumer education programs. Which would have to be done by the government, which I am sure you would be against also.

Most people either aren't intelligent enough or not motivated enough to do the homework to make intelligent decisions. Okay, I'll agree with that one readily enough.

Where we part ways is where we reach the assumption that since the people aren't going to make intelligent decisions, the government has to. That assumption has what, to me, are a couple of fatal flaws.

1) What is a government made up of? Ordinary people like you and me. So.... if 90% of the people can't be counted on to make an intelligent decision, doesn't that mean that X government functionary with the authority to decide about global warming is about 90% likely to make a less than intelligent decision? And this benefits the people *how*, exactly?

2) Sure, you can take the decision making process away from people on the basis that most of them are too ignorant or lazy to decide intelligently. But if you do, you take that authority away from ALL of them, the intelligent and the stupid alike. Yes, you prevent people from making stupid decisions. You likewise prevent them from making intelligent decisions, too. This is what authoritarian government supporters think of as "a solution".

I agree with the last post whole heartedly, but also i have to remind every one that during the 70's there was a similar environmental movement that claimed that the earth was rapidly cooling because between the 40's and 70's there were many cold years in a row. Based on this I'm going to call shenanigans on the Global warming hysteria. Yes, the Earth is slightly warming in relation to the past 10,000 yrs, but even if the ice caps melted today it would not be all that strange because there have been many periods in earth's existence that it has been much much warmer than it is now and where there have been no ice caps. That does not mean as individuals you should treat the earth like shit, it just means i don't want to hear Al Gore talk about nothing for hours, while being a hypocrite; by living in a giant house that he heats and cools, driving an SUV and flying in a private jet; and making millions upon millions of dollars off of peoples gullibility. all while claiming to give a shit about the environment (he doesn't)

By the way, i have no problem with people flying jets, living in huge houses, and driving SUV's but Al Gore claims those things are ruining the earth and he is telling us not to do it, fuck him

Anyone who says that most people aren't intelligent or involved enough to make sound decisions is making the case for authoritarian dictatorship. The next words out of such mouths tend to be on the order of, "and so, we should invest the decision-making power in the wise and public-spirited people in government."

Maybe they are right. But if they are, then our particular system is failed and we should just admit it and start bending knee and tugging forelock in the appropriate direction.

One thing I know for certain: you can't have a system of government of, by, and for the people, if the people are too stupid and disinterested to participate. If the people can't make sound decisions with their dollars and lives, should we expect that they suddenly made sound decisions with their votes, by magic? Why should we trust that the representatives they elected are in any better shape to govern than the clearly incompetent people who elected them? (This last point was made in a different way by someone else, above, but I think it bears repeating.)

The fact is, the country mostly works. The people are mostly good. Their decisions are mostly sound. And this is despite all of the regulation and taxation we have, not because of it. Politicians are very good about seeing a parade and jumping to the head of it, so as to appear to be leading something that would have developed and gone on without them. I think the global warming trend is just another one of those situations. I'm with Walt T.: let's identify the people who are advocating force, unceasingly point out who they are and the force they advocate, and just as unceasingly present voluntary approaches to the problems we face.

Kyle said, "By the way, i have no problem with people flying jets, living in huge houses, and driving SUV's but Al Gore claims those things are ruining the earth and he is telling us not to do it, fuck him."

At some point, Mr. Gore will be able to power his huge house and something like an SUV from solar-generated electrons. I hope he makes the leap. Flying around will be another problem. I suggest that he invest in a blimp or a dirigible, the engines of which can be powered electrically (perhaps using solar energy generated by PV panels on the skin of the airship itself). That would be the perfect, politically correct vehicle for Mr. Gore, himself one of the country's largest gasbags.

John Shuey wrote: "Mars is also warming"

Funny you should mention that. The better explanation (than man-made emissions) as to why the Earth is warming is that solar scientists who track the Sun's temperature, watch for sunspots, etc. have noted that the Sun has been getting hotter over the past few decades, and that the slight increase in Earth's average temperatures correlates exactly with the Sun's hotter temperatures. Again, this is all documented in the link I included in my first comment above.

So therefore I disagree with Mr. Shuey's assertion that, "Even if observable warming is not man-made, anything we can do to mitigate it may end up saving very large government expenditures and preventing substantial obtrusive government actions down the road." To the contrary, "anything we can do" will almost certainly be a colossal waste of money, time, and other resources. After all, what would you have us do...put a heat shield between the Earth and the Sun?

Walt Thiessen Wrote:
> Funny you should mention that. The better
> explanation (than man-made emissions) as to why
> the Earth is warming is that solar scientists who
> track the Sun's temperature, watch for sunspots,
> etc. have noted that the Sun has been getting
> hotter over the past few decades, and that the
> slight increase in Earth's average temperatures
> correlates exactly with the Sun's hotter
> temperatures.

Walt, you're part of the problem.

It is //*NOT*// higher luminosity (temperature) that is the cause of the variability of the earth's temperatures. Rather, it has to do the increasing output of the sun's solar winds, which is directly correlated to sunspot activity. This has an established causative relationship with the cloud formation processes in the upper stria of the Earth's & Mars's tropospheres.

This is the process discussed by the four doctors discussed in the most recent article on my blog, http://www.functionalisminaction.com

It is not "who is committing force," but "who is committing the initial force?" Isn't that the polluter? The government official that fines them is committing force too, but in direct response to the infringement upon others.

Aside from global warming, pollution of the air, land, and water are force by someone that harms others, and if the government stops people/companies from doing those things, I think that is their legitimate duty. Then, if the carbon emissions are reduced or eliminated as a result that should handle the cause of global warming which is those same emissions (pollution of air). So, even if global warming is not anthropogenic, the temperatures will still fluctuate on their own. But, if it is anthropogenic, then global warming would at least be slowed if not stopped or reversed.

Criminalize the polluters and stop the initiation of force part, and if it happens to stop global warming, great! If it happens that it does not stop global warming, then it will simply turn out to be obvious that it is not anthropogenic, at least not in the ways the environmental scientists have claimed. How is this a negative scenario, other than for the polluters?

Some argue that no one should do anything because prices will go up. That should be temporary as being cleaner is usually more efficient and thus cheaper for business and their consumers. Portland has demonstrated this. Solar panels are expensive but only because they are not mass produced, but if one installs them they can get paid by the grid. If they were massed produced the cost would go down.

IConrad: I have no idea why you are pointing your guns at me. We're on the same side. Further, the source you cited makes *NO* mention of either "solar winds" or "sunspots." Also, luminosity is a measure of brightness, not of heat.

I quote from the link I provided to the article, "Apocalypse Cancelled," by Sir Christopher Monckton: "Solanki and Fligge (2003) deduced that in the past half-century the Sun has been hotter, and for longer, than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years. Their work, inevitably relying on proxies for TSI in former times, has recently been extended by Willson (2003), who has concluded that between the last two minima of the 10.6-year solar cycle TSI has risen at a rate equivalent to at least 0.68wm-2 per decade."

So if you're going to quibble about the facts, at least get them right. And better yet, figure out who your friends are.

Nick wrote: "Then, if the carbon emissions are reduced or eliminated as a result that should handle the cause of global warming which is those same emissions (pollution of air)."

No Nick, that is NOT the cause of global warming. Read the links I provided above! Any attempt to reduce pollution based on a global warming claim is false!

I'm all in favor of reducing pollution, but can we please do it for the right reasons? Pollution violates individual rights because it forces people to breath and ingest substances that they would not otherwise want to breath and ingest. That's where force is initiated by polluters. Also, don't forget that the #1 polluter is the U.S. Government.

Walt...

Your hyperbole is precisely why the average Joe doesn't take libertarians seriously.

I was not referring to government action nor any extraordinary means...but rather sensible, personal steps we could take to demonstrate we are concerned for our environment as much as the next guy. It's only our solutions that are different, that is...based on individual choices and actions vs compulsion.

The opposite of big government is not burying your head in the sand. That makes you a non-player.

John: Sorry if I misinterpreted what you wrote. However, if you want to make sure you aren't misinterpreted, you might avoid using broad-brush phrases such as, "anything we can do to mitigate it may end up saving very large government expenditures and preventing substantial obtrusive government actions down the road." That phrase may mean to you that you oppose extraordinary means, but the phrasing itself suggests otherwise. After all, "government action" and "extraordinary means" could and often do logically fall under the category of "anything we can do."

