Hydrocodone. Hydrocodone apap. Hydrocodone extraction….

Cod overnight tramadol. Tramadol. Tramadol use in canines….

Posted by: Randy

No we are not slaves. But to think that we are completely independent entities is unrealistic to. If you want complete freedom and independence then go live alone in the wilderness. You want the benifits of society then you will have to reliquish minor freedoms and recognize some debt to society.

You don't get to be in the club for free.

Your position is like some one who wants a room mate to share rent but still wants the apartment all to himself. It's a selfish and unrealistic position. It's NOT how society works.

YOU ARE NOT independent and there are NO FREE MARKETS.

Posted by: Mark

I admitted I do. But I don't by t-shirts made from child labor. And the big companies who make the shirts have to follow the rules for corporations, banking and finance. They don't operate in a free market but a regulated one. They have to pay back some of their revenue to pay for the roads and infrastructure that allows them to have a functional business.

Anyway thanks for the Friedman reference. I'll watch those videos. Actually I'm reading Capitalism and Freedom right now.

When I buy a loaf of bread, I think that I really want to buy a loaf of bread, and not that the government is somehow feeding information into my brain telling me to buy a loaf of bread. I also think that the guy who sells me the bread decided on his own to sell bread and not that he is simply an undercover agent of the government who is under orders to sell me bread. This is the free market. It exists. If it didn't, the government would have nothing to tax or regulate.

Please explain "forcible propriety".

Libertarians see a difference between using force to defend/protect rights, and using force to violate rights. At least this one does.

You're right. There's no integrity in demonizing government while using its services. Then again, there's no integrity in demonizing the free market while using its services.

Posted by: Randy

Absolutely! Couldn't agree more! That's why I like to shop in a democratically well regulated fair market since no such thing as a free market exist.

Those people claiming to use the free market are the same ones who steal from the government and use the government to protect themselves from fair and competitive market forces.

Re; "The state is not one thing…"

Of course it is. I've never seen anything on any tax form giving me any choice as to how my rent payment is to be spent.

Re; "The market is not one thing either, and it's never "free" in any absolute sense."

The free market(s) can be seen as more than one thing, but in terms of demonization it (they) can be and often is(are) seen as one thing. We know from history that free markets can be destroyed by attacking the principles that make them possible. And yes, there is a truly free market. To say otherwise is to say that we are slaves. First, from personal experience this does not seem to be the case. Second, even if it is true, I wouldn't think that is something that any good propagandist for the slave owners would want to declare openly.

If the money supply is held stable during economic growth, then the prices must fall to accommodate."
- Why is this a problem?

It's a problem because of the effect on long term credit. If I borrow $200,000 to buy a house today, I don't want to owe $150,000 on a $140,000 house ten years from now. If I do, I'll default.

There's no integrity in demonizing government while using its services. Then again, there's no integrity in demonizing the free market while using its services.

The state is not one thing, but it is a monopoly of forcible propriety. One has little choice about using its services, but one may demonize particular proprieties while being subject to them, one hopes.

The market is not one thing either, and it's never "free" in any absolute sense. It's organized by countless forcible proprieties.

I guess I'm confused why having access to credit would be the driver for growth and not a lubricant instead?

I suppose you could call it a lubricant. It's just that a system of credit using standard tokens of entitlement to value works well to organize resources, and some authority must monopolize production of these tokens; otherwise, they aren't "standard tokens".

And along witb that why would a govt be as good as a private bank to best deliver this service?

"Public" and "private" are largely arbitrary distinctions. We have more central authorities and less central authorities.

Credit given carelessly will cause bad investments which will trigger a recession not economic growth.

So we don't want credit given carelessly. Right?

If we agree govt is not the best institution to run our supermarkets then how can we exspect it to manage our currency and make sound investments?

Well, we don't want credit given carelessly, so we want it governed otherwise.

You're right. There's no integrity in demonizing government while using its services. Then again, there's no integrity in demonizing the free market while using its services.

It's not inherently a problem. The problem is popular misconceptions about money and wealth. People who sell stuff aren't to keen to have to lower prices, even though they will be paying less for what they buy.
IOW, psychology plays a great part in all this.

"However, there must be enough money to allow everyone to transact business."
- Agreed. But why is increasing the money supply required for this. Wouldn't breaking down the same amount of money into smaller units accomplish the same thing?

Because someone benefits from the printing of the new money. AND I tend to think so..

Having a monopoly on the tokens will not ensure they are the best representation of the product of everyone’s labor.

No. We do that by negotiating prices.

The more token producers that are involved in this process will increases the accuracy of its value.

Well, there can be lots of creditors, but they're all creating the same tokens, and they're all following similar rules. "Monopoly" doesn't mean one man here. It means one set of rules, one monetary authority. When we accept these tokens, we want to know that they were created and distributed according to these rules. A central bank is just a regulator enforcing these rules.

The carpenter and the logger outsource their own credit accounting. The carpenter could use "carpentry" coupons while the logger uses "logging" coupons, but accounting for all of these coupons would be very burdensome, so they agree to use a common token and to use the banker's credit accounting service. This bank is part of a larger franchise of banks all using the same tokens. The carpenter and logger want to know that all of these accountants are honest and reliable, so they want this regulatory authority.

In your example the banker has to do this. If he thinks giving both the logger and carpenter 1000 is fair, but the carpenter value his work worth more than the 1000 the logger has, then he will want 2000 from the logger before he agrees.

The carpenter and the logger set their prices.

If there are 3 bankers then each will compete or maybe work together to gauge the proper value of the carpenters higher skilled labor.

Carpenters and their customers gauge the proper value of a carpenter's labor. Loggers are skilled too, but that's a separate issue. I'm not suggesting that everyone earns the same hourly wage or anything like that. I chose $1000 for one house worth of lumber and one house worth of carpentry services only for the sake of simplicity.

A banker might believe the risk too high and refuse to credit me if I plan to pay carpenters too much, but in the scenario we're discussing, the carpenter and the logger have already agreed on the price of a house worth of lumber and a house worth of carpentry services. $1000 is the market value of both by assumption. Different assumptions don't change the nature of the banker's service.