E/k/onomics - The Designated Bitching About Lockheeb Thread

...

This is what the retardation that happens when you know fiat money is bad but you don't understand why. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

1.5% of the state's GDP seems healthy. If that's not enough sell war bonds.

Keep at least one of each company that produces arms and equipment or services to the state. Redundant or underperforming companies get sold off or liquidated.
Also forgot to mention that small businesses like "ma & pa" shops that support these main industries could become coops or take loans if they get into financial trouble.

brb, groriousry reading up on head hunting.

Lmao, just conquer the world, you're the Herrenvolk chosen people and the rest are vaguely human-shaped animals created by god to serve you.
Then you won't need imports.

...

Not anymore ridiculous than the current system. And is has been proven to work before. See for example the Worgl experiment.

There is nothing inherently wrong with fiat money, it all depends on how it is implemented.
I'd give a country that implemented the system proposed in
a much better chance for success than one moving to the gold standard.

...

in the end, everything goes back to trust
why does that shiny rock have a value? because we agreed it does. without all of humanity agreeing its pretty and important, it would be just another rock.
we are just deluding ourselfs it has any value. so why not do that with other things?

There's a difference. People value shiny rocks all on their own; you might think it's 'irrational' for them to like shiny rocks to such a degree, but that's a decision they reached of their own volition, and it's a decision they'll reach independent of who rules them or how. The green pieces of paper are not given valued independently, they're only valuable because one man in a funny hat says they are. And if the man loses his funny hat, or someone takes the funny hat, or if people decide the funny hat isn't that funny anymore, the paper just becomes paper.

In other words, while both valuations are subjective (by definition, all value is subjective), gold's subjective value is naturally emergent in the market, while fiat is an artificial declaration. The former is inherently more stable than the latter, regardless of who declares the fiat or how. Insisting that fiat will work if only /ourguy/ is in charge of it is not-real-socialism tier argumentation.
And that's not even getting into the inflationary issues with the fiat system (and the hun clearly has no idea how inflation works), or the further business cycle issues that arise from those inflationary ones.

Considering the wholesale clownshow that is the current system, that's not saying much. And the hun's system is even worse, in every possible way. For starters, he demands that the monetary system is closed off completely; this is retarded because the only reason the current system works at all is because it's wide open, and the US takes advantage of that via the petrodollar to export its inflation overseas, as foreign countries hold large quantities of USD to purchase oil—if it wasn't for that ability to print money, then making sure said money won't return to the US, the system would have collapsed decades ago, instead of being on the verge of collapsing in a few years. He doesn't see that taxing people simply for having money retards growth just as much if not more than taxing them for profit—it discourages people from saving, which decreases funds available for investment and causes people to become high time-preference consumers instead, and contrary to mainstream ideas consumption does not drive the economy. In addition to that, you discourage people from having money at all. Since his money is digitized and no one can store it outside of the state-controlled banks, they'll just start converting money to another asset (such as, you know, gold) and trade that instead. So this system will be not only retard growth, it will severely retard revenue as well as people stop using the state's money. His idea for "fixing" inflation isn't even a solution, it's just a description of the inflationary process. He says you can combat inflation (a process of money becoming less valuable) by constantly devaluing money. He wants to stop inflation through inflation. At least that's what I assume he's saying—devaluation normally refers to lowering the value of your money compared to other currencies, and since there are no exchange rates in this closed system you can't really do that. Therefore I am forced to speculate as to what he actually means by devaluation, since he's not even using the term properly.

Attached: 1485707155020.png (406x406, 85.99K)

Shiny rocks is a retarded argument and false equivalence. Yes, both rely on trust. So why won't the pesky goyim trust paper I printed but they trust shiny rocks? What's the difference?

Oh, right. There's only a few kinds of shiny rock and there's only so much of it. Little danger of someone making a ton of it from scratch and fucking your whole financial system. Meanwhile the money can be printed by anybody. Or worse, it can't be printed by YOU, but it can be printed by some jewish faggot.