I doubt very much that hyperbole keeps people from taking the LP seriously. I strongly suspect that most people don't know much about us...which is REALLY what prevents them from taking us seriously. That's our fault...primarily because we as a party don't often lead from our strengths in our outreach by emphasizing ideas such as the non-aggression principle. People are used to hyperbole in political discussions. They're inundated with it. Yet hyperbole is not on most people's top 100 lists for reasons why they don't like politicians, government, new ideas, etc. So how about not blaming something as silly as hyperbole, all right?

I agree with you that it's always better to show people how voluntary approaches work better than coerced approaches to problem-solving, no matter what the issue.

Walt Thiessen, channelling Smithers: "After all, what would you have us do [sir]...put a heat shield between the Earth and the Sun?"

James Merritt, channelling Burns, steepling fingertips, "Exxxxcellent!"

Nick wrote, "It is not 'who is committing force,' but 'who is committing the initial force?' Isn't that the polluter? The government official that fines them is committing force too, but in direct response to the infringement upon others."

First, just let me say that, whenever I see "committing force" in a libertarian blog or forum posting, I mentally supply the "initial" part. Not that it isn't best to always use the correct phrase, and to make it clear to newbies that we distinguish between "initiation of force" and "use of force." But for the purposes of not interrupting the flow of an informal discussion thread between libertarians, I'm happy to tolerate a little shorthand.

Second, it seems that an assumption that Nick (and others) may be making is that the emission of greenhouse gases -- especially CO2 -- automatically makes one a polluter and therefore an aggressive initiator of force. I agree completely that government has proper authority to limit emission of pollution into the commons (oceans and waterways, atmosphere, etc.), on the basis that such pollution can indeed work its ways onto and into people's property -- especially their bodies. This is a form of trespass, and, if it grows too noxious, even a form of assault or vandalism. But government should not be able to label just anything a pollutant, nor go after just anyone for emitting a particular pollutant. Government (or a plaintiff in a civil suit) first needs to be able to prove that harm is caused by the pollution. Then, the cause of the pollution must be identified. Those responsible for any human-caused pollution that leads to harm or damage should be held responsible in proportion to their individual contribution to the situation.

So the big question here, even bigger than "who is initiating force" is, "is harm being done, and is anyone who can be held responsible initiating force to cause that harm?"

Climate change happens. To expect climate to remain the same, or even to remain comfortable over generations, is to expect what never was and probably never will be. As yet, we still don't know how much human activity is contributing to the variations we have seen in recent years. Given the huge gray areas, it is very hard to conclude that anyone is doing anything to harm anyone else, for which penalties, restrictions, or sanctions are appropriate. Rushing to give the government the power to combat "global warming" and to control greenhouse gas emissions (some would say, by any means necessary -- we're running out of time!) therefore seems an incredible overreaction, one that we may soon have cause to regret.

Until the science is much more settled than we see today, I think the best mechanism for responding to global warming is the free press and the free market. Let science feed us as much good information as we can assimilate, and then let each individual decide how to deal with his or her own "footprint," employing products or services (or avoiding the use of "bad" products or services) provided in the free market. Don't just arbitrarily declare that certain activities now constitute pollution, and that people engaging in them are now and subject to government control and punishment.

Why is it that in order to advocate limited government involvement, we have to flatly deny science and logic?

Global warming is real and caused by humans.

You want to subdue its effects with a libertarian solution?

Stop artificially reducing gas prices with government coercion. We pay less for gas than most other countries. Remove military forces from oil-producing countries, stop dealing with countries for oil, and stop corporate subsidies.

Once the market forces have taken over, we'll be paying a good $10 a gallon for gas. It's not fun, but that's what happens when we go off government cold turkey, and I support it.

At $10 a gallon, demand for alternate fuels will skyrocket. We'll have an electric car tomorrow. It won't take long for an entrepreneur to realize this.

The transition period is hard, but it's a lot better than burying our heads in the sand like some ignorant GOPers. Take gov out and let the market do its work.

Mike, To honor science and logic, theories need not only to match observed data to a respectable tolerance, they also need to be able to predict future results AND/OR suggest how humans can be effective in controlling (in this case, even reversing) a particular phenomenon.

Science tells us that the CO2 level tends to FOLLOW global warming after a space of years, not lead it, so I'm not sure what people expect to happen if, for example, humans modified their behavior to eliminate all CO2 emissions beyond simple respiration. The best that science can do for us right now is suggest "don't do that," but nobody is sure whether taking that advice will lead to a good outcome, in the way, for example, that we know with certainty that we can fire rockets in certain directions and at certain times to send a probe hundreds of millions of miles to rendezvous with Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto, months in the future. But politics is all about "doing something now" (or at least appearing to do something by spending money and passing laws that restrict behavior, whether or not the actions are truly effective).

I'm all for reducing taxpayer subsidies, direct and indirect, to the oil industry. Let the price of gasoline find its natural level. But here's the rub. Today, the dollar is worth only about 10% of its early 1960s value. So a rise in price to $10/gallon would only mean that gas -- which cost around 25 cents a gallon in the early 1960s, would cost the equivalent of a 1960s dollar today. That's a four-fold increase in real "value," but the economy has absorbed larger increases in the prices of other goods; I am not so sure that even a rise to $10 per gallon would wean people from their autos or gasoline dependence. We used to think that a rise to $2 per gallon, or even $3, would open the floodgates of demand for alternative transportation. What we have actually seen has disproven that speculation. Also, if we are going to eliminate corporate welfare for the oil industry, we should also eliminate a lot of the restrictions on that industry's ability to find and exploit new sources of oil, and we might even want to reduce or eliminate taxes on gasoline and oil products. (At very least, divert those taxes entirely to the upkeep and improvement of the roadways, so people won't be able to claim disingenuously that the auto "public infrastructure" is a gift of subsidy to the auto industry and car owners.)

Walt, I'm with you. What I was trying to say was that the government has a duty to stop polluters and if it so happens that they slow down or stop global warming as a result, then that's OK, but that they shouldn't just arbitrarily "stop global warming." That doesn't mean much in and of itself. So, I think we're on the same page. I didn't say it should be based on a global warming position. Maybe by saying I believe the emissions to be the cause I was inferring that that would be the reason for the government taking action. I was suggesting that would be a benefit of the action, not the reason for it.

Of course, you suggested emissions are not the cause so I will examine those links. James also suggests human activity is not the culprit. I will definitely look further into it, because to date I have not heard credible scientific evidence to suggest that, only neo-con and Big Energy financed "scientists."

James, you are suggesting that harm is not being done, at least not unnaturally. I guess we have to truly determine ALL of the causes of warming, and how much of that is caused by human consumption and output. At least we have gotten away from people saying that global warming is a myth as was not too long ago on these blogs and the public debate in general. Now, almost everyone concedes the Earth is warming, so we just have to find out definitively what causes it, how much are we responsible for, can it be stopped or slowed significantly, and even if it continues or accelerates, is that bad and worth trying to stop? I will say if sea levels rise to the level some scientists fear there could be upwards of 2 billions refugees, and that means 4 billion people who would have to "take them in" for lack of a better term.

Maybe this is why Bush is touting another moon landing or Mars exploration. I am not looking forward to the full scale World War (everybody this time, woohoo!) that could occur if we don't figure this all out and soon. Even if it never happens that doesn't mean someone won't fight over it. Then we have a whole new "initiation of force" to deal with.

Not so much.

You linked to articles criticizing the idea that consensus is an indicator of scientific validity. I agree, but I never said anything about consensus.

I'm saying that we now have a solid body of historical data, and a theory of causality that fits that data. By the way, the data wasn't that solid if you go back even a few years -- certain folks won't admit this, but the global warming skeptics provided a valuable service by prodding the gathering of better data.

Don't read too much into the above agreement with the scientific consensus. As I said, predictions of what's going to happen in the future, and policy proposals are not nearly as solid as promoters portray them.

AGAIN folks..it would seem OBVIOUS: ..when you work your fallacy (:O emitters about some stinking 'free market,' 10 'dollar' gasoline, etc. ad frigging nauseam, absent even one honest hint of the nature, origin, etc. of said 'dollars' (virtually half of every stinking tran$action in said stinking 'free market')..well!..why wouldn't your opinion$ here most likely be worse than worthless?!.. ;o)

Clark,

Still lookin for your book on the origin of the $. Can't find it on amazon. Where is it?

