re The Rise of Brownianism at The Daily Bell

This is in response to comments to the article at The Daily Bell:

http://www.thedailybell.com/1630/Anthony-Wile-The-Rise-of-Brownianism.html



@Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner), a college-level econ teacher

I find when someone must advertise his credentials as part of his argument (and you have done so twice so far), that I should prepare myself for ignorant and naïve commentary to follow. In this, you have not disappointed.

What a sad commentary. Not only from you, but the other supporters of this so-called improvement to the monetary system.

Before I go further, to be clear: I am for a free banking, fully competitive monetary environment. As in other markets that are free, or relatively so, goods are delivered that meet customers’ needs and wants, with ever increasing quality and (absent inflation in the money supply) ever shrinking cost. I believe the current system of a Fed controlled money supply is a sham and a fraud.

I do not support change for change sake. Even if I thought this Brownian idea was a marginal improvement, I would not support it, because at its core it is still corrupt, and delivers the control of money to the same corrupt group that has it today, only with a different plaque on the building.

However, it is not even an improvement. It is a further degradation of the current system. To give such power to the Congress and the Treasury, and believe that there will be somehow discipline involved, speaks wonders of the belief system of the proponents. At least in the current setup, we have different bureaucracies potentially fighting with each other.

Now to some of your commentary:

"Like any accounting system, it REQUIRES TRANSPARENCY AND FULL ACCOUNTABILITY OR ELSE WE WILL HAVE FRAUD TO THE DEGREE IT IS UNACCOUNTABLE."

Correct. How do you believe this proposal would accomplish this? The Federal government will give us transparency and accountability? Please describe where and how this could be reasonably expected. Hundreds of examples tell us the opposite. I cannot think of one example that would suggest government is transparent. But you believe it will somehow be so this time. This is ignorant at best, or the characteristics of someone purposely wanting to further destroy the economy.

I took a quick look at your web site. You seem quite skeptical about government power. Why are you such a proponent of it in this case?

In the market I can exercise my judgment and ensure accountability every day. I can stop interacting with any business I choose. I can stop using certain products in favor of an alternative. I can withhold my vote whenever I like. Nice characteristics to have when it comes to money.

Tell me how I can do this with government?

"It must have political integrity, yes, so that is the paradox that trips-up many apparent critics."

Well, it is one issue that trips up this critic. Could you please provide examples of political integrity in government that would give you confidence in this occasion?

The other issue is that it is money controlled by dictate. To believe that the power over money, the most BASIC building block over the economy and therefore over the control of man, will be exercised benignly is THE single most ignorant belief I can imagine anyone holding. Control money and you control everything. Please grasp this most basic of economic ideas…oh wait, that is your line.

"Not to be too impish, but, again with all respect: duh. Please grasp this most basic of economics ideas of who creates money and how. Please."

Money is properly created by the market, as are all goods worthy of being created. This is the most basic concept. It has been so in the past, it will one day again be so. Passage of this Kucinich bill will bring that day that much sooner because it will destroy the dollar that much sooner.

"...And no, the arrogance is to think we can't regulate money supply. Really, what an insult!"

You must be joking. Government hasn’t regulated the deficit. Government hasn’t regulated balancing the budget. Government hasn’t regulated anything that requires hard decisions or choices. Name one. Please identify instances where government regulation has worked. For any one you come up with, I am sure I have a dozen failures. Just look at the last decade in finance and real estate – two of the most regulated industries in the country. Really, what an insult!

"No debt and interest cost ever….This means full employment and state-of-the-art infrastructure."

Manna from heaven. Do you have a statue to this false god in your office? If we just change the owner of the printing press, all economic woes will disappear. We can eliminate need from the vocabulary of man. Really, you believe this?

"Really now; is that your faith in "Hand , the invisible," our Lord and Market God?"

What you refer to despicably as the market, I refer to as people’s individual choices, freely arrived at. The market delivers wonderful things every day. The market delivers items far more complex than “money,” a relatively simple commodity that you, like others who want to enslave man, have turned into something complex for purposes other than enabling division of labor and a store of value. I know the reason government actors, and those above them pulling the strings of government actors, have for monopolizing money. What are your reasons?

You despise markets, because you despise people. That is obvious from your posts.

If you want to impress somebody with your credentials, don’t start by saying you are an economics professor. In this world, that would place you in a group where 98% are basically idiots.