Pick any

You would have been better off stating something along the lines of "if the man loses the funny hat, people get shot until they insist he's still wearing his funny hat when he's not."

You realize was agreeing with that sentiment, right?

lol ok

The Worgl experiment suggests that a nation might best be served by simultaneously having two currencies- one a fiat paper currency that depreciates at a fixed rate, and can be used for international trade, and another that does not depreciate, perhaps made from specie, and used only for internal trade in parallel to the first.

I realize that. Did you get confused because you thought I would only reply/sage if I disagreed?

I'm inclined to disagree. If you applied Worgl for a longer period of time you'd have seen a bank run occur, as once the immediate utility of the money is realized they would want to exchange it for some other standard of exchange en masse. The same thing would happen if you attempted to use depreciating currency on an international level; you might see some short-term increases in money velocity and in trade with you due to countries not wanting to hold your money, but after that initial windfall you'd see the international equivalent of a run on your currency, as other nations wouldn't want to hold it at all. Trade with you would decrease, and that trade that does happen would be in other standards of exchange. Better to just stick with commodity money all the way around. mises.org/library/free-money-miracle

Well, the reply you made implied disagreement, and appeared directed purely at –since you made no response to specifically, but quoted both in your disagreement. Why quote the former if you only intend to reply to the latter?

I disagree- existing currencies devalue regularly under the form of inflation, and selling off such currency to foreign nations would be the best bet, in the same way the US has used the dollar as the international trade currency for oil. Doing so with a deliberately devaluing currency ensures the best use of that currency is to buy products from the originating nation, fortifying the economy and the industry.

Notice I said to use two parallel currencies, one being the worgl-type currency, the other being a specie currency. Your pay could come as a 50/50 split or some other proportion.

Using the devaluing currency (but NOT the specie currency) for international trade would ensure value flowed into the nation, instead of out of it as would happen with commodity money.

That's different, because they're all inflating at roughly the same rate (save for shitholes like Occupied Rhodesia)–and they're all inflating at the same rate because, at least for the time being, most monetary policy in the world is an extension of US monetary policy. But that's not a state of affairs that will last indefinitely, and we're already seeing the first cracks in the system.

I did touch on that above–the petrodollar is advantageous in that it allows the US to inflate its currency without the domestic price level inflating as much, but it doesn't change anything beyond the short run–we're already starting to see the beginnings of a petrodollar collapse as more countries leave the standard. It's a temporary high at best, and the gains from such a practice come back as losses with interest before too long.

In more general terms, it seems like what you're advocating for is another form of mercantilism–the predilection with not wanting specie to flow out of an economy. Mercantilism fails for a variety of reasons, but the primary one is that it becomes untenable once multiple countries start participating–it's physically impossible for everyone to maintain a trade surplus, and physically impossible for everyone to have a net inflow of gold.

Isn't the idea that some of the participants will simply fold? That's not a negative outcome scenario for the other participants

but its negative for my participant. why should l care about others? why would l want to make my country eternal slave of gold holding countries?

I still can't decide between the gold standard and fiat money, but my opinion is that currency should be based on actual valuable resources such as oil or pure energy, though more on the latter.

Either ways, most of OP questions can be solved by having a military not based around pleasing greedy kikes.

The matter of private industry vs national industry, it should be private industry be the ones in charge of making designs WHILE the national industry is in charge of making the actual stuff. Actual, government holds all the license contracts, and once the design/model is approved, it should become open free for all model, which means ALL of the private industries and national industries can legally produce and sell said model to military/police/civies.

inb4 but muh lack of profit
The original firm that comes up with the design can earn royalties for the first 5-10 years

Why the hell are you basing your nations internationally-tradeable currency on gold (or silver)?
Notice I said to use the specie money for national trading, and that the fiat money should be used for international trade, in addition to it's use for internal trade.

The specie currency would never be used for international trade, only the devaluing fiat currency would, this is to encourage other nations to buy your nations' products with it to encourage autarky wherever possible. The rest of international trade could be performed in non-monetary barter exchange of goods (trading wheat from nation A for steel from nation B, for example).