Clark, you incoherent paranoid twit -- kindly do us all a favor and take up cliff diving.

Nick: You want "credible scientific evidence" ...
Here: http://www.functionalisminaction.com/search?q=global+warming
Especially: http://www.functionalisminaction.com/2007/07/new-axis-of-evil-russia-canada-israel.html

If you don't want to go off of my own works, try googling the following names: Henrik Svensmark, Nir Shaviv, Tim Patterson, and the Khabibullo Abdusamatov.

Mike Laursen: With all due respect, would you care to present the theory of anthropogenic causality that fits the data? Because I've never seen it -- and I've looked.

James R.:

As a favor to all, this book that Clark is going on and on about can be found here:

http://www.monetary.org/lostscienceofmoney.html

And the guy's "Zarlenga" site is here:

http://www.monetary.org

BTW, Zarlenga is going to be a headline speaker at a Green Party event. In no way can this guy's monetary policies be considered compatible with Libertarian thought.

With all due respect Clark, we Libertarians are not going to buy what you have to sell. I think you may find a more sympathetic ear with the Green Party and maybe with the Democratic Party.

MARK B. WROTE [b]"With all due respect Clark, we Libertarians are not going to buy what you have to sell.[/b]

LOL! You one of those loud radio Boor/O'Lielly 'Libertarians'?

Btw, I believe you don't know/understand what I'm trying to convey..

Refresh/inform yourselves, Republicrats, et al: Article 1, sec.8 clause?5 US CON. (which, i bet, many of you lug nut$ hath sworn to uphold!....HA!>

..I believe this clause would indicate "the Money Power"/control over money issuance, administration, etc. 'was given' to CONGRESS..(notice the inclusion of ?'weights and measures' in this clause) ...a body **SUPPOSEDLY** MOST OPEN TO "THE PUBLIC"..

Yet I can barely find a one of you Republicrats who can, even marginally, honesty and/or intelligently answer simple questions such as, "PRECISELY, how does 'new money' get issued/created? who issues/creates it? how? how many 'dollars' are there?..etc. ad nauseam!

So maybe you can understand my $uspicions of the worthiness of any comments on "an economy" etc. ad nauseam, measured in illions of 'dollars' when the comment holer is OBVIOUSLY clueless as to nature, origin etc. of even one!.. ;o)

ATTRIBUTED TO A SIR JOSIAH STAMP,

"Banking was conceived in iniquity, and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen, they will create enough deposits, to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers, and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."

"take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in." Yup, sounds very Green Partyish to me. Let's just avoid all risk-reward scenarios based on the issuing of capital in return for interest.

Bankers are not necessarily evil. Only those that create money without a foundation are. It is not inherent in the system. It was a political deal and was not labeled correctly as fraud when it was enacted, the Federal Reserve that is. Congress could have just as easily printed and coined money with a value, cash being the precious metal backed alternative to carrying around loads of grain in exchange for belt buckles. As usual, it really is as simple as the politicians selling out to the special interests.

Nick; you're dancing around the bush. Money is a symbol. Nothing more, or less. Silver has nigh-unto no material uses. Gold is useful as a high-fidelity electrical conductor, but not for much else. All assigned value to such metals is //entirely// arbitrary. The arbitrary assignment of value is a process called "value by fiat."

As economies progress in increasing complexity, the abstraction of the symbol of wealth becomes greater and greater. This is not a cause-and-effect relationship, it is a synonymous relationship.

That is why people like Clark are useless twits, and why the "gold-backed currency" movement is a failure before it even started.

We need to have something to trade. That would be money as opposed to carrying around goods of enormous bulk. The money has to have value. I don't care if it's gold or silver or paper clips but it has to be backed in something. Otherwise it has no value. Printing money from nothing, even if by Congress would not give the money value.

Or do you suggest something I'm missing? How should we assign value to the money? Gold and silver did have value when people were able to trade them for other things, so they acted as money for a few thousand years. Then the printing and coining of money was intended to replace gold and silver because they were too difficult to carry around. They still held value in the premise that one could still give it to the government in exchange for paper money that could be used just as easily. Sure the value of gold and silver fluctuated but it did so based on supply and demand, which is a pretty good start for capitalism.

And, it would be better to have an item with no other uses than to actually BE money. Otherwise, the fluctuations in the value of cash would be erratic, based on supply and demand of the backing currency.

> And, it would be better to have an item with no
> other uses than to actually BE money.

Then why do you spend so much time arguing against it? ?:/

> I don't care if it's gold or silver or paper clips
> but it has to be backed in something.

I could just reference above. But the point is this; while modern currency is conventionalized by governments, it is an object which has no other value than to be currency.

We've already, however, moved on past the valuation of paper currency as the primary medium of exchange within this nation: an even further abstraction has taken place into pure digital information. (Read: debit cards and wire transactions.) There have been well-noted drawbacks associated with this process, but it is inexorably taking over for one simple reason: the more fluid the unit of wealth, the stronger the economy using it. This is a historical trend that has never been invalidated, over the course of the entirety of human history.

So, if you want to get down to it: your gold, silver, or paper-clips; they all represent a standard of exchange -- you know this. But at the end of the day, all "currency" value is "fiat" value: they are only worth what you can get for them.

Par exemplorum: gold was considered on the same value level as copper is today, in the pre-Columbian "West Indies". Cocoa beans were used as currency by the Incans. Roman legionaries in some cases paid in salt; hence the expression, "worth his salt." Yet no one would suggest "salt-backed" or "cocoa bean-backed" currency.

I'm meandering, and I know it. So I will 'fundamentalize' my argument:

Mechanically speaking the only difference between material-object backed currencies and 'phantom' currencies is in the former lacking the liquidity of the latter. That greater liquidity in the latter is the source of increased access to wealth for all -- the poor and the wealthy.

It is senseless to throw so many people into poverty simply to appease a recidivistic impulse for control.

ICONRUDE WROTE: "It is senseless to throw so many people into poverty simply to appease a recidivistic impulse for control."

Well duh.....But control is what 'they' have now!!..

I want the "money creation/issuance process open and largely understood..unlike now, where it appears VERY VERY VERY FEW OF YOU REPUBLICRATS, etc. can even honestly describe the basics of the system..i.e. What is "IT" **PRECISELY** we use as money? ..how does "IT" get into circulation?..ya know, Republicrats, ..who what when where why how etc..

It would appear that ignorant Republicrats are much easier to $hear/handle than knowledgeable libertarians..good thing for the $tring-puller$ 'we' are awash in the former...and in a looooooong drought with respect ot the latter!.. ;o)

ICONFU$E WROTE: "So, if you want to get down to it: your gold, silver, or paper-clips; they all represent a standard of exchange -- you know this. But at the end of the day, all "currency" value is "fiat" value: they are only worth what you can get for them.

If you want to REALLY 'get down to it' the real 'value' inherent in those 'things' we call 'money' ..numbers symbols tokens etc.. resides in THE FACT that we are all forced to use 'them'/'it'..or someone else in our behalf etc...or we SHALL SURELY END UP IN BAD SHAPE VERY QUICKLY..i.e. dead/in jail/both..(i remind you Republicrats that, for one of many things, we all NEED a place 'to be'..to lay our heads at night, conduct trade, grow food, etc. ad nauseam..and absent a very few exceptions, in order to 'have land' one must use not gold, not silver, not diamonds, tobacco, manure, wampum etc. ad nauseam..but federal reserve tokens ('dollars' to most/all Republicrat peckerheads) to satisfy 'the property tax' etc. ad nauseam..

Again it has seemed VERY VERY ODD to me for some time that $ome'thing' so fundamental to Republicrat existence is so ill-understood by Republicrats.. ;o)

CLARK CLUMSILY WROTE: "and absent a very few exceptions, in order to 'have land' one must use not gold, not silver, not diamonds, tobacco, manure, wampum etc. ad nauseam..but federal reserve tokens ('dollars' to most/all Republicrat peckerheads) to satisfy 'the property tax' etc. ad nauseam..

