[ExI] Bank of England
dan_ust at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 22 22:14:27 UTC 2009
--- On Mon, 6/22/09, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Dan<dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Yes, but the problem with that is most people won't
>> organize for that sort of thing unless conditions are not
>> only really bad, but they feel it's better than the
>> alternative. Even small groups might be disaffected and
>> still not cause the elites to change their policies. So,
>> be careful with too many platitudes in this direction. By
>> this measure -- the majority always wins in the long-run --
>> the worst dictatorship or the most absolute monarchy is
>> democratic, so the concept of "democracy" becomes useless
>> for distinguishing between different forms of government.
> Even there, It remains nevertheless useful to distinguish
> regimes from powers that are not political in nature, and
> so are
> politically irresponsible by definition - that is, until a
> system survives that protects them.
How would you distinguish between them? How would you measure "politically responsibility"? My guess is that some regimes are, more or less, able to hoodwink most of the people, most of the time. These are stable and can last. They don't last so much because they're responsible -- they simply don't make any obvious errors, scandals and other problems are covered up, and they have good public relations. Disaffected parties are marginalized and powerless. Many might not mind, but that might be only because they're not among the disaffected -- e.g., like a British settler in North America circa 1760 who doesn't mind the way he's governed while the Aborigines (Amerindians) are being pushed off their land. (This seems an extreme example. I'm only using it to make a point -- not saying any current Western regime is actually carrying this out.)
>> Then you have to explain the empirical fact that
>> central banks almost always tend to support the ruling
>> faction in government via their monetary policies.
> I would if this were true. I am on the contrary inclined to
> that central banks tend to support their lacqueys in
> political classes
> and governments, and that the financial system behind them
> has a
> substantial word upon whom is going to be "elected".
I think it's a two way street. Central bankers won't go for really radical changes and candidates won't rock the boat too much. No serious presidential candidate -- meaning one that could win -- in the US has challenged the Fed monopoly or lack of accountability. No Fed chair or board, likewise, has meddled too much in candidate selection.
>> Also, that the Fed is private in some sense means
>> little here. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were regarding as
>> private, but they had an implicit guarantee of being bailed
>> out; they both had a special position in the market, being
>> created by the federal government.
> I suspect this is a matter of perspective. With respect to
> Freddie Mac
> and Fannie Mae, one could more plausibly say that the
> government is regarded as a public entity, but ends up
> serving private
> interests and being controlled to some extent by the
I think the delusion is that there could be public interests and that a monopolist would serve them. So, government is always a public-seeming entity serving the private interests of the ruling class. There are no public entities that would do otherwise. That's the illusion of statism.
I believe the best would could do is dismantle statism and embrace a voluntary society. That might seem unlikely and it certainly would not be perfect, but pretending we can discipline monopolies and government agencies merely sets us up for more of the same. Looked at in transhumanist terms: how much wealth and effort has been wasted on these financial crises? Wouldn't it have been better spent on making better technology -- or, at least, enjoying life?
More information about the extropy-chat