tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post5009125253853857921..comments2024-03-28T07:50:06.102-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: "Have National Fiat, Exploring New Ways to Use It" - Can We Just Make That Our Calling Card Once Again?mike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-5498796355545142912013-05-23T18:36:47.183-04:002013-05-23T18:36:47.183-04:00For instance:
These are those who were numbered o...For instance:<br /><br /><i>These are those who were numbered of the sons of Israel, 601,730.<br /><br />Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Among these the land shall be divided for an inheritance according to the number of names. To the larger group you shall increase their inheritance, and to the smaller group you shall diminish their inheritance; each shall be given their inheritance according to those who were numbered of them. But the land shall be divided by lot. They shall receive their inheritance according to the names of the tribes of their fathers. According to the selection by lot, their inheritance shall be divided between the larger and the smaller groups.”</i> Numbers 26:51-56Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13859046687902645077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-9876733143263409162013-05-23T16:48:12.450-04:002013-05-23T16:48:12.450-04:00Numbers, Joshua, and 1st Chronicles have many refe...Numbers, Joshua, and 1st Chronicles have many references to "lot." Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13859046687902645077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-40616633672368747322013-05-23T15:16:07.467-04:002013-05-23T15:16:07.467-04:00"The agricultural land of Canaan was distribu..."The agricultural land of Canaan was distributed by lot to every Hebrew" <br /><br />Where can I read more about that?yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233997168975370006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-37337698985809407152013-05-23T14:51:41.891-04:002013-05-23T14:51:41.891-04:00The agricultural land of Canaan was distributed by...The agricultural land of Canaan was distributed by lot to every Hebrew (exception the tribe of Levi) so virtually every Hebrew was a landowner. The servants would therefore be non-Hebrews or Hebrews who had fallen into debt but only for 6 years as an indentured servant.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13859046687902645077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-56828445219888587982013-05-23T14:35:39.310-04:002013-05-23T14:35:39.310-04:00"This is not allowed in the Bible since agric..."This is not allowed in the Bible since agricultural land had to be returned to the original owners after 49 years AT THE MOST".<br /><br />That sounds like a leasehold system. Who owned the freehold? kings, landlords, etc?<br /><br />The Ten Commandments makes it sound like the only people who mattered back then were property-owning patriarchs with land, houses, animals, servants, etc. <br /><br />For example:<br /><br />"Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates"<br /><br />Here the person being addressed is a man with property, family, land, cattle, and servants.<br /><br />"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's".<br /><br />The person being addressed here is either a property-owing patriarch as above, or else it is someone being told not to covet the property-owning patriarch's stuff.yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233997168975370006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-5928942920356301582013-05-23T13:12:08.770-04:002013-05-23T13:12:08.770-04:00If the gamblers want to take our money, they need ...<i>If the gamblers want to take our money, they need to have more compelling reasons to induce us, rather than having a captive market. </i> WillORNG <br /><br />Indeed! It is inexcusable that the monetary sovereign ITSELF does not provide a risk-free storage and transaction service for its fiat available to all citizens and free for most of them. And that service should make no loans and pay no interest.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13859046687902645077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-29330854567554662952013-05-23T13:05:21.578-04:002013-05-23T13:05:21.578-04:00This has evolved into the proponents of the market...<i>This has evolved into the proponents of the market state based on the right to acquire unlimited private property </i> Tom Hickey<br /><br />This is not allowed in the Bible since agricultural land had to be returned to the original owners after 49 years AT THE MOST.<br /><br /><i>and the welfare state which is based on distributed prosperity and social justice and where the right to private property is limited by public purpose. </i> Tom Hickey<br /><br />Much of the welfare state is to ameliorate the damage (e.g. unemployment, family farm foreclosure, etc.) caused by the government-backed credit cartel. It's therefore a kludge. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13859046687902645077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-58342180034919615602013-05-23T11:36:44.990-04:002013-05-23T11:36:44.990-04:00Well one of the problems with thou shalt not steal...<i>Well one of the problems with thou shalt not steal, in my view, is with the definition of property.</i><br /><br />All property can be traced back to the commons. There is no natural law about distributing the commons into private property. Sub-human species fight to gain and defend territory.<br /><br />Property is a creature of custom and then law. There are no customs or laws that are written in stone.<br /><br />The "right to private property" is a social construct that survives from the past and in the past it has been interpreted differently. There is no distributed right to private property until after the Enlightenment, when the classical liberalism inspired by John Locke came to dominate politically at the close of the feudal era dominated by agriculture and the beginning of the capitalist era dominated by industry.<br /><br />Classical liberalism eventually split into social liberalism, now represented by Keynesianism and social democratic parties, and neoliberalism, which is further divided into political conservatives, who generally follow neoclassical economics, and Libertarians that follow Austrian economics. <br /><br />This has evolved into the proponents of the market state based on the right to acquire unlimited private property and the welfare state which is based on distributed prosperity and social justice and where the right to private property is limited by public purpose.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-1950577488671408982013-05-23T10:37:04.191-04:002013-05-23T10:37:04.191-04:00@WillORNG