..maybe CLARK should've wrote "and 'with' very few exceptions".. i ain't super-man after all!.. ;o) ;o)

CLARK:

Without fail, every time I read the LP Blog I find intelligent, articulate comments and arguments from various libertarians on the topic at hand.

And then, there is you.

Your nonsensical and often incomprehensible rants about "dollar$" (the "$"'s in place of the letter "s" are nice-- it lets people know right away they're dealing with a nut job), your oh-so-witty Clarkisms such as "Republicrats", "et ceterot", and "Bill O'Lielly", and your incessant and improper use of CAPITAL LETTERS and **ASTERISKS** serve only two purposes: to interrupt and sidetrack an otherwise intelligent discussion, and to diminish our credibility and appeal to any non-libertarians who may be reading our blog.

To be blunt, you are a paranoid, delusional fool, and you are unable to present a coherent argument or opinion on any topic whatsoever. Please find a cabin in Minnesota where you can write a manifesto on the evil of the dollar, and stay away from our blog. You are a detriment to our party. Thank you.

Folks: Clark "$" is a troll, and nothing more. Ignore him appropriately. Thank you.

I meant the gold and silver had the sole purpose of "being" money. So for the government to hold them as backing for the paper money makes sense to me. They aren't needed for other industries so they are less likely to fluctuate due to say the demand for corn since it is now being used as fuel. Also gold and silver can't be created by anyone, they are either naturally ocurring or we'll need some sort of 15th century alchemy to transform lead.

The point is, I'm arguing in favor of having something solid and tangible with no other use to be the backing for money so it is not printed out of thin air. Printing it out of thin air, although convenient, causes inflation. The money created is distributed to the banks, but for what? If it were solely in exchange for old worn paper money then fine, but they print and distribute it without an equal return of old money. It's artificial wealth given to the banker which he can only use to spend or loan out. Either way it adds more supply of cash to the world than is justified by earnings or production or need thus devaluing what is in everyone's pocket.

The biggest problem should just be accounting for the printing and distirbution of the money, even if it is backed in gold. There have to be a tremendous number of people checking each other and then being honest in the process. Difficult but not impossible. The press should monitor it as well as independent auditors because they would love to tell the story and that was their intended purpose, to monitor the government. No closed door printing. No closed door distribution. Transparency is key.

As for the fluidity, their needs to be safeguards against the artificial creation of those fluid digital amounts as well. Fluidity is great for reasons you said, but for the same reasons as printing money from nothing it adds supply of capital where it shouldn't exist. You should always be able to account in real currency for every digital penny. If I spend $25.00 on DVDs with my credit card on a website, then my check to pay the credit card company should be able to be cashed for real currency from my bank and the real currency should be exchangeable if one so chooses for a real hard currency (gold?). Then if the government that gave the gold for the dollar wants to buy more gold from outside sources and redistribute that dollar into the economy they could. And in that whole transaction the value of everything remained the same. No inflation.

> Either way it adds more supply of cash to the
> world than is justified by earnings or production
> or need thus devaluing what is in everyone's
> pocket.

Have you ever read on the impact of deflation on an economy, or the association between "hard currency" and deflation?

> Fluidity is great for reasons you said, but for
> the same reasons as printing money from nothing
> it adds supply of capital where it shouldn't
> exist.

And that is exactly why the economy gains in strength from this process; more wealth is distributed to the general populace than is destroyed.

> You should always be able to account in real
> currency for every digital penny. If I spend
> $25.00 on DVDs with my credit card on a website,
> then my check to pay the credit card company
> should be able to be cashed for real currency
> from my bank and the real currency should be
> exchangeable if one so chooses for a real hard
> currency (gold?).

Do you know what a cognitive bias is?
Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
List of Cognitive Biases via Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

I thought more wealth was distributed to those that create the money out of thin air? They invent the money. They spend or loan it as they choose, so they have all this money to bestow on people based on their own decisions. That seems like a ton of power right there they shouldn't have. They didn't actually do anything of value to gain that money other than operate a printing press, or move a decimal point. Wouldn't real growth come from the investment of hard money, job creation, innovation, effort, time, ingenuity, intelligence, creativity, efficiency, etc? Why is it valuable to create money from nothing, distribute it, and devalue other people's money in the process (that was earned with the above mention qualities)? Those above mentioned qualities used to obtain wealth are capitalist in nature, are they not? Creation of inflation seems like theft or fraud.

Which cognitive bias(es) was I guilty of? Which ones are you guilty of?

http://pressesc.com/news/78225072007/us-senators-call-universal-internet-filtering

Sic!

How come that's not the news here?

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

To claim at this point "In the complicated global warming debate, one thing is certain: For every scientist that says global warming is real, there is another that flatly denies a human impact", is either simply dishonest or a case of willful denial.

Yes, market forces are the best way to limit the effects of global warming. And the best way to begin to make this happen is to be honest about the problem.

> Wouldn't real growth come from the investment of
> hard money, job creation, innovation, effort,
> time, ingenuity, intelligence, creativity,
> efficiency, etc?

This is as much of a leading question as is, "Are you still beating your wife?" Specifically where you reference "hard" money. Job creation is accelerated by the money multiplication effect, which cannot occur as readily using material commodity monies. The remainder of the question is irrelevant to the topic; they occur under either circumstance; if anything, they are //facilitated// by the effect of using "unbacked currency."

> Those above mentioned qualities used to obtain
> wealth are capitalist in nature, are they not?

//*NO*//, they are not. Capitalism refers solely to the investment of funds into ventures and efforts. Money investment. What you suggest is in effect //anti//-capitalist.

> Which cognitive bias(es) was I guilty of? Which
> ones are you guilty of?

HAH! Way to turn the coin. :) Offhand I'd say we both share the "Bias blind spot". In your case I'd suggest "Loss Aversion" -- in the arena of comparing the gains from inflation compared to the losses of it, "Selective Perception" -- in the area of comparing material commodities with virtual commodities, and perhaps "Zero Risk" -- in that you'd prefer the perceived reduced absolute risk of material commodities over the vastly greater reduced societal risk of virtual commodities. Keep in mind that material commodities //DO// fluctuate in value, in a manner that is //not// fixed to the variations in the value of the dollar.

Also, unlike virtual commodities, material commodities are subject to the effect of windfalls and hoarding, which can destroy economies. The dollar is effectively immune to this. The real comparison of wealth for the average individual is not loss from inflation, but rather comparative purchasing power. To calculate this it is necessary to compare the average increase in wage in real numbers to the average increase in the cost of everyday goods in real numbers.

That gap has been widening in favor of income. It has been widening at a greater rate under the virtual commodity system than under the material commodity system.

Note, further; I suspect the idea of virtual commodity being equivalent in value -- in purchasing power -- to a material commodity is one that you are having a difficult time agreeing with at all.

RickSp wrote (on topic, no less!):
> To claim at this point "In the complicated global
> warming debate, one thing is certain: For every
> scientist that says global warming is real, there
> is another that flatly denies a human impact", is
> either simply dishonest or a case of willful
> denial.

Rick, while hyperbolistic in nature, Andrew's remarks aren't that far off. See:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42

To be fair, the overwhelming majority of such individuals do not "flat out deny" human impact but rather state that the human factor is marginal -to-minimal.

But yes, Rick; Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. I suggest you take that advice to heart, and then consider, in light of previous (off-topic) conversation, that you investigate the term, "Confirmation Bias".

IConrad: forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to underestimate the costs of inflation.

One can identify at least nine costs of the inflation, some of which may have heavily detrimental economic effects (including, but definitely not limited to economic growth, thus resulting in addition in potentially serious long-term consequences). I am mostly relying on Romer (2006) here [have been recently studying for macro. finals ;-)], provided is the full lists of sources, many of which are peer-reviewed economic journals.

There are three easily identifiable ones:

(a) "shoe leather" costs [unproductive efforts to conserve on money holdings - elimination of these would actually require zero nominal interest rate - in practice - slight deflation, see Tolley (1957), Friedman (1969)]

(b) "menu" costs (the need for more often adjustment of prices & wages and/or indexing schemes adoption - minimized at zero inflation)

(c) tax system distortion - "in most countries, income from capital gains and interest, and deductions for interest expenses and depreciation, are computed in nominal terms. As a result, inflation can have large effects on incentives for investment and saving. In the United States, the net effect of inflation thorough these various channels is to raise the effective tax on capital income substantially. In addition, inflation can significantly alter the relative attractiveness of different kinds of investment." (Romer 2006; see also Feldstein 1997).

