GG @Deleted User, you just advanced to level 15!

Trade one of your child slaves for a 7.62 and blow their fucking head off

But do it from a distance, don’t get to close to their property or everyone else will blow your fucking skull in for tresspassing

Remember

If any of his property gets on your property thats a violation of the NAP

Uh careful with the violence and child slave talk

@ᴏᴠᴇʀꜱᴇᴇʀ ꜱᴛʀᴀꜱꜱᴇʀ I’m not ancap but banks would print their own money and target fraud via themselves - it’s like what the treasury does but the independent note issuers will conduct these operations themselves. It’s called free banking, I do support free banking to a large extent however I’m not exactly an anarchist so I don’t support competitive note issuing.

That would devalue the currency though

What would be gained by that?

Like it’s just the same system except no control over monetary policy

There’s a lot to be gained.

I.e we stop/reduce the business cycle among other things.

Doesn’t the business cycle argue that booms are started in part by an over-expansion of credit, which leads to a market correction?

A business cycle occurs when the market rate of interest falls below the natural rate of interest. A boom is created via this then an eventual bust.

Ok, so how does taking monetary policy out of the government’s hands prevent interest rates from falling below the natural interest rate?

Because the market rate will now be uninfluenced, it will follow the natural rate.

The natural rate of interest is the rate in which time preferences are equilibrated, savings and investments are allocated effectively. This rate is existing without the central bank’s intervention.

Is that what happened before the Federal Reserve existed?

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ except any nation that does have central banking can manipulate your currency, so that’s fun

And you have no way to combat hyperinflation

And if you don’t have a gold standard you have no way of even regulating currency supply

and if you do have a gold standard, you basically need a central bank to administer it

@Sophie that’s what I was trying to build to lol

Lol sry

That is very well said, however

Thanks 🙂

The other option is making your coins out of precious metals, but then you have big problems with electronic transfers, currency values aren’t pegged to each other (4 quarters might not equal a dollar) and you’re subject to debasement

@abby_ella Yes, but no.

@Sophie A free banking system is capable to combating hyperinflation, if inflation is too high interest rates naturally rise.
> And if you don’t have a gold standard you have no way of even regulating currency supply
> and if you do have a gold standard, you basically need a central bank to administer it
We had a gold standard without a central bank.

We did, and we had mass panics once or twice a decade

Prior to the FED the business cycle was less severe, less persistent and had shorter recovery times.

There were 20 recessions between the end of the Second Bank of the United States and the creation of the Fed. Most lasted over a year. Most of the recessions after the Fed’s creation lasted less than a year. The average GDP loss during each during the free banking era, for those that we have data on, was higher than the GDP loss for post-Fed recessions

So no, the data doesn’t back that claim up

O

The data *does* back it up, if you look at it correctly. As it stands the NBER data for that era and after uses different reporting techniques which overstate previous recessions and the quality is worse, when you adjust for it:
> This paper evaluates the consistency of the NBER business cycle reference dates over time. Analysis of the NBER methods suggests that the early turning points are derived from detrended data, while the dates after 1927 are derived from data in levels. To evaluate the importance of this and other changes in technique, the paper derives a simple algorithm that matches the postwar NBER peaks and troughs closely. When this algorithm is applied to data for 1884-1940, the new dates systematically place peaks later and troughs earlier than do the NBER dates. Using the new business cycle chronology, recessions have not become shorter, less severe, or less persistent between the pre-World War I and the post-World War 11 eras. Expansions, however, have become longer.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w4150

"*Using the new business cycle chronology, recessions have not become shorter, less severe, or less persistent between the pre-World War I and the post-World War 11 eras*"

We're even excluding the Great depression, so if anything the FED is getting lee-way.

That’s a stretch to apply that paper to my point, given that it only goes back to 1887. There were some pretty severe and long lasting 19th century depressions between 1836 and 1887

There's little data on the NBER before 1887.

But even so, it's reasonable to assume it would be more or less the same since the system was effectively similar.

We have great data on how long they lasted though, so at the very least, the “less persistent” and “shorter recovery times” part can be challenged by that