re: citizen accounts at a public bank...@WillORNG <br /> re: citizen accounts at a public bank account;<br /><br />exactly; the old reasons for even having private banks have mostly changed;<br /><br />we need exactly none of their actually currency-handling "services" anymore, and certainly NOT the margins they still command.<br /><br />Is there any reason a banking system cannot be as public as our highway system or our Postal Service? NO!<br /><br />What might the remaining utility of distributed, private banking be? (note: not TBTF'ers) The local credit reporting service?<br /><br />Roger Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-7630613097312625602013-05-23T08:05:33.603-04:002013-05-23T08:05:33.603-04:00I'd say it's more of a commandment, i.e. a...I'd say it's more of a commandment, i.e. an order, like "Thou shall not covet thy neighbour's manservant nor his ass". <br /><br />Hence the name "The Ten Commandments".<br /><br />http://www.bartleby.com/108/02/20.htmlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233997168975370006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-57652875542325012592013-05-23T07:37:07.428-04:002013-05-23T07:37:07.428-04:00"Thou shall not steal" is a perfect exam...<b>"Thou shall not steal" is a perfect example of 'dogmatic'.</b><br /><br />It's a standard, like with weights and measures.The Rombach Reporthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09982864018333283368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-48486946036383243592013-05-23T05:29:21.100-04:002013-05-23T05:29:21.100-04:00Well one of the problems with thou shalt not steal...Well one of the problems with thou shalt not steal, in my view, is with the definition of property.<br /><br />Maybe if less things were privately owned there couldnt be as much stealing. Its only stealing when you take what belongs to someone else.<br /><br />What out there is truly mine to be stolen from me?<br /><br />Ownership is a law thing, we can change that.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03139782404004492965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-66545687284535167582013-05-23T05:03:46.793-04:002013-05-23T05:03:46.793-04:00"I thought "Thou shall not steal" w..."I thought "Thou shall not steal" was the least objectionable Commandment this society might tolerate and one that the economically savvy might appreciate".<br /><br />It's still dogmatic. Look it up.<br /><br />yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233997168975370006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-8401314801980269042013-05-23T02:50:15.172-04:002013-05-23T02:50:15.172-04:00It strikes me things would be so much simpler if e...It strikes me things would be so much simpler if everyone had a citizens bank account with the government bank, the mail or financial agents could provide local services, cutting out the middle man intermediary "payment services" that allow big business to take days to pay their debts to smaller players.<br /><br />If the gamblers want to take our money, they need to have more compelling reasons to induce us, rather than having a captive market.WillORNGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03759801640058517521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-21849745734745598982013-05-22T19:41:40.955-04:002013-05-22T19:41:40.955-04:00Ha Ha! I thought "Thou shall not steal"...Ha Ha! I thought "Thou shall not steal" was the least objectionable Commandment this society might tolerate and one that the economically savvy might appreciate.<br /><br />But if not, I guess I expected too much.<br /><br />Well, one has to have at least something to build on, doesn't one? If this society has nothing then what awaits it but the scrap heap?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13859046687902645077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-85384527505666128392013-05-22T16:57:45.767-04:002013-05-22T16:57:45.767-04:00"Thou shall not steal" is a perfect exam..."Thou shall not steal" is a perfect example of 'dogmatic'.yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233997168975370006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-32494186602664578902013-05-22T16:31:39.622-04:002013-05-22T16:31:39.622-04:00I have a minor in feedback control systems. And, o...I have a minor in feedback control systems. And, of course, thermo is a required course in engineering.<br /><br />But I don't consider "Thou shall not steal" to be especially dogmatic. Do you?<br /><br />Money creation is a problem in ethics as much as it is a problem in anything else.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13859046687902645077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-2578480140892086502013-05-22T16:19:26.629-04:002013-05-22T16:19:26.629-04:00to F. Beard;
Rules-based systems are not adaptive...to F. Beard;<br /> Rules-based systems are not adaptive. Get over it.<br /><br />Adaptation means that each and every "rule" is a probability function. Just pay attention to regulating the tolerance limits. That's what ALLOWS adaptation, including expanding policy space and increasing policy agility.<br /><br />Try reading some thermodynamics? Or systems theory? Or even politics or horse-trading? <br /><br />Or just try being flexible instead of dogmatic?Roger Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17515506247888521516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-19115569835748456442013-05-22T16:07:50.516-04:002013-05-22T16:07:50.516-04:00The oppositional forces are now aligned in the bat...The oppositional forces are now aligned in the battle between the market state, which in today's institutional environment is the corporate state, and the welfare state, as in the preamble to the US Constitution: "<i><b>We the People</b> of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, <b>promote the general Welfare,</b> and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.</i>" In short, private accumulation v. public purpose.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-48011094913747957912013-05-22T15:19:25.791-04:002013-05-22T15:19:25.791-04:00However, corporate welfare itself is neither good ...<i>However, corporate welfare itself is neither good or bad.</i> Rodger Erickson<br /><br />Welfare should be reserved for the poor ONLY.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13859046687902645077noreply@blogger.com