"In contrast to the shoe leather and menu costs of inflation, the costs of inflation through tax distortions may be large" (Romer 2006)

There also steady inflation costs, which may be quite significant:

(i) "First, because individual prices are not adjusted continuously, even steady inflation causes variations in relative prices as different firms adjust their prices at different times. As a result, inflation increases the departures of relative prices from the values they would have under frictionless price adjustment. Okun (1975) and Carlton (1982) argue informally that this inflation-induced relative-price variability disrupts markets where firms and customers form long-term relationships and prices are not adjusted frequently. For example, it can make it harder for potential customers to decide whether to enter a long-term relationship, or for the parties to a long-term relationship to check the fairness of the price they are trading at by comparing it with other prices. Formal models suggest that inflation can have complicated effects on market structure, long-term relationships, and efficiency (for example, Benabou, 1992, and Tommasi, 1994)

(ii) "Second, individuals and firms may have trouble accounting for inflation (Modigliani and Cohn, 1979; Hall, 1984). 10% inflation causes the price level to rise by a factor of 45 in 40 years; even 3% inflation causes it to triple over that period. As a result, inflation can cause households and firms, which typically do their financial planning in nominal terms, to make large errors in saving for their retirement, in assessing the real burdens of mortgages, or in making long-term investments"

(iii) "Finally, steady inflation may be costly not because of any real effects, but simply because people dislike it. People relate to their economic environment in terms of dollar values. They may therefore find large changes in dollar prices and wages disturbing even if the changes have no consequences for their real incomes. In Okun's (1975) analogy, a switch to a policy of reducing the length of the mile by a fixed amount each year might have few effects on real decisions, but might nonetheless cause considerable unhappiness."

Finally, there are additional costs of variable inflation as well.

Empirically, there is a positive relationship between the mean and the variance of inflation (in layman's terms: the higher the inflation is, the more variable and less predictable it becomes). For details, see Okun, 1971; Taylor, 1981; Ball and Cecchetti, 1990.

"This implies some potentially important additional costs of inflation.

[1.] First, since many assets are denominated in nominal terms, unanticipated changes in inflation redistribute wealth. Thus greater inflation variability increases uncertainty and lowers welfare.

[2.] Second, with debts denominated in nominal terms, increased uncertainty about inflation may make firms and individuals reluctant to undertake investment projects, especially long-term ones.

[3.] And finally, highly variable inflation (or even higher inflation alone) can discourage long-term investment because firms and individuals view it as a symptom of a government that is functioning badly, and that may therefore resort to confiscatory taxation or other policies that are highly detrimental to capital holders."

"Empirically, there is a negative association between inflation and investment, and between inflation and growth (Fisher, 1993; Cukierman, Kalaitzidakis, Summers and Webb, 1993; Bruno and Easterly, 1998).

I'd like to add that I'm in no way in support of any single monopolized state-controlled monetary system, as most of them are prone to the above-mentioned vulnerabilities. That includes the gold standard, if meant as constituting a gold as the only allowed legal tender (or underlying of such).

Personally, I happen to think that free competition of private currencies (i.e. no state regulations regarding the monetary system whatsoever) would result in the most efficient solution [well, that's almost by definition ;-)]. That includes e.g. digital gold, which seems to be promising in the context of globalizing economy and rapid technological progress. On the other hand, perhaps LET (Local Exchange Trading) systems wouldn't be a bad idea, either. Ultimately - let the market decide.

Moreover, as the price stability seems to be the characteristic valued by the consumers of the good referred to as "money", one could expect the free competition would result in a more stable price systems than we currently have in place.

References:

Ball, Laurence, and Stephen Cecchetti. 1990. "Inflation and Uncertainty at Short and Long Hori- zons." Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 215-54

Benabou, Roland, 1992. "Inflation and Efficiency in Search Markets," Review of Economic Studies, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 59(2), pages 299-329, April.

Bruno, Michael & Easterly, William, 1998. "Inflation crises and long-run growth," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 3-26, February.

Carlton, Dennis W. 1982. "The Disruptive Effect of Inflation on the Organization of Markets," in Robert Hall, ed. The Economics of Inflation, University of Chicago Press.

Cukierman, Alex & Kalaitzidakis, Pantelis & Summers, Lawrence H. & Webb, Steven B., 1993. "Central bank independence, growth, investment, and real rates," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39, pages 95-140, December.

Feldstein, Martin, 1997. "The Costs and Benefits of Going from Low Inflation to Price Stability," NBER Working Papers 5469, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

Fischer, Stanley, 1993. "The Role of Macroeconomic Factors in Growth," NBER Working Papers 4565, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

Friedman, Milton. 1969: The Optimum Quantity of Money In The Optimum Quantity of Money and Other Essays. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Hall, Robert E. 1984. "Monetary strategy with an elastic price standard," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pages 137-167.

Modigliani, Franco, and Cohn, Richard A. 1979, "Inflation, Rational Valuation, and the Market," Financial AnalystsпїЅ Journal.

Okun, Arthur. "The Mirage of Steady Anticipated Inflation." Brooking! Papers on Economic. Activity 2, 1971, 485-98.

Okun, A.M. 1975. "Inflation: Its Mechanics and Welfare Costs." Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2: 351-90.

Romer, David. Advanced Macroeconomics, 3rd ed. New York. : McGraw-Hill, 2006.

Taylor, J. B. 1981. "On the relation between the variability of inflation and the average inflation rate", Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 15 (Autumn): 57-86.

Tolley, George S. 1957. "Providing for the Growth of the Money Supply." Journal of Political Economy 65: 465-485. Woolston, Maxiney.

Tommasi, Mariano, 1994. "The Consequences of Price Instability on Search Markets: Toward Understanding the Effects of Inflation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1385-96, December.

All the spelling mistakes, etc. are of mine, sorry ;-)

"Job creation is accelerated by the money multiplication effect" - I might not have understood you right, but you aren't referring to the money multiplier effect, are you?

If so, please note, that this old-Keynesian conjecture is no longer seriously considered as a part of modern economic theory (1950's/1960's are long gone, really).

I don't mean to be offensive [if I sound like that, it may be cause I'm rather tired, which would be supported by the typos I made above ;)], but please refrain from making such statements, at least without backing them up with relevant research and/or peer reviewed journals, otherwise you might be inadvertently contributing to lowering the quality of the discussion and your own arguments, which I guess isn't very beneficial to any of us...

Greeting from another (L)H+, by the way ;-)

Matt P. Dz. Wrote:
> forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to
> underestimate the costs of inflation.

I wasn't discounting the negatives of inflation. I was simply stating that the inflation resultant from abstracted commodities is outweighed by the gains of increased abstraction. That is all.

> That includes e.g. digital gold, which seems to
> be promising in the context of globalizing
> economy and rapid technological progress. On the
> other hand, perhaps LET (Local Exchange Trading)
> systems wouldn't be a bad idea, either.
> Ultimately - let the market decide.

Well enough, but that's a very different argument than material commodity backed currency. The point I was driving at was simply the arbitrary nature of preferring material commodities over virtual ones, given the arbitrary nature of valuation.

> If so, please note, that this old-Keynesian
> conjecture is no longer seriously considered as a
> part of modern economic theory (1950's/1960's are
> long gone, really).

It's still taught in economic theory classes in secondary and collegiate levels -- or was as of five years ago. I realize this is essentially an argument from authority, but it is also a rebuttal of the line of thinking that it's not "taken seriously". Certainly the impact of increased liquidity on market expansion is absolute.

I can also speak on an anecdotal level from personal experience; working in the home mortgage industry -- for a national lender, no less -- I am very painfully aware of the direct tie between real property and economic wealth in the hands of the lower net-worth ranges.

H/L+ f0r 73h \/\/1|\|? (I hate leetspeak, by the way -- but it's amusing in this context.) :)

;o)

I recently had a conversation with a Republicrat monetary ignoramus..Claims he's 'A libertarian' on some things' Probably not unlike many of you Republicrats in your level of understanding with regard to 'money'...

He opened the door for me immediately by saying, "It doesn't matter what we use as money...we could use anything and the system would still work"..

