6 ms·

No- they just told you to read Jeffersons musings on the topic of central banks.

lisper 7y ago
Yes, but why Jefferson? Why not Arglebargle? Or me? I have musings on the topic of central banks, would you like to hear them?
- tomjakubowski 7y ago
  It seems like OP just thinks Jefferson has written some "extremely valid criticism" of central banking, from before the US had the system. Who knows? I think central banking is probably fine and cryptocurrencies are stupid and I don't see where the appeal to authority is.
- trentmb 7y ago
  > Yes, but why Jefferson Because they thought Jeffersons thoughts on the matter were relevant. > Why not Arglebargle? Because I know what that word means. > Or me? Because "lisper central banks" doesn't produce any meaningful results in a search engine. > I have musings on the topic of central banks, would you like to hear them? Sure.
  - lisper 7y ago
    OK: there are two fundamental problems that have to be solved in any monetary system: how to keep the records, and how to control the money supply. With regards to the latter, there are only two options: 1. Let the money supply be controlled by the laws of physics, e.g. use a scarce material as money. 2. Let the money supply be controlled by some policy. The second option subdivides into two further sub-options: 2a. Let the free market produce money competitively like any other product. 2b. Let the government (or a private entity acting on behalf of the government) do it as an artificial monopoly. That last option is a central bank. Those are all the possibilities. All of them have been tried at one time or another in human history. Flawed as it may be, the one that has produced objectively the best results in terms of economic stability and prosperity has been 2b. And there isn't really much more that can be said about it. Oh, almost forgot: > > Arglebargle? > Because I know what that word means. Arglebargle is the name of an obscure author who wrote on all manner of topics, but whose work has been largely forgotten.
    - faeww 7y ago
      2b. has existed without any link to 1. for less than 50 years of human history. I don't see how you can claim it has the best results in terms of economic stability -- it doesn't have a long enough track record to justify such a claim.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      > Flawed as it may be, the one that has produced objectively the best results in terms of economic stability and prosperity has been 2b. I'm certainly no expert, but I've read a bit into 2a (so called "free banking" eras) and they seemed overwhelmingly quite stable. On what do you base an objective dismissal of that approach?
      - lisper 7y ago
        Mainly my knowledge of the history of the financial system in the U.S. which was characterized by regular panics, crises, and bank runs before the Federal Reserve was founded. (Of course, the Fed bungled it badly in the Great Depression, but has done a pretty reasonable job since then.) Looking now at the history of free banking in other parts of the world it looks like it is not invariably catastrophic. Maybe it's a cultural thing. I suspect that free banking works better in a world where everyone knows everyone else, and the banker's customers know where the banker lives so if he screws things up too badly there's a real risk that people will literally show up on his doorstep with pitchforks.
        icebraining 7y ago
        The system in the US before the creation of the Fed wasn't free banking; after the civil war, the National Banking Acts of 1863-64 created a network of chartered national banks with a single currency backed by the US Treasury. Then in 1879, the US went back to the gold standard, so you're on (1), not (2a).
        lisper 7y ago
        On that view there has never been a 2a system. No one would honor a private bank note that was not backed by some asset or government fiat. Such a note would, quite literally, be worth no more than the paper it was printed on.
- hokus 7y ago
  Your thoughts are clear and interesting. It appears we've always had a ratio of 1, 2a and 2b with some collapses or perhaps even more illusive is the [slow] migration. Like paper gold, man-made diamonds or the private entity stops acting on behalf of the government and ends up owning it.
  - lisper 7y ago
    I think you replied to the wrong comment. I'm guessing you meant this to be a reply to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20216673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20216673 In any case, thanks for the kind words.

Yes, but why Jefferson? Why not Arglebargle? Or me? I have musings on the topic of central banks, would you like to hear them?

tomjakubowski 7y ago
It seems like OP just thinks Jefferson has written some "extremely valid criticism" of central banking, from before the US had the system. Who knows? I think central banking is probably fine and cryptocurrencies are stupid and I don't see where the appeal to authority is.
trentmb 7y ago
> Yes, but why Jefferson Because they thought Jeffersons thoughts on the matter were relevant. > Why not Arglebargle? Because I know what that word means. > Or me? Because "lisper central banks" doesn't produce any meaningful results in a search engine. > I have musings on the topic of central banks, would you like to hear them? Sure.
- lisper 7y ago
  OK: there are two fundamental problems that have to be solved in any monetary system: how to keep the records, and how to control the money supply. With regards to the latter, there are only two options: 1. Let the money supply be controlled by the laws of physics, e.g. use a scarce material as money. 2. Let the money supply be controlled by some policy. The second option subdivides into two further sub-options: 2a. Let the free market produce money competitively like any other product. 2b. Let the government (or a private entity acting on behalf of the government) do it as an artificial monopoly. That last option is a central bank. Those are all the possibilities. All of them have been tried at one time or another in human history. Flawed as it may be, the one that has produced objectively the best results in terms of economic stability and prosperity has been 2b. And there isn't really much more that can be said about it. Oh, almost forgot: > > Arglebargle? > Because I know what that word means. Arglebargle is the name of an obscure author who wrote on all manner of topics, but whose work has been largely forgotten.
  - faeww 7y ago
    2b. has existed without any link to 1. for less than 50 years of human history. I don't see how you can claim it has the best results in terms of economic stability -- it doesn't have a long enough track record to justify such a claim.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > Flawed as it may be, the one that has produced objectively the best results in terms of economic stability and prosperity has been 2b. I'm certainly no expert, but I've read a bit into 2a (so called "free banking" eras) and they seemed overwhelmingly quite stable. On what do you base an objective dismissal of that approach?
    - lisper 7y ago
      Mainly my knowledge of the history of the financial system in the U.S. which was characterized by regular panics, crises, and bank runs before the Federal Reserve was founded. (Of course, the Fed bungled it badly in the Great Depression, but has done a pretty reasonable job since then.) Looking now at the history of free banking in other parts of the world it looks like it is not invariably catastrophic. Maybe it's a cultural thing. I suspect that free banking works better in a world where everyone knows everyone else, and the banker's customers know where the banker lives so if he screws things up too badly there's a real risk that people will literally show up on his doorstep with pitchforks.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        The system in the US before the creation of the Fed wasn't free banking; after the civil war, the National Banking Acts of 1863-64 created a network of chartered national banks with a single currency backed by the US Treasury. Then in 1879, the US went back to the gold standard, so you're on (1), not (2a).
        lisper 7y ago
        On that view there has never been a 2a system. No one would honor a private bank note that was not backed by some asset or government fiat. Such a note would, quite literally, be worth no more than the paper it was printed on.
hokus 7y ago
Your thoughts are clear and interesting. It appears we've always had a ratio of 1, 2a and 2b with some collapses or perhaps even more illusive is the [slow] migration. Like paper gold, man-made diamonds or the private entity stops acting on behalf of the government and ends up owning it.
- lisper 7y ago
  I think you replied to the wrong comment. I'm guessing you meant this to be a reply to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20216673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20216673 In any case, thanks for the kind words.