I swear, you're too hung up on the (((economics))) of money.

Because I was adding to the points made in the latter.

So what is the non-jewish explanation of this? I can see how some consumer goods might be slightly more expensive and lower quality, but given the benefit to national economy, how is that "failing"? Everybody bitches when their chinkshit starts selling for $6.72 instead of $4.87 because of import tax, but then they bitch about how there's nothing but chinkshit at the store and no work. It's gotta be one or the other.

All I care about is that MY country has no deficit. There's no requirement for 100+ nigger countries in apefrica to have mercantilism, or any coherent monetary policy whatsoever. What's wrong with jewing niggers, chinks, pajeets and cucked yuros with your exports, while not buying anything from them, basically sucking them dry and when they're done (yeah right… sucker born every minute, even on the international market) just becoming a closed economy (or just no deficit or surplus) and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist?

I only know

Because you want your money to have the characteristics of money (stable, standard of exchange, store of value), and only specie provide that. Making your money undesirable to hold won't encourage trade in the long term, it just discourages people from trading with you at all. And you can't truly have two separate currencies for domestic and international trade, not truly, as people will be constantly exchanging the two respective currencies. All that would happen if you have this depreciating "international" currency is that no one would hold it for any length of time–they'd set up their trade agreements such that they use other currencies for almost everything, at the last possible moment switch to the depreciating currency for a millisecond, which is then immediately converted to something else. So all you've done is increase the cost of transactions with your country by introducing that artificial switching cost, and increased cost of transactions will ultimately reduce the volume of transactions that occur.

>I swear, you're too hung up on the (((economics))) of money.
K.

What benefit? The purpose of an economy is to provide higher quality and lower cost goods, if your economy isn't doing those things it's failing by definition.

A) Most people are NPCs that don't understand cause and effect. Look at how many people shill for socialism, then it's those same people who bitch about everyone starving.
B) Because many people talk the talk but won't walk the walk. They say they want to buy domestic, but they don't want it enough to justify paying the higher price, so they don't.
C) Because there isn't a casual link between current unemployment and outsourcing, despite claims to the contrary. International trade will always increase unemployment in the long run, because of muh comparative advantage–there's some short term unemployment, yes, but it disappears relatively quickly. And even in the case of short-term unemployment, you can only attribute less than a third of lost manufacturing jobs in the US to chinkshit. The rest were lost to increasing automations, increasing regulations, union kikery, and a host of other factors. Chinkshit is just a convenient scapegoat so all of the unemployment is blamed on it.

It's literally a non-issue, "muh trade deficit" is a Keynesian spook. If you visit a restaurant every week and buy food from it, and you never sell your services to that restaurant, you have a "trade deficit" with that restaurant. But who gives a shit? As long as you're making enough money to pay for that expenditure it isn't a problem. The same applies on a macro scale to nations: it doesn't matter whether you have a net trade surplus or a net trade deficit, as long as your export sectors are relatively strong. And that's the real problem with the current US economy, our export sectors are continually weakened by increasing regulation, unions, minimum wage laws, and so on. We still have a comparative advantage in some areas (because that's the definition of comparative advantage, you can never not have it), but that advantage is much smaller than it could be, and that's reflected in our terms of trade, which are favorable (they're by definition favorable, if there wasn't a net benefit we wouldn't trade), but our net benefit is smaller than our trade partner's net benefit. Strengthening the export sector would make those terms of trade more favorable. Restricting the import sector doesn't do that, it just raises domestic prices and makes domestic companies less competitive.

Well your participant wouldn't expect to be the one getting fucked, naturally.

Done. National defense now not only doesn't cost any tax money, but it's actually taxable revenue. Widespread availability of weapons means a thriving militia, and privateers (not pirates; there are prize courts, remember?) have an excellent record of success. All the other concerns you listed are handled by the interests involved.

so how do you take taxes from people that are more armed then you? like, shit, what prevents them from just going

Poles are weak baby men

You could revoke their letter and declare them a pirate? Now it's them versus all the other privateers.