I put aside the fact that this fellow couldn't precisely tell me what 'it' is we use as money today, how 'it' is created/issued, etc.. and asked him, "So I suppose we could use, for example, dried horse manure as money?"

He said, "Sure, we could..it wouldn't be as convenient as what we use today but it would work".. (again, this Republicrat couldn't precisely specify what we use as money today..but anyway)

So I asked him, "What about dried human manure..could we use that too?"..

He said frowning, "Sure, why not,"

Then I asked him, "What if we only used the human manure of certain bluebloods..only these bluebloods could 'issue' new money...would that work too?"..

He frowned again and said, "But it wouldn't be fair if only certain peoples' crap were the money..that would obviously be wrong"..

I tried to explain to the Republicrat 'Libertarian' monetary ignoramus that the system we have today works essentially on the same principle as my theoretical 'blueblood crap money system'..i.e. that some people are accorded greater privilege, power, etc..this seems UnAmerican to me..why not?..I'm all ear$, Republicrats..

;o)

Of course he was skeptical..as would any Republicrat monetary ignoramus who doesn't honestly understand the current stinking $y$tem!..including, in my experience, most all you Republicrat nitwits who hiss at poor ol' CLARK!

CLARK WROTE: "I put aside the fact that this fellow couldn't precisely tell me what 'it' is we use as money today, how 'it' is created/issued, etc.. and asked him, "So I suppose we could use, for example, dried horse manure as money?"

....Btw, all it would take for DRIED HORSE MANURE to become EVERY BIT AS DE$IRABLE BY YOU REPUBLICRATS AS ARE NOW THE LITTLE GREEN RAGCLOTH RECTANGLES WITH PICTURES OF DEAD REPUBLICRAT POLITICIANS IS FOR **THE LEGISCREATURE** TO DECLARE THAT WE MUST "PAY" TAXES, FEES, FINES, ETC. WITH DRIED HORSE MANURE ONLY INSTEAD OF YOUR FEDERAL-RESERVE-TOKEN-SHRUNKEN-POLITICIAN-HEAD FRAUD MONEY!.. ;o)

..I can almost imagine these Republicrats as they stuff their pie (:-O holes on the couch..dreaming of winning the super-duper bonus on Wheel of Fortune: one hundred thousand pounds of (manure) money!..or the super State Lottery prize of ONE ILLION TONS OD MANURE MONEY!! YIIIIIIPPPPPPEEEEE, Republicrats!

Yes, I prefer being able to account in real money terms for each digital penny just like I prefer to account for each paper dollar or copper penny with real money, because to accept otherwise in my view, is to allow the creator of the digital or paper money the ability to create wealth from nothing. If everyone were honest it wouldn't be necessary to account for them through some audit system but since everyone is not honest I would prefer an audit and accountability. I do not prefer the artificial creation of wealth that gives the creator of it any amount they want, while at the same time devaluing everyone else's money, reducing our wealth.

I have no problem with competing forms of money, but I want them to be accounted for in their creation. If Guatemala backs their money in coffee and Belize backs theirs in bananas we can figure an appropriate exchange. If Belize prints theirs with no backing their money is not worth any amount of Guatemalan coffee. It is worthless.

Dollars are just a portable replacement for something else. It doesn't seem to be as complicated as economists make it sound.

Btw, it seems OBVIOUS the reason for the agitation for "a gold money system" or "a silver money system" or the stinker we have now, etc. will tend to come from people who, respectively, control lots of gold, silver, and the phony numbers fraud we have today!..(unless they're just stooooooopid Republicans/crats who will support anything Rush Limbaugh, etc. dope$ ad nauseam, tells them to $upport!) ;o) Right, BRYAN AND ICONJOB?

(imagine! these Republicrat fools working their pork chop chutes about the 'illion dollar economy' absent an honest understanding of the origin, nature, etc. of even one 'dollar'!!) ;o)

Nick Wrote:
> Dollars are just a portable replacement for
> something else. It doesn't seem to be as
> complicated as economists make it sound.

In a lot of very real ways it's not -- the complications come in when you attempt to account for optimization of exchange and the like.

It is very much so worth noting that "once upon a time" individual banks were allowed to print un-backed notes as they saw fit (hence bank-note); that furthermore, shares in corporations can be -- and in some very real ways //are// -- used as currency all its own.

These are both, however, arguments against the establishment of a single-source of currency, rather than against virtualization.

Where you and I are clashing, Nick, is in that you still aren't recognizing the benefit of "virtualized" currency over "materialized" currencies. In essence, you cut out a step: Currency then represents the ability to purchase, rather than the store of a desired good. Digitized "un-backed" currency represents literally the power to acquire goods legally.

So, instead of thinking in terms of, "how much of this commodity does this say I own, and what can I get with that amount of said commodity?" -- think rather, "How much **STUFF** does this mean I have a right to?"

I see what you're saying, but how can anyone accept any virtual currency when it's value is artificial? That's the part I'm having a problem with understanding. I don't see why I should be allowed to buy whatever I want just because I was able to move a decimal point without justification. I get the fluidity part, but that doesn't help me understand how the creation of money from nothing is at all reasonable to accept for those that did not create it. Was I wrong in suggesting that it gives wealth to the creator for no reason and devalues the currency held by everyone else? Isn't that fraud or theft in a sense?

Am I wrong to think that shares in a corporation do hold real value because they are part of the ownership of that corporation and get rewarded when the company does well and lose when it does poorly, just like any owner would?

IConrad, what do suggest we use as money, just the virtual dollars? We are there already, right, for the most part? Or did I misread what you said earlier? Very possible.

NICK WROTE: "Dollars are just a portable replacement for something else. It doesn't seem to be as complicated as economists make it sound."

Well, NICK, I will note that, I believe, the act used to establish 'the mint' in ?1792
http://landru.i-link-2.net/monques/coinageact.html is fairly specific as to how 'the money thang' (note CLARK'S use of Republicrat slang to gain rapport amongst Republicrat money dummies) was to work..(BTW, can any of you Republiclowns direct me to when/where etc. this act was ever 'legally rescinded?'..I didn't think so!)

..granted, I wouldn't have supported/don't support this 'metal money system'..but it appears to me--AT LEAST --'THE GOVERNMENT' was bound to use gold/silver in 'their' dealing$..Maybe some envisioned this as a way to 'bind them down'..gold/silver being apparently UNKNOWABLY/VASTLY more scarce than, for example, the/some little green rectangle$ with pictures of some dead politicians..(less 'money'/power for gd fool politicians/government, more for the folks..

So it would seem, NICK, while your 'dollars' may be thought of as 'portable replacements for some'thing' else' it appears there was some attention given so that you, NICK, might be able to rationally describe, precisely, the origin, nature etc. of these 'replacements'..'dollars'.

..Unfortunately today, NICK, it's been my experience that not 1 in a thousand Republicrats nor 5 in 100 'libertarians' can intelligently explain the origin, nature, etc. of even 'one dollar'..despite the near-constant money chorus in their Republicrat song and dance..

(note: according to my calculations 'libertarians' are AT LEAST 50 times more likely to have a 'money clue' than these STINKING--and I mean STINKING--Republicrats who, it appears, run most everything!)

Btw, it may be of some interest to note that, it appears, for at least a brief period, most/many of our white guys anyway were EQUAL with respect to money issuance/creation in that we might have trundled off into the then vast hinterlands and with good fortune maybe found/traded for/etc. some gold/silver/'money'..taken our 'money find' to 'the mint' whereby it was assayed, recorded, etc. for all to see, etc..AGAIN, we whites guys anyway, were somewhat "equal" in a VERY TRANSPARENT phenomenon of money creation/'issuance'..

..but sadly today not 1 in a thousand Republicrats has any clue of the privilege and power accorded relatively few within a system that defies logic, understanding, humanity, etc.!..

..So please spare me, Republicrats, your stinking, trivial, know-nothing rants about 'high taxes' 'the/a sluggish economy' and yes even 'the/some green economy,' etc. ad nauseam,..at least until you catch a clue as to the origin, nature, etc. of even one 'dollar!'.. ;o)

Im in favor of strict laws when it comes to pollution. Yes, I am Libertarian as well.

The Government of the United States was started to protect life, Liberty and Personal Property. Heavy Pollution offends all of these rights.

It causes asthma in children, it kills off wild animals vital to the Nation's ecosystem. It has even killed before. Not only that, but it has been known in years past to force people to vacate homes, and bussinesses in mass droves.

So as far as I can tell, I would have no problem with very strict and restrictive laws and guidelines for polluting industry in America.

I agree with JON..

Unfortunately, the really big money boys, stinking Republicrats, etc. have $tructured it such that hideous pollution (trespass) is mostly winked at whilst the stinking Republicrat 'authorities' concern themselves with such dastardly 'crimes' such as marijuana growing and cocaine sniffing!..Strange, stinking Republicrat priorities indeed!..

The golden rule: He who has the federal reserve token$ rules!

Nickle WROTE: I see what you're saying, but how can anyone accept any virtual currency when it's value is artificial?

Actually NICK, the 'value' is not 'artificial'..it's VERY REAL..as I've written before, if you don't u$e 'them,' or someone in your behalf doesn't u$e them, you will end up dead/in jail/both/etc. rather quickly!..

Think of them as valuable 'stay alive and out of jail card$'..

Which makes me wonder about the many apparently stooooooopid Republicans/crats who call themselves 'Libertarians'..

If I recall a major tenet of 'libertarianism' is 'the non-initiation of force/fraud principle'..

Yet we are all witness to a stinking money system which is ground in force and fraud..(whether you Republicrat fools can see it or not)

Yet not hardly a peep from, in my experience, %95 of 'Libertarians'..and virtually ALL Republicrats..clueless drooler$..

But their ignorance doesn't stop many of them from bloviating about 'economic$,' the illion 'dollar' economy, 'taxe$,' etc. ad nauseam..(I've found the worst fools tend to hold economics degrees!)

Ooga booga, Republicrats!..Ooga freaking Booga!.. ;o)

Clark wrote:"Rick, while hyperbolistic in nature, Andrew's remarks aren't that far off. See:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42"

LOL. Is this the best you've got? If you are going parrot Luddites like Inhofe there is really no argument. Inhofe is the flat-Earther of climate change. Beyond being a flack for big oil, the man is a blithering fool and his sources are sophistry, to be overly kind. Why you seem so intent on parroting brain-dead Republicans is not clear to me.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, representing the world scientific community, not just Inhofe's oil company hired guns, is unequivocal.

"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change_.28IPCC.29_2007

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Nick Wrote:
> I see what you're saying, but how can anyone
> accept any virtual currency when it's value is
> artificial? That's the part I'm having a problem
> with understanding.

I'll say. :) //All// value is 'artificial'. It's essentially nothing more than a social convention. Of course, the same is true of gold, coffee, cocoa beans, salt, etcetera; their value as a unit of exchange is entirely arbitrary, and artificial.

Somehow, it's working -- so... how can this be? We know that it //is//. This suggests there is an answer. I can only say that it works because it does. Whether that is accurate or not -- I, for one, cannot say.

> I don't see why I should be allowed to buy
> whatever I want just because I was able to move a
> decimal point without justification.

The only institution with the authority to actually do that is the Fed. The banks that lend money could -- and did -- use promissory notes in lieu of the actual material in the past. So long as the ball keeps rolling, the increase in numbers means more is available for all.

It's one of those things.

ICONJOB WROTE: Somehow, it's working -- so... how can this be? We know that it //is//. This suggests there is an answer. I can only say that it works because it does. Whether that is accurate or not -- I, for one, cannot say...blahblahblahblahblah..It's one of those things." (END)

...My aching Christ you're numb!..It "works" the same way 'the income tax,' etceterot, 'works,' Republican dummy!..FORCE AND FRAUD!! IF, FOR JUST ONE EXAMPLE, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE IN YOUR BEHALF DOESN'T U$E 'THEM' ('dollars' to you Republican mullets) TO PAY YOUR 'PROPERTY TAXES' YOU WON'T HAVE A PIECE OF LAND OR A HOUSE TO LIVE ON/IN!! THERE'S YOUR (ARTIFICIAL) 'DEMAND,' REPUBLICRAT DUMMIES!!

..(some dummies apparently feel comfortable yacking about complex 'economic theories' yet haven't a clue about the most BA$IC of 'economic commoditie$'--the unit of account!..typical Republicrats!!)

I remember listening to this one goddamned Republican fool yacking about 'politics:' He said, oh so confidently, 'If you really want to get at the roots of anything,' "Follow the money"..

I remember thinking, 'This goddamned Republican fool has/will NEVER EVER honestly "followed the money" all the way back to its issuance/creation'..

Let's face it, Republicrats suck..gullible ignoramusse$..most/all..

Only if/when Katie Couric ever talks about 'it' (and she won't) will they pay attention!.. ;o)

Clark, sometimes your incessant praddling about "illion$" works against you. You would probably be a lot more convincing in your arguments if you discussed the topic at hand without insulting every poster that they don't know anything about the origin of a dollar.

Jim: Don't waste your breath or time. Just ignore him like the rest of us have learned / are learning to.

I.e.; don't feed the trolls, folks!

Hm... I would write something, but it seems my posts are getting filtered. Let me see, whether this one goes through...

IConrad: what I tried to say, by pointing out the costs, was that they seem to outweigh the 'benefits' (if any) from the inflation - no matter the monetary system. I see however that we mostly agree in general (I have no problems with virtual currency, as long as it's what market participants voluntarily choose). As for the old-Keynesian conjecture (the money multiplier effect) - I am aware it's still being taught, but usually as a part of the introductory macro. courses and history of economic thought (which is mostly where it belongs) - not used in nowadays research, economic theory, intermediate/advanced courses, etc... That's why I've stressed the emphasis on the _modern_ economic theory. The tie you later mentioned is in no way dependent on this conjecture, and I'm sure there modern econometric (i.e. time-series) and economic theory frameworks (i.e. DSGE) allowing us to analyze it without relying on the "shifting-the-curves-economics" (what basically IS-LM boils down to - might be fun drawing, but doesn't really have much to do with reality, which precludes using it as a reliable modeling tool).

Anyway, H/L+ FTW ;-)

Nick, you have said "I have no problem with competing forms of money, but I want them to be accounted for in their creation" - that's what the market is for! You don't buy a car when you see it's rusty and barely driving, do you? Money is as much as an economic good, as any other commodity - and the best way to provide the 'oversight' is the competition on the free market.

As for the "I see what you're saying, but how can anyone accept any virtual currency when it's value is artificial?"

Well, take a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_gold_currency#Providers

Seem to be doing quite well, and the DGCs providers list shows that some disclose more information than, say, Fed (I guess you remember no - longer - tracking - the - M3 story...)

And, there's also an interesting (perhaps) alternative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Exchange_Trading_Systems

Once again - ultimately - let the market decide.

Matt P Wrote:
> Once again - ultimately - let the market decide.
Given the history of the American dollar in Soviet Russia, and the philosophy of Agorism -- is there any doubt it will? :)

> As for the old-Keynesian conjecture (the money
> multiplier effect) - I am aware it's still being
> taught, but usually as a part of the
> introductory macro. courses and history of
> economic thought (which is mostly where it
> belongs) - not used in nowadays research,
> economic theory, intermediate/advanced courses,
> etc...

Read this:
http://www.functionalisminaction.com/2007/07/reaching-from-margin-why-kiss-principle.html

I'm only a layman on economic matters, but it would appear that Nick is no higher in information than I am on the topic.

We're talking about an area of discourse that has been so obfuscated that anti-capitalistic behavior is now described as "capitalist."

COACH DIM WROTE: "You would probably be a lot more convincing in your arguments if you discussed the topic at hand without insulting every poster that they don't know anything about the origin of a dollar." (END)

LET'S FACE IT, if I didn't bring up the $ubject of money issuance/creation/control YOU WOULD NEVER TALK/THINK ABOUT "IT".."IT" is an important a$pect of EVERY (relatively) piddling topic here..YET, to my knowledge, NOT A PEEP FROM YOU.. EVER..

Instead, we get arcane chatter from the likes of economic Republicrat ICONJOB about the 'IM-LM curve'..an economic notwit who obviously hasn't a clue as to the hideous nature, origin, etc. of even one 'dollar!'

COACH DIM, I have made MANY A$$ERTION$ as to the nature, origin, etc. of 'money' with which you appear to have a problem..PLEASE MERELY COPY AND PASTE ANYTHING OF MINE YOU FIND WRONGHEADED, etc. SO I MAY SEE WTF YOU ARE BLITHERING ABOUT!!

(money ignoramusses are tough nuts to crack!) ;o)

(I can almost hear the Republicrat economics idiots now: 'Look, CLARK called it the I"M" LM curve!) ;o)

Btw, it has always seemed obvious to me that in a society with a rational money system, etc. we wouldn't have scores of Republicrat dinks burning 25+ gallons/week of gasoline to drive to a truly worse than worthless government-prompted 'job'..It seems obvious 'the environment' would be much better off if, for example, we mailed these Republicrat boondogglers, economics professors, etc. fraud$ ad nauseam, some Fed token$/number$ while they sat home and smoked dope, watched cartoons, etc...

Less buildings to heat/cool and maintain, less smog, congestion, etc. with CLARK'S plan:..Republicrats, just stay home!..do mother earth and all her children a big favor!..We'd all be better off if your stinking 'work' remained undone!!.. ;o)

IConrad, I can't tell if you're arguing in favor of, or against the Fed. I'm arguing against it because of their artificial creation of wealth. Please advise what your position is regarding the Fed.

If you are in favor of it, why? It sounds like you are saying there's no big deal about artificial creation of wealth and I think it is a very big deal.

I want an honest accounting of the source of the cash or virtual money because I think it will slow inflation and add strength to our dollar. By the way, I am no expert in economics other than what I observe in the real world. I think it is way overblown in complexity.

Matt P, I favor the free market but how does it account for the creation of money? Do you mean because the dollar fluctuates against the pound and Euro? If that's what you meant I agree. But wouldn't the dollar be stronger if it were accounted for as opposed to created artificially? Why can't we have a free market that uses money that has a clear backing? Wouldn't the market prove that the value backed currency is very strong and that artificial currencies are very weak? I think it has. I'm not arguing against the free market, but actually in favor of it. Maybe I don't understand what you meant. Actually, it's probably safe to say I didn't.

Clark is very difficult to read. He seems to be concerned with the environment and people's knowledge of money but is perhaps the worst debater in history.

Nick wrote:
> But wouldn't the dollar be stronger if it were
> accounted for as opposed to created artificially?

There's never been anything -- to my knowledge -- that suggests this is even //likely//. In fact, it could very likely *weaken* the dollar: think of it as a variation on Heisenberg's principle: Pin the thing down, and it's not in motion. Money keeps its strength the more it's in motion. (In part).

> If you are in favor of it, why? It sounds like
> you are saying there's no big deal about
> artificial creation of wealth and I think it is
> a very big deal.

My point is that //all wealth// is effectively artificial; *Economies* are artificial -- a techno-sociological construct of man.

> Please advise what your position is regarding
> the Fed.

The reason I dislike the Fed has more to do with its practice of simply //lending// its printed monies to the US Government, //*at interest*//. I would honestly be more comfortable with the situation if the US Government simply directly printed money; or, in terms of the virtual effect, simply dictated the number of dollars allowed to be in circulation or in promissory status -- I have to be careful here because this is the shallow end of the really deep area of economic thought; and there's //NOBODY// who gets even a third of all there is to get about economics -- on this the Austrians are dead-on-the-spot.

> Wouldn't the market prove that the value backed
> currency is very strong and that artificial
> currencies are very weak? I think it has.

You're still not, apparently, with me on the whole point of value being arbitrary. I don't think we'll progress this conversation until you can wrangle that concept.

> Clark is very difficult to read.

Ignore him -- that's my advice.

ICondrad: "Given the history of the American dollar in Soviet Russia, and the philosophy of Agorism -- is there any doubt it will? :)"

Well... "One thing the people who are dollar-based need to focus on is the Amero" (the currency of the North American Community)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98

Allowing the gov't to control the currency market may result in outcomes that do make one have some doubts...
Let's hope the market forces will overcome even this potential obstacle ;-)

Nick: I am in favor of a fully fledged free market approach - and by free market I mean free market - i.e. no gov't control / oversight / regulations / laws / agencies / institutions / limitations regarding the currency market whatsoever. The best oversight - and the only one compatible with the free market - is that offered by the consumers voluntarily operating on the unabridged market. That includes, but is not limited to, nullification of state (or Fed, for that matter) controlled monopolized national single currency system, and allowing for the fully free market forces to operate - implying the multi currency system, comprising various commercial (private) currency service providers. And of course, there's nothing to preclude the digital gold currencies, silver-based currencies, other commodity-based currencies and all sorts of various private currencies to compete in this market, offering the choice to the American consumer. Currently there's no choice - but the monopoly. And it would continue to be the monopoly as long as we allow the state to have anything to say - even after adoption of the gold standard (if understood as staying with the state-controlled dollar, only making it gold-backed instead). Government control will always mean government monopoly. Competition and choice are concomitant only with the free market economy.

NICKLE WROTE: "Clark is very difficult to read. He seems to be concerned with the environment and people's knowledge of money but is perhaps the worst debater in history." (END)

Could you Republicrats, etc. monetary ignoramusses, PLEASE merely copy and paste ANYTHING of mine you find wrongheaded, confusing, etc. so I can more precisely rub your nose in your ignorance of money/money creation/etc.? PLEASE!..either that or please STFU!..I have NO IDEA where you're 'at' with respect to your 'understanding$'..only that you appear worse than merely ignorant!.. ;o)

Matt P, Nick, et al.: To get us back on track...

This conversation inspired something of a syncresis for me:
http://www.functionalisminaction.com/2007/08/revising-ron-paul-libertarianism-meets.html

Nick: Consider the idea of demanding specifically an "energy-backed" currency. This obviously appeals to the anti-Fed crowd ... //AND// to the environmental left.

IConrad: well, we have sort of the solution you propose already available on the financial markets - namely, the weather, energy and insurance derivatives.

The first OTC weather derivatives, introduced in 1997 are typically a forward or option contracts providing a payoff dependent on the cumulative HDD or CDD during a month (HDD/CDD being Heating/Cooling degree days, respectively). The Chicage Mercantile Exchange began trading weather futures and European options on weather futures since 1999.

The energy derivatives are also widespread - since 1980s both OTC and exchange-traded markets developed financial products for managing oil-price risks - swaps, forward contracts, options - contracts sometimes requiring settlement in cash, and sometimes by physical delivery. Apart from crude oil, also natural gas and electricity are used as underlyings. The New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) trades contracts related to all of the mentioned energy sources.

As for the insurance derivatives - the relevant products are derivative contracts used for hedging exposure of the insurance industry to catastrophic (CAT) risks (hurricanes, earthquakes, etc...) using reinsurance contracts. The related products have been developed by the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT).

More information can be found e.g. in John C. Hull 's "Options, Futures and Other Derivatives" (also the source of the data).

What's my point? Market works!

We, as libertarians, need not rally behind ANY single one currency system - be it fiat money/dollars, gold or energy-backed one. Therefore, arguing about which one to choose entirely misses the point!

What product(s) to choose on the market is the business of the consumers and it's completely irrelevant to our discussion what actually "wins" - and we, as libertarians, definitely should NOT impose any particular product on anyone as "the" single acceptable currency - don't you think? If one choses the above-mentioned financial products to act as effective currency, more power to him/her - and that certainly is a choice available on the free market.

Let's just rally behind freeing the currency market from the government intervention - free market is _the_ fundamental tenet of libertarianism.

Matt P: What you say is true, and also mostly irrelevant, unfortunately: People always look for the simplest answers. My article was directed as an attempt to convert the "gold-standard now!" crowd into an asset for the libertarian movement rather than a hindrance, by attempting to put them on a similar page with the environmental left regarding currency transformation.

Aboveboard all of that, however, what you discuss is market exchange -- but not currency. You can't tender market shares.

Oh -- and I take umbrage at this: "free market is _the_ fundamental tenet of libertarianism."

The fundamental tenet of libertarianism is liberty. The free market is a venue for accomplishing it, and yes -- is concomitant to liberty. But do not make the mistake of equating the two to the same entity.

I should've said:

Let's just rally behind freeing the currency market from the government intervention - after all, free market is _the_ fundamental tenet of libertarianism. The beauty of it is that an all-encompassing solution - appealing to the "anti-Fed crowd" & to the " environmental left" - and what's best - also to everyone else!

IConrad: "what